若「開羅宣言」是真的,也沒差 2007年6月16日自由時報〈美國家檔案局:開羅宣言 非國際條約〉,且根據14日新聞稿(聯絡人何燕青):「國家檔案室的柯爾茲先生在信函裡解釋,根據國家檔案室的規定,所有的國際條約、行政協定、或是一般條約與其他協定等文件均有其專屬的特定號碼,由國務院一併交由檔案室保管。開羅宣言並不符合上述性質,因為它不是條約,也不是行政協定。誠如您在信中所提到的,開羅宣言僅是一份公報聲明,柯爾茲先生表示。」(原文與雲程翻譯) 能將歷史真詳逐漸撥雲見日,當然是好事情。 不過,認真說來,台灣人在國民黨長久填鴨訓詁教育下,只承認證據,不承認法理與推理,從而必須證明「開羅宣言」只是「新聞公報」,才能放心其「不具效力」的事實。 在國際法上,兩(多)國的法律文件按照位階高低有:條約(Tre 21世紀房屋仲介aty)最高,其餘文件都低於它。 1969年〈條約法公約〉(Convention on the Law of Treaties)第二條(a):「稱條約者,謂國家間所締結而以國際法為準之國際書面協定,不論其載於一項單獨文書或兩項以上相互有關之文書內,亦不論其特定之名稱如何。」( “treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation; ) 條約的名稱有很多種,包括公約(Convention)、憲章(Charter)、盟約(Covenant)、規約(Statute)、組織法(Constitution)、國 seo際會議議定書(Act)、最終議定書(Final Act)、條約補充議定書(Protocol)、協定(Agreement)等。 其餘,低於條約但是由各國代表所發佈或簽署的文件,有備忘錄(Memorois)、建議(Proposal)、會議記錄(Proces-verbal)、談話記錄(Notes verbal)等。 按照美國憲法,所謂條約是指經過參議院三分之二同意的國際協定。至於總統與外國所簽訂而未經參議院正式同意的協定,稱為「行政協定」(Executive Agreement),不視為條約。 假設:在1943年11月27日真有個「開羅宣言」,且有美國總統、英國首相與中國國民政府主席出席會談,且簽有「宣言」並於12月1日發佈。 是真的又怎樣?那只是行政協定,甚至美國國家檔案局還說,根本連「行政協定」都算不上。 「行?西裝外套F協定」僅僅對當屆政府(羅斯福、邱吉爾、蔣介石)有不強的約束力,下一屆政府根本不須要承認也不須要受到約束。從法律位階來說,有關太平洋戰爭的最終、最高法律文件是1951年的〈舊金山和約〉。 〈和約〉既出,誰敢爭鋒? 不說〈和約〉,就說「佔領命令」〈總命令第一號〉(General Order No.1)。此命令一出,就廢除了先前所有有關戰鬥、佔領的命令、規劃、腹案等,一切重新來過。 有點心酸的是:台灣人在國民黨長久填鴨訓詁教育下,只敢承認證據,害怕法理與推理,從而必須證明「開羅宣言」只是「新聞公報」,才能放心其「不具效力」的事實。 現在,在證明「開羅宣言」不是條約後,我們將更有信心接受「法理」與「法律體系」了吧。 「開羅宣言」是真的,又怎樣? Ju 小型辦公室ne 5, 2007Coen BlaauwFormosan Association for Public Affairs552 7th Street S.E.Washington, DC 20003Dear Mr. Blaauw:The is in response to the letter from C.T. Lee, President of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs to Professor Allen Weinstein, Archivist of the United States, dated May 9, 2007, concerning the "Cairo Declaration" of December 1, 1943. Your letter was received in my office on May 23, 2007. The National Archives and Records Administration has not filed this declaration under "Treaties."The only international treaties in our custody are those sent to us from the Department of State with a TS (treaty series), EAS (executive agreement series), or T 婚禮顧問IAS (treaties and other international agreements series) number. These documents are all in record Group 11, General Records of the United States Government. As you state in your letter, the declaration was a "communique," and it does not have treaty series (TS) or executive agreements series (EAS) number. The "Cairo Declaration" is included in the State Department publication "Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America, 1776-1949," edited by Charles I. Bevans (volume 3, p. 858). The source is given as 1943 For. Rel. (Conferences at Cairo and Tehran) 448. The State Department publication "Foreign Relations of the United States: Conferences 酒店打工at Cairo and Tehran, 1943," includes on page 448 the text of the communique relating to the meeting at Cairo of President Roosevelt, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek, and Prime Minister Churchill. The source copy is reported as "Cairo Declaration Records." It was also printed in the Department of State Bulletin, vol. ix, December 4, 1943, p. 393. Please let me know if I can of further assistance.Sincerely, MICHAEL J. KURTZAssistant Archivist for Records Services - Washington, DC For Immediate Release Contact Iris Ho @ 202.547.3686 June 14, 2007 NATIONAL ARCHIVES SHATTERS BEIJING*s AND KMT*s CLAIMS In a letter to FA 代償PA dated June 5, Michael Kurtz, the Assistant Archivist for Records Services at the United States National Archives confirmed that the 1943 Cairo Declaration is neither a treaty nor an executive agreement, but merely a ※communiqu谷.§ This marks the first time the United States government officially goes on record elaborating on the lack of legal binding power of the Cairo Declaration, and thus voids the basis of both the Chinese Nationalist KMT party*s and Beijing*s mythic ※One China Principle§ claims. Mr. Kurtz writes: ※The National Archives and Records Administration has not filed this declaration under treaties. [#] As you state, the declaration was a ※communiqu谷§, and it does not have treaty series (TS) or e 保濕面膜xecutive agreement series (EAS) number.§ Over the past half century, the Cairo Declaration has been used by both the Communist government and the KMT as one of the key historic documents to bolster their ※One China§ claims. The KMT has long cited the Cairo Declaration as the legal basis for ROC*s claim on Taiwan. Interestingly enough, the Chinese Communist government also cites the Cairo Declaration to augment its claim that Taiwan is part of China. Former Chinese leader Jiang Zemin, current Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Premiere Wen Jiabao have in various public occasions invoked the Cairo Declaration to establish that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. FAPA President CT Lee states: ※The 1943 Cairo Declaration is a doc 設計裝潢ument that wrapped up a meeting between Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek. It merely is a moment in time - a declaration of intention about the world*s affairs among the three leaders. Although important at the time, it does not have any legal binding power almost 65 years later enabling either the KMT or the PRC to derive territorial claims from. The letter from the Archives codifies this fact that is already familiar to international legal scholars and Taiwan*s DPP government. The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty officially brought World War II to an end and supersedes all previous agreements. It is time that the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Communist Chinese government cease this political game of rhetoric.§ 房屋買賣  .
創作者介紹

jcoewqgxuwvyyh 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()