- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Say what you like it was the reality. Japan obviously thought Taiwan belonged to China since they had China cede the territory to them.
That was a result of diplomatic notes in the 1870s, even though from then, the Japanese still had doubts as to the legitimacy of China's claims to the eastern half of the island. Regardless, that is not relevant to Taiwan's current status.
Prove it.
You haven't proven a darn thing in this thread and have pointedly IGNORED several examples to illustrate my points throughout this thread. I have paper maps that show this, but it is difficult to navigate Japanese websites because I can't type Kana, only Kanji. I will see what I can find when I have access to a Japanese-capable computer. Still, here is a link that shows the four islands north of Hokkaido that Japan still claims.
map of Japan
Now, if you want me to "prove" a claim, you should perhaps show a little intellectual honesty and answer the examples I have already provided in this thread... or else you get an epic FAIL!!
I get it, you support independence so you regurgitate all the propaganda you've been fed favoring that position, but try being at least a little independent in your thinking. Ratification need not involve an exchange of notes or legislative approval. All it requires is that it is accepted by those with the authority to accept it. The various Allied military representatives obviously had the authority to accept it on behalf of their countries as did those representatives of the Japanese government and military. It in fact had to be a treaty because authority was vested in the Supreme Commander and the Japanese government itself was not dissolved.
You are the one who is regurgitating Chinese propoganda. Treaties require the deposit of the instruments of ratification, nearly always in a place designated by the treaty. For example, Article 24 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty mandated that instruments of ratification were to be deposited with the government of the United States. Different states have different requirements for ratification, but many require an action of the legislature -- for example, the U.S. requires ratification by the U.S. Senate...
In other words, a foreign power was given authority over a country's existing institutions and there are terms regarding the exercise of that authority. This could only be legally effectuated with a binding legal agreement between States. Only if the Japanese government's acceptance of the surrender was legally binding could they vest an office with authority over it.
Not true. There is something called beligerrant occupation. In lieu of the peace treaty, the occupying power is invested with rights over the occupied territory.
Something I have not really noted is that one could argue there has been no transfer of sovereignty, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender clearly requires this to occur in any event making any arguments about "effective control" meaningless.
Except that the Instrument of Surrender is NOT a treaty and a treaty is required to transfer territory from one state to another state.
You haven't proven a single point in this entire thread where I have supplied examples to show my point, examples which you have ignored. FAIL!