Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan
 | You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Chinese. (January 2024) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
The Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan (Chinese: 台灣地位未定論), also called the Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan (Chinese: 台灣主權未定論), is one of the theories which describe the island of Taiwan's present legal status.
In 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, United States President Harry S. Truman said that it would be a direct threat to the United States' security in the western Pacific area if the Communist forces occupied Taiwan and that "the determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations."[1] This statement of Truman is generally regarded as the origin of the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan.[2]
In 1951, Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers. It renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.[3]
The Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is supported by some politicians and jurists to this day.[4][5][6]
Kinmen and Matsu
[edit]The theory does not apply to Kinmen or the Matsu Islands, which are also controlled by the government of the Republic of China.[7] In particular, three of the five major Matsu Islands (Dongyin Island, Dongju Island, and Xiju Island) have been continuously controlled by this government since the overthrow of the Qing Empire in 1912, while Kinmen and the other two major Matsu Islands have been controlled except for a period of occupation in World War II.
See also
[edit]- General Order No. 1
- Occupation of Japan
- Treaty of San Francisco
- Treaty of Taipei
- Political status of Taiwan
- History of Taiwan
References
[edit]- ^ Harry S. Truman (27 June 1950). "Statement by the President on the Situation in Korea". Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
- ^ 徐浤馨 (2012). "1952年「中日和約」的性格再議" [The Nature of the 1952 Sino-Japan Peace Treaty Reconsidered]. Taiwan International Studies Quarterly (in Chinese). 8 (4): 113. doi:10.29800/TLSQ.201212.0005.
- ^ . 8 September 1951 – via Wikisource.
Chapter II. Territory – Article 2 – (b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
- ^ Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison (11 December 2014). "U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 4.
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.
- ^ 曾韋禎 (3 May 2009). 台灣主權未定論 許世楷：日本外交界常識 [Koh Se-kai: Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan Is a General Knowledge in the Japanese Diplomatic Circle]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Taipei. Retrieved 24 January 2015.
- ^ 林良昇 (24 October 2015). 國際法觀點 學者：台灣被中華民國政府佔領70年 [⟨International Law Perspective⟩ Scholar: Taiwan Has Been Occupied by the Government of the Republic of China for 70 Years]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Taipei. Retrieved 12 December 2015.
- ^ Department of State (1954). Department of State Bulletin. Vol. XXXI. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. p. 896.
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.
