Subsidiary to the San Francisco Treaty
When the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty was signed and took effect, it formally ended the state of war between the two nations. From a legal standpoint, it also confirmed that Taiwan and its appurtenant islands were being returned to the Republic of China.
Article 2 read: “It is recognized that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951..., Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.” Article 10 stated: “For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).”
Over the past few years, some people have called into question the meaning of Japan’s “renouncing” its claim to Taiwan and Penghu without stating that these were being “returned” to the Republic of China. As a consequence, they have argued that the future of Taiwan was left unsettled. But is there any legal grounding for this argument? It’s worth discussing.
In history, events that relate to sovereignty or transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan include the following:
(1) In 1895, after the Qing Empire lost the First Sino-Japanese War, its representatives signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki with Japan, which ceded the Liaodong Peninsula, Taiwan and Penghu to Japan “in perpetuity.”
(2) In 1943 the leaders of the ROC, the US and the UK issued the Cairo Declaration, which demanded 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.”
(3) In 1945 the ROC, US and UK issued the Potsdam Declaration. Article 8 states that the terms of the Cairo Declaration must be carried out. On August 14, 1945, the Japanese emperor accepted the Potsdam Declaration. On September 2, aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay, Japanese representatives signed the Instrument of Surrender, including acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration.
(4) In September 1951 Japan signed the Treaty of San Francisco, and in April 1952 it signed the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty.
National Chengchi University law professor Chen Chun-i pointed out at the symposium that after the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty was concluded, various domestic Japanese legal rulings held that Taiwan was part of the ROC. For instance, in Japan vs. Lai Chin Jung in 1959, the Tokyo High Court ruled: “At the very least it can be determined that from August 5, 1952, after the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty took effect, and as a condition of the treaty, Taiwan and Penghu were returned to the ROC, and the people of Taiwan took on Chinese citizenship under the laws of the ROC. They naturally lost their Japanese citizenship on becoming ROC citizens.”
On August 2, 1952, Chiang Kai-shek formally approved the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty, which took effect on August 5. The ROC’s instrument of ratification is shown at left.