Sun, Sep 07, 2025 page2

• Focus on San Francisco treaty correct: academics

  LEGALLY BINDING: The Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration were just statements of intent, while the Treaty of San Francisco was a formal international treaty

  • By Fang Wei-li / Staff reporter
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Several local academics yesterday affirmed that Minister of Foreign Affairs Lin Chia-lung’s (林佳龍) remark that the Treaty of San Francisco replaced the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration was beneficial in highlighting Taiwan’s sovereign status.

  Lin had said that following the end of World War II, the Treaty of San Francisco, which is legally binding under international law, replaced the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration, which were only political statements.

  The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never governed Taiwan, and the page about “Taiwan’s legal status” on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Web site replaced the content highlighting the Cairo Declaration with one that underlines the Treaty of San Francisco, he said.

  

  A photographer takes a shot of a bronze sculpture depicting the signing of the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Taipei, during a historical exhibition held at the Taipei Guest House in an undated photograph.

  Photo: CNA

  At a forum held by the Taiwan Nation Alliance in Taipei yesterday, National Taiwan University law professor Chiang Huang-chih (姜皇池) said that even if the Cairo Declaration is deemed valid, it was only a statement of intent saying that territories seized by Japan “should be returned,” and it needed to be realized through a peace treaty after the war ended.

  The Treaty of San Francisco and the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty, better known as the Taipei Treaty, have legal validity, he said, adding that historical practice has time and again proven that changes in territory need to be confirmed through treaties, and that unilateral declarations do not constitute a transfer of sovereignty.

  The San Francisco treaty, signed in 1951, six years after Japan’s surrender and the end of its half-a-century rule of Taiwan, states that the Japanese government renounces sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, but does not specify to whom that sovereignty was to be transferred.

  The Taipei Treaty affirms the 1951 pact, reiterating that the Japanese government renounces any claim to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands, 南沙群島) and the Paracel Islands (Xisha Islands, 西沙群島).

  Putting the focus back on those two treaties could reduce the risks that Taiwan faces under international law, Chiang said.

  Prospect Foundation president Lai I-chung (賴怡忠) praised Lin for amending the content about Taiwan’s legal status on the ministry’s Web site.

  As the US over the past few years has repeatedly refuted China’s distortion of UN Resolution 2758, saying that it is not equivalent to the “one China” principle and does not exclude Taiwan from the UN, Taipei should capitalize on this argument and strive for more international support, especially from members of the G7 and the EU, as well as friendly countries in the Asia-Pacific region, he said.

  China has long refused to recognize the Treaty of San Francisco and continues to cite the Cairo and Potsdam declarations to claim Taiwan, Lai said, adding that Taiwan must come up with concrete response strategies to face the issue.

  Taiwan must first firmly assert that “only treaties have legal effect” and focus on the Treaty of San Francisco; second, use the “gray zone” in international laws to avoid a “black-and-white situation;” third, push for support in the US’ stance on UN Resolution 2758; and fourth, create “wartime deterrence” that shows China that if it invades Taiwan, other countries would recognize the nation, and cause political cost and economic sanctions, he said.

  National Cheng Kung University associate professor of law Chen Yi-kai (陳怡凱) also praised Lin’s amendment of the Web site content.

  China’s claim over Taiwan based on the Cairo Declaration and UN Resolution 2758 lacks support from international law, he said.

  The ministry once said that the Cairo Declaration had handed Taiwan to the Republic of China (ROC), which was not accepted by international society, Chen said.

  Amending the discourse to highlight the Treaty of San Francisco not only responds to the international law community’s questions, but also removed the confusion that “the ROC equals to China,” and shows the reality that “China and Taiwan are not subordinate to the other,” he said.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwanese lose status after obtaining single-use Chinese passport

  • 2

    KMT chair to meet with Xi, but at a price: source

  • 3

    Jeers as Real Madrid fall 2-1 to Man City

  • 4

    Taiwanese tourists go viral in video during Japan quake

  • 5

    US vows deterrence ‘through strength’