Talk:Treaty of Taipei

message: What evidence is there that Japan "cancelled this treaty"?
I can't make sense out of this paragraph:
:Many people believe the following passage in the Treaty makes indirect suggestion about the possibilty that Japan recognized that ROC having sovereignty over Taiwan. However, the passage was to define the opposit party of the treaty to which the Japanese government was signing treaty with. It limits the opposit party to the government controlled the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores at that time. Bound by Treaty of San Francisco, Japan government did not specify which country the Taiwan sovereignty was given to in Treaty of Taipei and did not offer any war-time casualty compensation to ROC government. 
--Jiang 00:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't read Japanese. Do you have something in English? --Jiang 19:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Was the PRC's demand ever carried through? We can't say it was cancelled unless some legal/formal mechanism specifically cancelled it. --Jiang 23:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of Japan's abrogation of Treaty of Taipei

message: Jiang, I have noticed that you put the following texts into the article:
 though this was not officially done and no one-year cancellation notice was given.
I would like to suggest that this statement contains POV. 
We have no evidence that this is a unofficial move done by Japan. Apparently, your text invoke  Article 56 - Denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty containing no provision regarding termination, denunciation or withdrawal which requires the party abrogating treaty to give one year notice in advance. 
However, if you read the text I provided above, you will see that Japanese Foreign Minister Ohira announced the abrogation after signing the communique which was intended to handel and amend war time conflict between the two country serving as a peace treaty. Please take note: Japanese Foreign Minister Ohira further stated that the very reason for abrogation is due to sino-japan normalization. Hence, in my opinion, he abrogated Treaty of Taipei by invoking  Article 59 - Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty implied by conclusion of a later treaty, which does not require such 12 month advanced notification. 
You may disagree with my interpretation. However, given that none of us are Ohira, we won't be able to know the legal base of his move. Unless you can help us find a Japanese official source mentioning which article from Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties was being involked, I would suggest that we can simply put Japan abrogated the treaty as PRC requested. We simply do not know if the abrogation is official or unofficial as you suggested. We should avoid take side and being misleading.
Immanuel Hsu is a famous Chinese history scholar. He expressed his point of view; but it does not represent Japanese official position. And I am not sure what exactly should be drawn from the cited texts. As for the first passage of the Treaty of Taipei, it implies the limits of ROC jurisdiction power. It did not mention sovereignty and it was not a cession clause. If you interpret the terms literally, you will get the following conclusion: There are a bunch of ROC nationals live in a island which the government in exile does not have sovereignty over. Anyway, this treaty was burried in the dust of history.Mababa 03:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Position of Japan on the abrogation of Treaty of Taipei

message: That one is only the protocol, not the text of treaty itself.
Mababa 06:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The text in the WikiSource

message: This article’s style and grammar has deteriorated over the past year. I’ve noticed quite a few awkward phrases and run-on sentences.  If anyone has free time, please edit the grammar. Allentchang 14:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement in grammar needed

message: I'd like to see the original source of the ROC foreign minister to the LY since I suspect that it has been taken out of context.
Roadrunner (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original source of quote 

message: "However, this treaty was later unilaterally nullified by the Government of Japan when it recognized the People's Republic of China."  This needs a source  if it is to be kept.Readin (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited, yanked. 

message: According to the article, "This treaty also nullifies all treaties made between China and Japan before 9 December 1941." This is consistent with the text of the treaty which says, "It is recognised that all treaties, conventions, and agreements concluded before 9 December 1941 between Japan and China have become null and void as a consequence of the war."  However, the government of China did not sign the treaty.  It was signed by Japan and the government of Taiwan pretending to act as the government of China.  What is the position of the PRC in regard to this treaty and the supposed nullification of all previous treaties? Readin (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What pre-1941 treaties would mainland China object to? The treaty that signed over all of Manchuria to Japan, or the 1905 treaty that gave Japan exclusive trade rights in north China? The nullification of treaties was to re-assure the Chinese (all of them) that Japan wouldn't lay claim to any lands that belong to China (either of them), to prevent any other countries from supporting a claim made by Japan, and to prevent the Japanese government from "repatriating" or prosecuting its colonial "citizens" (Chinese people that were living in either Manchuria or Taiwan during the imperial period). Boneyard90 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's position 

message: "In March 2008 the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Washington, D.C. issued a ruling in the case of Dr. Roger Lin et. al. v. United States of America holding that Taiwanese people are stateless."
Actually, the court threw out the case due to lack of jurisdiction.  They ruled the case to be a "political matter" and not a judicial one.  No other ruling was made. 
jamesbohling
:On page 11 of the judgement you cited, her honour held that "[p]laintiffs have essentially been persons without a state for almost 60 years"
:However, I think there are Wikipedia rules governing the use of primary source such as a Court judgement. I am not sure if the previous use of this passage complied with the rules. 
:My view is, that passage is merely a obiter dicta and her honour did not intend to make that as the essence of the judgement. That's why her honour held in the end that the courts of the United States did not have jurisdiction to hear this case.--pyl (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: This is, on the whole, a poorly done article.  A lot of unsubstantiated POV.  There is a lot available on this treaty.  I will try to do some major revisions over the next few days.  ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: Does anyone else feel that the article may give too much weight to the Taiwan independence point-of-view, and insufficient weight to the treaty's subsequent abrogation upon prompting from the PRC? Ngchen (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 2011 POV check 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Treaty of Taipei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930185223/http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2369 to http://japanfocus.org/products/details/2369
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified