raymondaliasapollyon wrote:There are grounds for believing that the US was not an occupying power of Taiwan. Please examine the following passages from Oppenheim, L. , International law： A Treatise, 2nd ed., Longmans, Green and Co., 1912 .
§222. Para 1 Theory and practice agree nowadays upon the rule that occupation is effected through taking possession of and establishing an administration over the territory in the name of and for the acquiring State. Occupation thus effected is real occupation, and, in contradistinction to fictitious occupation, is named effective occupation. Possession and administration are the two essential facts that constitute an effective occupation.
This quotation, and the others which you have provided from Oppenheim, are not concerned with "military occupation." What Oppenheim is speaking of here is "occupation of terra nullius," such as the situation of uninhabited islands in the Pacific Ocen which were claimed by US citizens under the legal authority of international law plus
the Guano Islands Act.
For general information on the contents and application of this Act, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano_Islands_Act
raymondaliasapollyon wrote:To sum up, the US is most probably not the said 'principal occupying power of Taiwan'. If there is ever such an authority on Taiwan, it must be the Republic of China.
Totally incorrect. As I have said before, read the treaty.
Do I ned to repeat that here for you? Here it is in capital letters:
READ THE TREATY.
Further comments are as follows: My associates and I do not agree with the viewpoint that Taiwan, with a population of approx. 6 million persons in 1945, was terra nullius
. Indeed, under international law, Taiwan was sovereign Japanese territory until renounced in the post-war treaty effective April 28, 1952. (General Douglas MacArthur stated at a congressional hearing in May 1951, "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan." )
Unfortunately, there may be some confusion being generated here due to the different meanings of “occupation” in the English language.
Primarily, there are two types of “occupation,” and the first would be over islands with no population –- which we would view as terra nullius
. (A subset of this type would be occupation over populated islands or other territories with “no central government” (characterized by the presence of a large number of aboriginal tribes, etc.) – which we would view as terra sine domino
.)terra sine domino
-- [spoken of populated territory] "land without master," land with no central government, abandoned territory. terra nullius
-- [spoken of unpopulated territory] uninhabited islands or lands.
However, the second type of “occupation” is “military occupation” and that is something else entirely. [DEFINITION]
Military Occupation -- (1) invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces, (2) a condition in which territory is under the effective control of foreign armed forces, (3) the military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.
International law specifies that "Military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." [Note: military occupation is not
annexation and the doctrine of "prescription" does not apply.]
The quotes which some posters here on forumosa.com have provided from Oppenheim appear to fall into the realm of the first type of "occupation." That however, is not military occupation, which is what I am concerned with.
Also see FM 27-10362.
Necessity for Military Government
Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory.