Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:03:02.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Status of Formosa and the Chinese Recognition Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

D. P. O’Connell
D. P. O’Connell*
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of recognition of the Central People’s Republic of China, and the withdrawal of recognition of the Nationalist regime in Formosa, is from time to time a matter of moment in the internal politics of certain of the Pacific nations. Few of the proponents of recognition would advocate handing Formosa to the mainland government; they would prefer the island to be internationalized, neutralized, or made independent under United Nations auspices and guarantee. In the policy discussions on the question, various views of the legal competence of the Allies or of the United Nations to dispose of Formosa have been advanced. It is the purpose of this paper to examine these views in turn and indicate on which view the question of Formosa’s future can be severed from the question of recognition.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 1956 , pp. 405 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 38 A.J.I.L. Supp. 8 (1944).

2 Activities of the Far Eastern Commission, Report by the Secretary General, Appendix 5, “Basic Post-Surrender Policy for Japan,” pp. 49–58 (Dept. of State Publication No. 2888).

3 39 A.J.I.L. Supp. 264 (1945).

4 46 ibid. 71 (1952).

5 Art. 2.

6 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 454 (1951). See also Sir Anthony Eden, Parl. Papers, Hansard, 5 S., H.C., Vol. 536, col. 1531.

7 Ibid., col. 160.

8 See, e.g., Mr. Aneurin Bevan, ibid., col. 162, Jan. 26, 1955.

9 Cf. Potter, 44 A.J.I.L. 709 (1950).

10 Q. Wright, 49 ibid. 332 (1955).

11 Art. 2(a).

12 Parl. Papers, Hansard, 5 S., H.L., Vol. 190, cols. 510–513. Also H.C., Vol. 487, col. 2302, May 11, 1951; Vol. 482, col. 1462, Dec. 14, 1950; Sir Anthony Eden, Vol. 536, col. 1532: “The position in law is that an armistice or the cessation of fighting does not affect sovereignty. There has not been a transfer of sovereignty because, at San Francisco, although there was a desire to agree about China, there was a difference of opinion as to which Chinese authority it should be handed over.”

13 Cf. President Truman’s statement of Jan. 5, 1950, 22 Dept. of State Bulletin 79 (1950).

14 Art. 3.

15 Cf. Ballantine in 31 Foreign Affairs 671 (1953).

16 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 454 (1951).

17 Chronology of International Events, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 10, p. 33 (1953).

18 Loc. cit.

19 Parl. Papers, Hansard, 5 S., H.C., Vol. 478, col. 60. Also World Today, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 7, p. 55 (1951); 7 Current Affairs Bulletin 108 (1950).

20 Parl. Papers, Hansard, 5 S., H.C., Vol. 536, col. 1531, Feb. 7, 1955.

21 No analogy exists with the case of Memel in Art. 99 of the Treaty of Versailles, Or of Fiume in Arts. 53 and 74 of the Treaty of Trianon, since these were specifically renounced “in favor of” the Allied and. Associated Powers.

22 Parl. Papers, Hansard, 5 S., H.C., Vol. 536, col. 159.

23 26 Current Notes on International Relations 176 (1955).

24 Ibid. 127.

25 Ibid. 57.

26 Ibid. 58. See also official statement by Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Paul Martin, 36 Journal of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth 151, Feb. 3, 1955.

27 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 454 (1951).

28 24 Ibid. 857 (1951).

29 Chronology of International Events, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 11, p. 108 (1952).

30 See for this view The Times (London), Jan. 26, 1955, p. 8, col. 6.

31 See e.g. the rights of the United States in Cuba under Art. 3 of the Treaty of Havana, U. S. Foreign Relations, 1904, p. 243. For divergent views on continued sovereignty of Germany under Control Commission government, see Kelsen in 39 A.J.I.L. 518 (1945); Jennings in 23 British Tear Book of International Law 121 (1946); Friedmann in 3 Res Judicatae 137 (1947); Schwelb in 40 A.J.I.L. 811 (1946); Laun in 45 ibid. 267 (1951) ; Q. Wright in 46 ibid. 299 (1952); Rheinstein in 47 Mich. Law Review 23 (1948) ; Mann in 1 International Law Quarterly 314 (1947); Parry in 10 Modern Law Review 403 (1947).

32 Morgenthau, 48 Columbia Law Review 350 (1948).

33 Loc. cit.

34 25 Dept. of State Bulletin 454 (1951).

35 Proclamation terminating War with Japan, April 28, 1952, No. 2974, 17 Fed. Reg. 3813; 46 A.J.I.L. Supp. 96 (1952).

36 Chronology of International Events, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 9, p. 84 (1953).

37 World Today, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Aug. 1955, p. 359. It is to be noted that the Japanese Government is understood to have decided to refer the question of sovereignty to the Allied Powers. A protocol to this effect is in contemplation, but no mention of the disposition of the Kuriles and Sakhalin is to be in the Peace Treaty. The Times (London), Oct. 4, 1955, p. 7, col. 7. For a Japanese view that the status of the territories is still open, see Toshikazu kase in 34 Foreign Affairs 40 (1955). To the contrary, apparently, see 2 Japan Quarterly 270 (1955).

38 See Reischauer, The United States and Japan 239 (1951).

39 Briggs, 40 A.J.I.L. 376 (1946); Pan, 46 ibid. 42, 48 (1952); O’Connell, in 29 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 426 (1952).

40 See this view in World Today, loc. cit.

41 Clipperton Island Arbitration, 26 A.J.I.L. 390 at 394 (1932).

42 Goebel, The Struggle for the Falkland Islands 411–549 (1927); Smith, Great Britain and the Law of Nations, Vol. 2, pp. 45–62 (1935); The Santa Lucia Case, 1 Moore, Digest of International Law, sec. 89; Delagoa Bay Case, 5 Moore, International Arbitrations 4984; Eastern Greenland Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 53, pp. 47–48; Calvo, Le Droit International, Vol. 1, p. 417 (1896).

43 Parl. Debates, Hansard, 5 S., H.C., Vol. 448, col. 1322.

44 Rosenne in 27 Brit. Year Book of Int. Law 369 (1950); O’Connell, The Law of State Succession, Ch. 1 (1955).

45 Galban & Co. v. U. S., 40 Ct. Cls. 495 at 506 (1905). It should be noted, however, that the American Commissioners for Peace seem to have assumed that the public property of Spain in Cuba would pass to the United States by “Spain’s transfer of sovereignty.” 1 Moore, op. cit. 288. For text of Art. I in which Spain relinquished sovereignty, see Senate Docs., Vol. 48, Treaties etc., Vol. 2 (61st Cong.), p. 1691.

46 See e.g. Central People’s Government’s reply to U.N. Secretary General’s invitation to send representatives to take part in Security Council discussions on the Far East situation, Chronology of International Events, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 11, p. 107 (1955); also Mr. Chou En Lai’s address to the People’s National Congress on July 13, 1955, ibid. 480. On Feb. 9, 1955, Peking Radio broadcast an attack on Sir Anthony Eden for his statement cited earlier on the legal status of Formosa. He was accused of belittling China’s rights while encouraging U. S. policy. Ibid. 108.

47 Current Notes on International Relations, Vol. 26, pp. 177, 178 (1955); Chronology of International Events, Royal Institute of International Affairs, Vol. 5, p. 156 (1955).

48 Arthur Dean in 33 Foreign Affairs 360 (1955); Hornbeck in 34 ibid. 24 (1955) ; Mr. Justice W. Douglas, 34 Foreign Policy Bulletin 83 (1955); cf. Senator W. F. Knowland, ibid. 84; Nicholas Roosevelt, ibid. 68; Nathaniel Peffer, ibid. 36.

49 Q. Wright in 49 A.J.I.L. 333 (1955).

50 Civil Air Transport Inc. v. Chennault (1950), Hong Kong Action No. 5. See note by Green in 1 International Law Quarterly 418 (1950).