THE MILITARY OCCUPATION OF TAIWAN
beginning Fall 1945
AUTHORITATIVE REFERENCES
Background Notes: Disposition of Territory
- It must be stressed that international law does not contain any doctrine or framework recognizing any right to the "restoration," "recovery," "retrocession," etc. of territory allegedly included within "national boundaries" in previous historical eras.
- Moreover, even if such a legal framework did exist, it is highly unlikely that the ROC's arrival in Taiwan in October 1945 would meet the criteria to be handled in this manner. This is because at the time of the cession of Taiwan to Japan in the 1895 Treaty of Shimononseki, the Republic of China did not yet exist.
- More commonly, under international law, in regard to any particular piece of territory, the transfer of its territorial sovereignty (or "each transfer of its territorial sovereignty") is viewed as a separate and distinct event. In other words, the issue of what countries may have previoulsy exercised sovereignty over the territory is regarded as inconsequential and immaterial.
- More importantly, there is no international legal framework which validates a new disposition of territorial sovereignty as a result of the conduct of surrrender ceremonies.
Military Occupation of Taiwan Territory
In Historical and Legal Aspects of the International
Status of Taiwan ("Formosa & the Pescadores") [ LINK ]
History Notes: Taiwan Remained as Japanese Territory after Surrender
- The only international legal framework which relates to the disposition of territory after the close of hostilities in a war is found in the Hague Regulations of 1907. Article 42 states: Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
- Some scholars claim that there are certain exceptions to the application of Article 42, and in particular in relation to certain historical factors. Based on these factors, they assert that territory can be annexed, restored, retro-ceded, etc. without the drafting of a formal treaty, and merely as an action between two sovereign states. However, such an analysis would most properly apply to a discussion of territorial cessions in peacetime.
In wartime, the laws of war apply, and the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions are part of the laws of war. Importantly, the content of HR Article 42 is in direct contradiction to any assertions that territory can be annexed, restored, retro-ceded, etc. at the surrender ceremonies, because violations of the Hague Conventions, Geneva Conventions, and other established "laws of war" precedent are all considered to be war crimes. - Notably, a firm dictate of international law states that "Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty."
It must be remembered that the surrender ceremonies and the military occupation are two different events. Although the Oct. 25, 1945, surrender ceremonies in Taiwan were for all intents and purposes conducted on behalf of the Allies, the ensuing military occupation of Taiwan was conducted on behalf of the principal occupying power - the United States of America.
According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, the completion of the Oct. 25, 1945 surrender ceremonies can only be interpreted as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Military occupation is conducted under military government, and the US has delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC).
US Military Government (USMG) jurisdiction over Taiwan has begun as of Oct. 25, 1945.
According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, the completion of the Oct. 25, 1945 surrender ceremonies can only be interpreted as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Military occupation is conducted under military government, and the US has delegated the military occupation of Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC).
US Military Government (USMG) jurisdiction over Taiwan has begun as of Oct. 25, 1945.
RETURN TO
| LINKs |
| Additional Webpages of Interest |
| Aita v. Regional Commander of Judea and Samaria |
| Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco |
| Sheng v. Rogers (D.C. Circuit, Oct. 6, 1959) |
