Editing Political status of Taiwan (section)

=== End of Japanese rule ===
In 1942, after the United States entered the war against Japan and on the side of China, the Chinese government under the [[KMT]] renounced all treaties signed with Japan before that date and made Taiwan's return to China (as with [[Manchuria]], ruled as the Japanese [[Puppet States of WWII|wartime puppet state]] of "[[Manchukuo]]") one of the wartime objectives. In the Cairo Declaration of 1943, the Allied Powers declared the return of Taiwan (including the [[Pescadores]]) to the Republic of China as one of several Allied demands. The Cairo Declaration was never signed or ratified. Both of the US and the UK considered it not legally binding.<ref name="Hansard">{{Citation |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1955/may/04/far-east-formosa-and-the-pescadores |title=Far East (Formosa and the Pescadores) |work=[[Hansard|Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)]] |date=4 May 1955 |access-date=2015-12-09 |archive-date=2017-10-18 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018112311/http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1955/may/04/far-east-formosa-and-the-pescadores |url-status=live }}</ref> The ROC, on the other hand, asserts that it is legally binding and lists later treaties and documents that "reaffirmed" the Cairo Declaration as legally binding.<ref>”[https://en.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=1329&s=32322 Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarifies legally binding status of Cairo Declaration]” (January 21, 2014).</ref>

In 1945, Japan unconditionally surrendered with the signing of the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender|instrument of surrender]] and ended its rule in Taiwan as the territory was put under the administrative control of the Republic of China government in 1945 by the [[United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration]].<ref name="unhcr.org">{{cite web |url=http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,TWN,,4954ce6323,0.html |title=UNHCR &#124; Refworld &#124; World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples – Taiwan: Overview |access-date=2010-03-14 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110728144641/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,TWN,,4954ce6323,0.html |archive-date=2011-07-28 }} UNHCR</ref><ref name="Lowther William">{{cite news
|url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/06/09/2003564336
|title=CIA report shows Taiwan concerns
|work=Taipei Times
|date=9 Jun 2013
|page=1
|last=Lowther
|first=William
|quote=[Quoting from a declassified CIA report on Taiwan written in March 1949] From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China. Pending a Japanese peace treaty, the island remains occupied territory in which the US has proprietary interests.
|access-date=2015-09-28
|archive-date=13 July 2013
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130713061649/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2013/06/09/2003564336
|url-status=live
}}</ref> The Office of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers ordered Japanese forces in China and Taiwan to surrender to Chiang Kai-shek, who would act as a representative of the Allied Powers. On 25 October 1945, Governor-General [[Rikichi Andō]] handed over the administration of Taiwan and the Penghu islands to the head of the Taiwan Investigation Commission, [[Chen Yi (Kuomintang)|Chen Yi]].{{sfn|Tsai|2009|p=173}}<ref name ="Henckaerts1996"/> On 26 October, the government of the Republic of China declared that Taiwan had become a province of China.<ref name="Henckaerts1996c">{{cite book|last=Henckaerts|first=Jean-Marie|title=The international status of Taiwan in the new world order: legal and political considerations|year=1996|publisher=Kluwer Law International|isbn=90-411-0929-3|page=337|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=cairo+declaration&pg=PA7|quote=p. 4. "On October 25, 1945, the government of the Republic of China took over Taiwan and the P'eng-hu Islands from the Japanese and on the next day announced that Taiwan had become a province of China."|access-date=4 July 2023|archive-date=12 April 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230412011937/https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=cairo+declaration&pg=PA7|url-status=live}}</ref> The Allied Powers, on the other hand, did not recognize the unilateral declaration of annexation of Taiwan made by the government of the Republic of China.<ref>{{Cite web | author = [[CIA]] | title = Probable Developments in Taiwan | url = http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000258551.pdf | date = 1949-03-14 | pages = 1–3 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141222073143/http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000258551.pdf | archive-date = 2014-12-22 | access-date = 2015-03-08 | url-status = live | language = en | quote = From the legal standpoint, Taiwan is not part of the Republic of China. Pending a Japanese peace treaty, the island remains occupied territory......neither the US, or any other power, has formally recognized the annexation by China of Taiwan......}}</ref>

In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of [[San Francisco Peace Treaty]], the Japanese formally renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and Penghu islands, and the treaty was signed in 1951 and came into force in 1952. At the date when the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into force, the political status of Taiwan and Penghu Islands was still uncertain.<ref name="unhcr.org"/> The Republic of China and Japan signed the [[Treaty of Taipei]] on April 28, 1952, and the treaty came into force on August 5, which is considered by some{{Who|date=April 2025}} as giving a legal support to the Republic of China's claim to Taiwan as "de jure" territory. The treaty stipulates that all treaties, conventions, and agreements between China and Japan prior to 9 December 1941 were null and void, which according to Hungdah Chiu, abolishes the Treaty of Shimonoseki ceding Taiwan to Japan. The interpretation of Taiwan becoming the Republic of China's '"de jure" territory is supported by several Japanese court decisions such as the 1956 ''Japan v. Lai Chin Jung'' case, which stated that Taiwan and the Penghu islands came to belong to the ROC on the date the Treaty of Taipei came into force.<ref name="Henckaerts1996"/> Nevertheless, the official position of the [[Government of Japan]] is that Japan did not in the Treaty of Taipei express that Taiwan and Penghu belong to the Republic of China,<ref>{{lang|ja|[http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/038/0082/03802020082002a.html 衆議院会議録情報 第038回国会 外務委員会 第2号]. 2 February 1961. p. 23.}} (in Japanese) {{lang|ja|"従って日華条約によりまして日本が台湾及び澎湖島を中華民国に帰属せしめたという意思表示はしていないのでございます。"}}</ref> that the Treaty of Taipei could not make any disposition which is in violation of Japan's renouncing Taiwan and Penghu in San Francisco Peace Treaty,<ref>{{lang|ja|[http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/046/0514/04602290514017a.html 衆議院会議録情報 第046回国会 予算委員会 第17号]. 2 February 1964. p. 24.}} (in Japanese) {{lang|ja|"日華条約におきましても、これを、サンフランシスコできめた、日本が放棄したということに反するようなことはできないのであります。"}}</ref> and that the status of Taiwan and Penghu remain to be determined by the Allied Powers in the future.<ref>{{lang|ja|[http://kokkai.ndl.go.jp/SENTAKU/syugiin/046/0082/04602060082001a.html 衆議院会議録情報 第046回国会 外務委員会 第1号]. 6 February 1964. p. 11.}} (in Japanese) {{lang|ja|"台湾の帰属の問題につきましては、御指摘のように、カイロ宣言では、中華民国に返させるというカイロ宣言の当事国の意思の表明がありました。これはポツダム宣言で確認されておりますが、最終的な領有権の問題については、日本の平和条約で、日本から放棄されるだけであって、将来の連合国間の決定にまかされておるというのが連合国の見解でございます。"}}</ref>

Writing in the ''[[American Journal of International Law]]'', professors Jonathan I. Charney and J. R. V. Prescott argued that "none of the post–World War II peace treaties explicitly ceded sovereignty over the covered territories to any specific state or government."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/res-cs2.htm
|title=Resolving Cross-Strait Relations Between China and Taiwan
|author=Jonathan I. Charney and J. R. V. Prescott
|publisher=American Journal of International Law, July 2000
|access-date=2011-01-30
|archive-date=21 July 2011
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721183143/http://www.taiwanbasic.com/lawjrn/res-cs2.htm
|url-status=live
}}</ref> The [[Cairo Conference (1943)|Cairo Conference]] from November 22–26, 1943 in [[Cairo]], Egypt was held to address the Allied position against Japan during World War II, and to make decisions about postwar Asia. One of the three main clauses of the Cairo Declaration was that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China". According to Taiwan Civil Society quoting the Taiwan Documents Project, the document was merely a [[Statement of Intent|statement of intent]] or non-binding declaration, for possible reference used for those who would draft the post-war peace treaty and that as a press release it was without force of law to transfer sovereignty from Taiwan to the Republic of China. Additional rationale to support this claim is that the Act of Surrender, and SCAP General Order no. 1, authorized the surrender of Japanese forces, not Japanese territories.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.civil-taiwan.org/japansurr.htm
|title=The Japanese Act of Surrender
|publisher=Taiwan Documents Project
|year=2002
|access-date=2010-09-01
|archive-date=2 June 2023
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230602111836/https://civil-taiwan.org/japansurr.htm
|url-status=live
}}</ref>

In 1952, [[Winston Churchill]] said that Taiwan was not under Chinese sovereignty and the Chinese Nationalists did not represent the Chinese state, but that Taiwan was entrusted to the Chinese Nationalists as a military occupation. Churchill called the Cairo Declaration outdated in 1955. The legality of the Cairo Declaration was not recognized by the deputy prime minister of the United Kingdom, [[Anthony Eden]], in 1955, who said there was a difference of opinion on which Chinese authority to hand it over to.<ref name="Henckaerts1996"/><ref>{{Citation
|url=http://www.taiwanbasic.com/hansard/uk/uk1955as.htm
|title=UK Parliament
|date=4 May 1955
|access-date=2010-02-27
|archive-date=21 July 2011
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721183000/http://www.taiwanbasic.com/hansard/uk/uk1955as.htm
|url-status=live
}}</ref><ref>{{Citation 
|url=https://www.taiwanbasic.com/hansard/uk/uk1955aq.htm 
|title=There was no transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to China in 1945. 
|date=February 7, 1955 
|access-date=2022-09-02 
|archive-date=23 January 2023 
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123011308/https://www.taiwanbasic.com/hansard/uk/uk1955aq.htm 
|url-status=live 
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |given=Drew |surname=Middleton |title=Cairo Formosa Declaration Out of Date, Says Churchill |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=2 February 1955 |page=1 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/02/archives/cairo-formosa-declaration-out-of-date-says-churchill-churchill.html |access-date=14 April 2021 |archive-date=17 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220317183839/https://www.nytimes.com/1955/02/02/archives/cairo-formosa-declaration-out-of-date-says-churchill-churchill.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1954, the United States denied that the sovereignty of Taiwan and the Penghu islands had been settled by any treaties, although it acknowledged that the Republic of China effectively controlled Taiwan and Penghu.<ref name="Henckaerts1996b">{{cite book|last=Henckaerts|first=Jean-Marie|title=The international status of Taiwan in the new world order: legal and political considerations|year=1996|publisher=Kluwer Law International|isbn=90-411-0929-3|page=337|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=effectively+controls&pg=PA7|quote=p. 5. "The United States position on the status of Taiwan is, as stated by the late Secretary of State Dulles in a press conference held on December 1, 1954, "that technical sovereignty over Formosa [Taiwan] and the Pescadores has never been settled" and that "the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan. On the other hand, the United States also recognizes that the Republic of China "effectively controls" Taiwan and the Pescadores."|access-date=4 July 2023|archive-date=2 May 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230502062904/https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&q=effectively+controls&pg=PA7|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite periodical | author = [[Department of State]] |title=News Conference Statements: Purpose of treaty with Republic of China |periodical=Department of State Bulletin |volume=XXXI |issue=807 | page = [https://archive.org/stream/departmentofstat311954unit_0#page/896/mode/2up 896] | publisher = [[United States Government Printing Office]] | location = [[Washington, D.C.]] | date =December 13, 1954 | language = en | quote = The legal position is different, as I think I pointed out in my last press conference, by virtue of the fact that technical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these island. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan. Therefore, the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands which have always been Chinese territory.}}</ref> In the 1960 ''Sheng v. Rogers'' case, it was stated that, in the view of the [[U.S. State Department]], no agreement has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC, though it accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over Taiwan and recognized the Government of the Republic of China as the legal government of China at the time.<ref>{{cite web | title = William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States, Appellant v. Cheng Fu Sheng and Lin Fu Mei, Appellees, 280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960) | url = https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/280/663/263772/ | date = 1960 | quote = But in the view of our State Department, no agreement has 'purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to (the Republic of) China.' At the present time, we accept the exercise of Chinese authority over Formosa, and recognize the Government of the Republic of China (the Nationalist Government) as the legal Government of China. | access-date = 4 July 2023 | archive-date = 30 September 2022 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220930073520/https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/280/663/263772/ | url-status = live }}</ref><ref name=StateDept />

The position of the US stated in the Department of State Bulletin in 1958 is that any seizure of Taiwan by the PRC “constitutes an attempt to seize by force territory which does not belong to it" because the Allied Powers had yet to come to a decision on the status of Taiwan.<ref name="StateDept">Maurer, Ely. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=WnM1Eaj_aQAC&pg=PA1005 Legal Problems Regarding Formosa and the Offshore Islands]", ''[[Department of State Bulletin]]'', Vol. 39, pp. 1005–1011 (December 22, 1958) (transcript of speech on November 20, 1958) ("Neither this agreement [of April 28, 1952] nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to [the Republic of] China....The situation is, then, one where the Allied Powers still have to come to some agreement or treaty with respect to the status of Formosa. Any action, therefore, of the Chinese Communist regime to seize Formosa constitutes an attempt to seize by force territory which does not belong to it.").</ref> According to Vincent Wei-Cheng Wang, a minority of scholars and politicians have argued that the international status of Taiwan is [[Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan|still undecided]], and that this has been used as an argument against the [[People's Republic of China]]'s claim over Taiwan. They point to [[President Truman]]'s statement on the pending status of Taiwan in 1950, the lack of specificity on whom the title of Taiwan was transferred to in the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty, and the absence of explicit provisions on the return of Taiwan to China in the 1952 Treaty of Taipei. However Wang notes that this is a weak argument, citing 2 Lassa Oppenheimer, International Law, under the principle of effective occupation and control, if nothing is stipulated on conquered territory in the peace treaty, the possessor may annex it.<ref name = "Henckaerts undecided view">{{cite book|last=Henckaerts|first=Jean-Marie|title=The international status of Taiwan in the new world order: legal and political considerations|year=1996|publisher=Kluwer Law International|isbn=90-411-0929-3|page=337|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&dq=A+minor+issue+pertains+to+whether+the+ROC+controls+Taiwan&pg=PA95|quote=p. 95. "A minor issue pertains to whether the ROC controls Taiwan. A minority of scholars of scholars and politicians argue that the international status of Taiwan remains ''undecided''... That Taiwan's status is still undetermined is a peculiar argument to forestall PRC's claim over Taiwan. However, it is also an insignificant one, since the ROC can still ascertain its control over Taiwan through the principle of effective control and occupation (for a long period of time)."|access-date=4 July 2023|archive-date=4 May 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230504173831/https://books.google.com/books?id=_9kuVIayxDoC&dq=A+minor+issue+pertains+to+whether+the+ROC+controls+Taiwan&pg=PA95|url-status=live}}</ref> Still, the notion that a possessor may annex a conquered territory despite the peace treaty not stipulating so, was a means of territorial transfer recognized by classical international law, and its legality in recent years is either not recognized or disputed.<ref>{{Cite journal | author = Chen, Robert Lih-torng | date = May 2005 | title = 琉球群島主權歸屬－歷史角度與國際法 | trans-title = The Legal Status of the Okinawa Islands Under the Historical Stand and International Law | url = http://tunghai.lawbank.com.tw/22/01.pdf | journal = Tunghai University Law Review | volume = 22 | publisher = College of Law, [[Tunghai University]] | page = 17 | language = zh | quote = 按「征服」、戰後佔領原則或 Uti Possidetis 法則均為古典國際法承認的領土移轉方式，但晚近已不再承認上述方式係取得領土主權的合法方式，或對其取得主權的法律效力有爭論、疑慮。 | access-date = 2022-10-06 | archive-date = 2016-03-04 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160304130835/http://tunghai.lawbank.com.tw/22/01.pdf }}</ref> According to Jian-De Shen, a Taiwanese independence activist, applying such a notion on the Republic of China's territorial claim for Taiwan is invalid because the conqueror of World War II is the whole body of the Allied Powers rather than the Republic of China alone.<ref>{{cite news | author =Jian-De Shen |title=Untitled Document |author-link=:zh:沈建德 |script-title=zh:馬英九愛中國 不惜斷送台灣 | trans-title = Ma Ying-Jeou Loves China and Would Surrender Taiwan at Any Cost | url = http://taiwantt.org.tw/books/cryingtaiwan8/200411/20041123.htm | newspaper = [[Taiwan Daily]] | location = [[Taichung]] | date = 2004-11-23 |access-date = 2015-03-30 |archive-date = 2015-04-02 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150402190150/http://taiwantt.org.tw/books/cryingtaiwan8/200411/20041123.htm | url-status = live | language = zh | quote = {{lang|zh|馬英九所言「保持佔有」的定義是，戰後征服領土之割讓，雖未成為和平條約的條件之一(如舊金山和約的放棄台灣)，在法律上，即可因其被戰勝國持有、占據而被併吞。但二次大戰的戰勝國是同盟國全體，不是單指中國……中華民國對台「保持佔有」不成立。}}}}</ref> The Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is supported by some politicians and jurists to this day, such as the [[Government of the United States]] and the Japanese diplomatic circle.<ref>{{Cite web | author = Shirley A. Kan | author2 = Wayne M. Morrison | title = U.S.–Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues | url = http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf | publisher = [[Congressional Research Service]] | location = [[Washington, D.C.]] | date = 11 December 2014 | page = 4 | quote = The United States has its own "one China" policy (vs. the PRC's "one China" principle) and position on Taiwan's status. Not recognizing the PRC's claim over Taiwan nor Taiwan as a sovereign state, U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. | access-date = 4 July 2023 | archive-date = 28 June 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150628191112/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41952.pdf | url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="日本外交界常識">{{cite news | author = 曾韋禎 | script-title = zh:台灣主權未定論 許世楷：日本外交界常識 | trans-title = [[Koh Se-kai]]: Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan Is a General Knowledge in the Japanese Diplomatic Circle | url = http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/300420 | newspaper = [[Liberty Times]] | location = [[Taipei]] | date = 3 May 2009 | access-date = 24 January 2015 | language = zh | archive-date = 3 April 2019 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190403133556/http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/300420 | url-status = live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news | author = 林良昇 | script-title = zh:國際法觀點 學者：台灣被中華民國政府佔領70年 | trans-title = ⟨International Law Perspective⟩ Scholar: Taiwan Has Been Occupied by the Government of the Republic of China for 70 Years | url = http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1485820 | newspaper = [[Liberty Times]] | location = [[Taipei]] | date = 24 October 2015 | access-date = 12 December 2015 | language = zh | archive-date = 22 December 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151222125812/http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/breakingnews/1485820 | url-status = live }}</ref>