不幸的是，國際法並不(不)承認【任何一群人】能擁有 “領土主權”；
Unfortunately however, international law does not recognize that any group of people can own (or hold) "territorial sovereignty."
所有法律上和歷史上的判例及先例皆明白的指出、只有“政府”才能擁有(持有)地理上的【領土主權】。
All legal and historical precedent clearly shows that territorial sovereignty of a geographic area is always owned (or held) by a government.
All legal and historical precedent clearly shows that territorial sovereignty of a geographic area is always owned (or held) by a government.
*****************************************************************************************************************
2006年 美國務卿Colin Powell包威爾公開在北京人民大會堂說, ROC 中華民國沒有主權不是國家, 台灣也不是，台灣不是獨立的國家，不享有作為一個國家的主權。
2009年 美高等法院判決文statement 說, 臺灣人沒有國藉、臺灣人沒有被國際承認的政府、臺灣人被關在政治煉獄裡 . 為什麼 ?
2011 年美國衛生部長 Kathleen Sebelius 在 UN聯合國記者會公開說, 聯合國任何單位或機構都沒有權力決定台灣的前途. 為什麼 ?
2014 4/03 美國國務副卿 Daniel Russel 說, 支持【臺灣自治】. 為什麼是臺灣自治, 不是臺灣獨立或臺灣建國 ?
美國在臺北內湖的2萬坪(15-6 Acre)軍事基地即將在2014年底完工, 為什麼美國可以在臺灣到處佈署那麼多基地 (山上還很多基地) ? 是根據那一條國際法 ?
在日台僑發表聲明：台灣主權屬於台灣人(1)
-----Original Message-----
From: 'RWH 何瑞元(Taipei)' rwh.midway@gmail.com [GlobalForumIntl] <GlobalForumIntl@yahoogroups.com>
From: 'RWH 何瑞元(Taipei)' rwh.midway@gmail.com [GlobalForumIntl] <GlobalForumIntl@yahoogroups.com>
To: Globalforumintl <GlobalForumIntl@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Kenryo Lin <koe3407@gmail.com>; Kenryou Lin <linkenryo@ybb.ne.jp>
Sent: Mon, Sep 8, 2014 6:43 pm
Subject: [GlobalForumIntl] 台灣主權屬於台灣人 . . . . . . [錯誤j
Common Mistake: Equating "popular sovereignty" with "territorial sovereignty."
Analysis: In the SFPT, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores without specifying a "receiving country." After considering these treaty provisions at length, many scholars like to invoke a doctrine of "popular sovereignty," and claim that under such circumstances the territorial sovereignty of these areas now belongs to the local people.
Unfortunately however, international law does not recognize that any group of people can own (or hold) "territorial sovereignty."
All legal and historical precedent clearly shows that territorial sovereignty of a geographic area is always owned (or held) by a government. This is easily verified by overviewing the subject of "territorial cession."
Customary international law in the post-1830 period has clearly established that territorial cession is accomplished by treaty. Relevant examples are too numerous to mention. Importantly, in the history of the United States, all territorial cessions were done via the specifications of a treaty, including the following well-known examples: Louisiana in 1803, Florida in 1821, California in 1848, Alaska in 1867, Guam in 1899, Puerto Rico in 1899, Virgin Islands in 1917, etc.
Not surprisingly, the local populace had little or no say in the final disposition of these territories. Typically however, when each territory was ceded, there was a specification in the treaty to the effect that the members of the local populace could retain their "original nationality" by undertaking a certain registration procedure within a one year period. Failing to complete this procedure, they would be considered to have gained the nationality of their new (i.e. "receiving country") national government, according to its laws and regulations.
The many examples of territorial cession in the post-1830 period clearly show the true facts of how "territorial sovereignty" is conducted. In 100% of all cases, territorial cession amounts to a transfer of title, which serves to complete a transfer of territorial sovereignty (over the geographic area in question) between governments.
In light of these facts, it is clear that the territorial sovereignty of a country or geographic area is owned/held by a government, it is not owned/held by the local populace.
Analysis: In the SFPT, Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores without specifying a "receiving country." After considering these treaty provisions at length, many scholars like to invoke a doctrine of "popular sovereignty," and claim that under such circumstances the territorial sovereignty of these areas now belongs to the local people.
Unfortunately however, international law does not recognize that any group of people can own (or hold) "territorial sovereignty."
All legal and historical precedent clearly shows that territorial sovereignty of a geographic area is always owned (or held) by a government. This is easily verified by overviewing the subject of "territorial cession."
Customary international law in the post-1830 period has clearly established that territorial cession is accomplished by treaty. Relevant examples are too numerous to mention. Importantly, in the history of the United States, all territorial cessions were done via the specifications of a treaty, including the following well-known examples: Louisiana in 1803, Florida in 1821, California in 1848, Alaska in 1867, Guam in 1899, Puerto Rico in 1899, Virgin Islands in 1917, etc.
Not surprisingly, the local populace had little or no say in the final disposition of these territories. Typically however, when each territory was ceded, there was a specification in the treaty to the effect that the members of the local populace could retain their "original nationality" by undertaking a certain registration procedure within a one year period. Failing to complete this procedure, they would be considered to have gained the nationality of their new (i.e. "receiving country") national government, according to its laws and regulations.
The many examples of territorial cession in the post-1830 period clearly show the true facts of how "territorial sovereignty" is conducted. In 100% of all cases, territorial cession amounts to a transfer of title, which serves to complete a transfer of territorial sovereignty (over the geographic area in question) between governments.
In light of these facts, it is clear that the territorial sovereignty of a country or geographic area is owned/held by a government, it is not owned/held by the local populace.
A definition of the word "government" is provided here for reference --excerpted from: http://www.civil-taiwan.org/six-mistakes.htm
- government
- a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce laws within a civil, corporate, religious, academic, or other organization or group.
Note: In its broadest sense, "to govern" means to administer or supervise, whether over a state, a set group of people, or a collection of assets.
2014-09-08 23:34 GMT+08:00 Cheng Kuang Chen chengkuangchen@gmail.com [GlobalForumIntl] <GlobalForumIntl@yahoogroups.com>:
在日台僑發表聲明：台灣主權屬於台灣人(1)自由時報 2014-09-07 17:48〔駐日特派員張茂森／東京報導〕日本亞細亞大學講師多田 惠今天在東京應在日台灣同鄉會等12個僑社舉辦的第10屆「台灣主權紀念會」上演講指出，「今年是台灣政治的革命年」，在日台灣同鄉會同時也對外發表「台 灣主權聲明」強調，「台灣主權屬於台灣人，台灣人要勇敢站起來建立自己的國家」。多田惠指出，今年的318學運，「已經為台灣重建新希望」，中國國台辦主任張志軍訪台的噴漆事件以及香港數十萬人的大規模示威等等，都給了台灣人重大啟示，今年應該是「台灣政治的革命年」。第10屆「台灣主權紀念」是 由日本台灣醫師連合、在日台灣同鄉會、在日台灣婦女會、日本台醫人協會、李友會、台獨聯盟日本本部、台灣研究論壇、怡友會等總共12個僑社共同主辦，會後 發表「台灣主權聲明」指出，前台灣總統李登輝結集台灣人民的良知和力量，排除中國國民黨的獨裁政治(2)，為台灣民主化跨出光輝的一步(3)，但是李登輝 達成的「中華民國體制下的台灣民主化」偉業，只是台灣邁向正常國家的一個路程(4)，不是終極目標，台灣人必須繼續堅持「台灣主權屬於台灣人」的信念，突 破中國民黨獨裁、封建、野蠻、腐敗的體質，繼續推動自由民主的理念，達到建立屬於自己的國家的終極目標(5)。............................................................................................................................................................................................陳辰光 讀後感: 對不起, 直言不修辞了!(1) 台灣主權屬於台灣人(1), 没有錯! 台灣人不会反對! 可是下文不符合大前題(1), 就誤導台灣人! 維持現狀再30年就滿100年, 被中國倂吞就站不起來了。 喊爽算鼓勵嗎? 沒有代表台灣人的政府, 不是台湾人民有, 民治, 民享的台灣政府就行使不了台灣的主權。喊台灣是主權獨立的國家是無路用的!(2) 排除中國國民黨的獨裁政治(2)?? 12個僑社這麼想, 台灣還有希望嗎? 正是[認賊作父又替賊數鈔票]! 中華民国流亡政權的早已滅亡國號及早已失效的憲法不算[獨裁,支那桎梏] 嗎?(3) 為台灣民主化跨出光輝的一步(3)? 李登輝是100%的中華民国流亡政權的偽總統, 他的一舉一動應是加分給流亡政權(中華民国流亡政權)的[完全有效控制], 沒有台澎主權卻可統治台澎的藉口! 替賊數鈔票, 贻貽害台灣人無誤, 無庸置疑! --不是感情論而是法理論! 何況,李翁再三反對任何形式的台灣論, 以維護他的兩國論(中國與中華民國,沒有台灣的存在)。 請問中華民國的--有效控制台澎--怎麼變成[為台灣民主化跨出光輝的一步(3)]?(4) 李翁或林兄致力推廣的[正名制憲] 是違反戰爭法或國際法。流亡中華民國體制下的台灣完全沒有法律的根据去合法正名--改為台灣--,再冠上--台灣憲法--就可合法建國。易言之, 革命還可行, 正名制憲只是口號,無法理效果。不可能是[只是台灣邁向正常國家的一個路程(4)],又是替賊數鈔票, 替贼的有效控制背書!(5) 在中華民国流亡政權体制内突破中國民黨獨裁, 封建, 野蠻, 腐敗的體質,繼續推動自由民主的理念... 等努力, 全部加分給[中華民国流亡政權的有效控制台澎], 致命台灣人被綑在[美國布朗法官所指出的台灣人被陷落政治煉獄60多年, 仍然脫不了身] 。上述不是我獨創而是法曹見解, 簡述如上供参考； 住台澎者應高喊 [還我台澎江山, 還我台灣大政],盼望在日社固團, 多配合法理為幸! --請多煩転送, 転貼下列動画!---Video in native English, with Mandarin Kanji or Japanese subtitle!(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BPU6mMRT94&feature=youtu.be (Taiwan's Status - Exploring The Truth - October 25, 1945 - Part 1)(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFJO-TYJUJY&feature=youtu.be (Taiwan's Status - Part 2)(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g41DFWCLsts&feature=youtu.be (Taiwan's Status Part 3)(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsbsNtxupkc (Understanding the "One China Policy")(5) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfw5RiiyQQo (Taiwan gate and Illegal Arm Sales)(6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMJ2cVdIvCE (Understanding the One China Policy- Japanese subtitle 日文字幕)煩請轉送給親朋好友,因台灣沒有台灣人的媒體,您就是媒體!-- 陳辰光--。 這世界不會被那些作惡多端的人毀滅，而是被冷血旁觀,選擇保持沉默的人所毀滅。--愛因斯坦--
