給日本外務省的回函。

May 25, 2011

TO: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
Kasumigaseki 2-2-1, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo 100-8919, Japan
CC: (as indicated on page 3)

Dear Sirs:

Thank you for your correspondence of May 18, 2011.
2011年5月18日，謝謝您的回函。

We must first offer a correction, in that the number of people in our April 28 demonstration outside of the Japanese Interchange Association in Taipei was approx. 750. This is a much larger figure than the estimate which you offered in your correspondence.
首先，我們必須提供修正，4月28日在日本交流協會外，遞交請願書大約是750人。這是數字遠比您提供給外務省的估計人數還要多。

Information regarding the founding of the TCG is provided as follows for your reference. With full respect to international law, and in particular to the law of war, the Taiwan Civil Government was established on Feb. 2, 2008, in Taipei. An official notice was sent to the Japanese government and the United States government at that time.
提供關於成立TCG的理由和法源給您。這是按照萬國公法和國際法的規定，尤其是戰爭法。台灣民政府在台北，成立於2008年2月2日。在那個時候一份正式的官方通知，曾經被送往日本政府和美國政府。

Earlier, on Oct. 24, 2006, I had hired legal counsel to file a lawsuit against the United States of America in the District Court of Washington D.C. According to the decision of the judges reached on March 18, 2008, native Taiwanese persons are essentially stateless. See http://www.usmgtcg.ning.com
早在2006年10月24日，我已經聘請律師在華盛頓地區法院提起控告美國的訴訟，根據法官在2008年3月18日達成的決定，台灣本土人民是無國籍人士。

I believe that this condition has arisen as a direct result of the actions of the Japanese government in 1951 and 1952, as outlined in your correspondence.
我相信這種情況，已經直接出現在我採取行動的結果，您回函中已經概述了日本政府在1951年和1952年所做所為。

The Taiwan Civil Government maintains that –
台灣民政府認為應該提醒日本政府一-
1. As of April 1, 1945, the Japanese Emperor had already incorporated Taiwan as a part of Japan’s national territory. See Attachment #1.
1. 截至1945年4月1日，日本天皇已納入台灣作為日本國土，成為國家正式不可分個歌領土。見附件1

2. Numerous legal scholars have maintained that territorial rights over “national territory” cannot be renounced. This is different from territorial rights over a “colony.” Korea was a colony of Japan, but as of April 1, 1945, Taiwan was an integral part of Japanese national territory.
2. 眾多法律學者認為：「國家正式領土是不能放棄。」這不同於國家在「殖民地」的權利。韓國至1945年4月1日還是日本的殖民地，台灣則因天皇頒佈昭書變成日本國土。

3.Article 2(b) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty specifies that: “Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.” It is notable that the terms “right, title, and claim” are used here in the singular, and not the plural.
3.舊金山和平條約第二條（b）規定：「日本放棄對台灣與澎湖列島所有權利，所有權與主張（意即台灣管轄權的放棄）。」這裡值得一提的是：「權利、所有權和主張」使用是單數，而不是複數。

4.The San Francisco Peace Treaty did not authorize any Japanese government branch, department, or agency to terminate the Japanese nationality of native Taiwanese persons.
4，舊金山和平條約並沒有授權任何日本政府機關、部門或機構，廢除台裔人士的日本國籍。

5.Indeed, Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (promulgated Dec. 10, 1948) clearly specifies that everyone has the right to a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality. See Attachment #2.
5.事實上，世界人權宣言第十五條（1948年12月10號簽署）明確規定，人人有權享有國籍，任何人不得被任意剝奪他的國籍。

6.In a May 23, 1952, debate in the Japanese National Diet regarding the interpretation of the wording of Article 10 of the Treaty of Taipei, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that Taiwan was not ceded to China and the provisions of this Article were not an affirmative definition of the Chinese nationality of the Taiwanese people. He indicated that the legal status of Taiwan remained undefined. See Attachment #3.
6.在1952年5月23日，日本國會辯論有關台北條約第10條的措辭解釋，日本外交部很清楚澄清，台灣並沒有割讓給中國，本條約規定沒有肯定的定義說臺灣人民是中華民族。日本政府表示台灣的法律地位仍然不確定。。

7.The Treaty of Taipei was abrogated on Sept. 29, 1972.
7.台北條約已經在1972年9月29日廢止。

8.In light of the above, we conclude that the actions of the Japanese government in terminating the Japanese nationality of native Taiwanese persons in the 1951 to 1952 period are without any legal basis. These actions have effectively left the native Taiwanese people as “stateless,” in violation of international law.
8.鑑於上述情況，我們得到這樣的結論而採取行動，日本政府在1951年至1952年期間，廢除台裔人士的日本國籍是沒有任何法律依據。廢除台裔人士日本國籍的舉動讓台裔人士變成「無國籍」，顯然違反了國際法。

9.Hence, we believe that the Japanese government is legally obligated to provide suitable procedures for native Taiwanese persons to “reinstate” their Japanese nationality.
9.因此，我們認為，日本政府在法律上有義務提供適當程序行動，讓本土台灣人「恢復」其日本國籍。

We would appreciate your detailed comments on the above.
我們感謝您對以上所述提供評論

In a speech to East Asian leaders in Vietnam in Late October 29 2010, U.S. Secretary of State Clinton remarked that " . . . when disputes arise over maritime territory, we are committed to resolving them peacefully based on customary international law." We very much agree with Secretary Clinton’s statement in this regard.
在2010年10月29日越南東亞領導人會議的一次講話中，美國國務卿克林頓表示，「。。。當雙方在領海出現糾紛時，我們習慣根據國際法致力於和平解。」在這方面，我們非常同意克林頓國務卿夫人的講話。

Referring again to your correspondence of May 18, 2011, we are also unaware of any international law doctrine regarding “sovereignty over people.” Please clarify the scope and application of this concept, and provide relevant legal references for its origin and usage.
重新參考您2011年5月18日的回函，我們沒有意識到任何國際法學說對回函中所提「對人主權」的解釋和意義，請您澄清這一概念的範圍和應用範圍，關於它的起源和用法，請提供相關法律參考。

We would also request a copy of the April 19, 1952, court decision mentioned in your correspondence, as we have been unable to find this online or in any law libraries in Taiwan.
我們還要求您的回函中所提1952年4月19日文件和日本最高法院判決文件，因為我們無法在台灣任何法律圖書館中找到這個文件或網上。

Sincerely,

林 志昇
Roger C. S. Lin
SECRETARY GENERAL, TAIWAN CIVIL GOVERNMENT