Talk:Legal status of Taiwan

message: Staighre (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

message: I have spent several days entirely re-writing the Legal Arguments section.   I have included all links to other Wiki articles as appropriate.   I have not eliminated anything from the original text, but have thoroughly reorganized it and supplemented it.  This new re-organization should enable the differing schools of thought to build and expand upon their own arguments by adding further data as appropriate. Hmortar 03:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reorganization. I believe it is excellent. My only concern is that there may be undue weight issues for certain sections, and by giving particular sections undue weight, the article can become non-neutral. In terms of the section on say, the United States, I propose shrinking it in the next few days depending on what other feedback is received. Thanks. Ngchen 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have trimmed the article, removing what seems to be redundant mentions of the same facts from different sectiions. I also trimmed the last section to avoid undue weight issues. If anyone would like to work in some of the SFPT statements by the various delegates years after the conference, please feel free to do so. The statement about Mao Zedong supporting Taiwan independence at one time I removed because (1) it has no legal merit, and (2) is unnecessarily inflammatory. IIRC that statement did appear (and rightly so IMO) in the political status of Taiwan article. The material about former United States Secretary of State Colin Powell I removed because of an active dispute about what he meant, that exists on this talk page. Ngchen 03:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Made some changes to strengthen Pro-China arguements. Redcloud822 02:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-writing of all Legal Arguments 

message: I edited the article in an attempt to explain the various possible prescriptions to explain the PRC and ROC POVs. Also, I removed the word provisionally from the historical overview section describing the Japanese instrument of surrender, where Japan "provisionally accepted" the terms of the Potsdam declaration. I believe that a significant part of the argument between the PRC/ROC position and the other position hinges on whether the Japanese surrender was or was not of a provisional nature; as such, to claim that it somehow is provisional violates NPOV. I did note in the subsequent paragraph on the 228 incident that some people claimed such.
::Agreed. Thank you. I also did some minor restoration of NPOV redux. :) Mababa 06:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented out the links because they are too general to be helpful. For example, the PRC foreign ministry has a page devoted to Taiwan that has various white papers and press releases from past year - that page should be linked, not the home page of the FM. --Jiang 04:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of NPOV redux 

message: I wouldn't make a fuss on this matter and I do not expect a debate on this issue; however, I am only a bit confused by the statement:
 President Truman, ....... was prepared to see Taiwan fall into the hands of the Chinese Communists
I always thought that Truman only withdrawed U.S. from gettin involved in the Chinese civil war but this not necessarily can be equated to throwing Taiwan to PRC. I am certainly awared of the fact that the Nationalist was the side losing the civil war and did not seem to be capable of geting lost territories back. However, it does not mean that they were incapable of securing the island from any PRC invasion, especially this required PRC to deploy troops across the strait. Thus, I wonder if Truman really was indeed ready for giving Taiwan to PRC or this is an extrapolation from Truman's passive role in the issue of chinese civil war. 
I do not think that we have to raise a new debate and request both side to show evidence on Truman's position before the Korea war; since, in my judgement, it is kind of trivial and would not change the historical moves afterwards or the arguments from all sides anyway. However, I am still curious to read on this issue and would really appreciate it if someone can make a reference link below from any of the contributers, just for quick reference, if it is not too much trouble. 
Here is one more post-Korean-war evidence showing Truman and Britain proposed Formosa issue to be solved in UN:
Joint Statement Following Discussions With the Prime Minister of Great Britain
December 8, 1950
:On the question of Formosa, we have noted that both Chinese claimants have insisted upon the validity of the Cairo Declaration and have expressed reluctance to have the matter considered by the United Nations. We agreed that the issues should be settled by peaceful means and in such a way as to safeguard the interests of the people of Formosa and the maintenance of peace and security in the Pacific, and that consideration of this question by the United Nations will contribute to these ends.
Some more:
Mababa 06:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Truman's position

message: I would like to question the accuracy of the statements about how the US has treated the sovereignty of Taiwan over the years. More specifically, (1) did the US State Department officially report that the sovereignty of Taiwan was "undetermined" in 1970, or did it claim that it belonged to the ROC which the US recognized at the time as the Chinese government, or was it simply silent, or did it actually claim it for the US via the SFPT? (2) Did the US make any statements on territorial sovereignty in the Shanghai Communique at all, other than acknowledging the PRC position? (3) In the six assurances, the US stated that it would not recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan - considering how the US recognized the PRC then as the Chinese government, would that really imply a lack of recognition of the unrecognized ROC holding sovereignty over Taiwan as the article implies as opposed to simply not recognizing PRC sovereignty over Taiwan? And in the same spirit, can former US Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement really be construed to question the ROC's hold of sovereignty, or is it a jab against those favoring Taiwan independence or "two Chinas" which is the way I remember it was construed? I would appreciate definitive source info here to ensure accuracy. FWIW, it's well known that diplomats have basically had to do a dance when dealing with such questions, since the US does not recognize the ROC at present and reading what is really meant by their carefully parsed statements can be quite difficult. Thanks.Ngchen 23:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US position over years 

message: Now my turn. I have marked the description coining dispositive treaty as a doctrine dubious. I am not familiar with international laws in detail. However, since this section was about Taiwanese arguement not in favor Chinese sovereignty, their arguement should be preserved. I think it would be better and less confussing if rebuttals be placed in the pro-Chinese sovereignty section. Here, by coining the dispositive treaty as a doctrine, we would place the arguement at a place comparable to the Chinese unequal treaty doctrine, contrary to the pro-Taiwanese scholar's claim. 
:One side seems to have professional help; a lot of lingos would be confusing to average readers and make the pro-Independent arguements seem more authoritative. Redcloud822 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, FWIW, calling something a doctrine doesn't mean its invalid, or that its validity is even questioned. There are numerous well-established ideas (such as the succession of states doctrine, sovereignty of states doctrine, etc.) that are called doctrines. Nevertheless, I agree it would be good for someone to fact check that notion of international law. Ngchen 17:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispositive treaty as doctrine or international law?

message: The founding of PRC on Oct. 1, 1949 together with the existing ROC government, created two competing governments of China in a typical civil war scenario. At the time, the ROC government was the recognized legal government of China by majority of the world, and the PRC was considered a rebel government. Since Oct 1949 up to 1971, rebel PRC government pushed the recognized ROC government to the island of Taiwan, which is a sovereign part of ROC since 1945. 
: The Allies recognized no "transfer of sovereignty" of the areas of Formosa and the Pescadores to China in 1945.  The surrender ceremonies in Taipei on Oct. 25, 1945, do not serve to make these areas Chinese territory.  It is hence incorrect to say that Taiwan is a sovereign part of the ROC since 1945.  Hmortar 06:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "transfer of sovereignty" does not need to be recognized by Allies for it to take place. For example Northeast China (ManchuKuo), which was occupied by Japan since 1931, when ROC moved in to reclaim Chinese sovereignty, there was no recognition by the Allies. However, the "transfer of sovereignty" did take place. When other Allied countries, such as Norway or Sweden moved in to reclaim their sovereignty, there was no explicit recognition by the Allies either. But "the transfer of sovereignty" took place as well. Can you claim that "no transfer of sovereignty" took place elsewhere for any Axis occupied territories unless there was recognition by the Allies? Is "Allied recognition" a prerequisite to "transfer of sovereignty" for all liberated territories previously occupied by the Axis powers? There was no evidence to support such assertion. Therefore, explicit recognition is not required for the "transfer of sovereignty" to take place. Indeed Cairo Declaration, Postdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender provide more than ample authorization for China to reclaim sovereignty in Taiwan.   Redcloud822 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the ROC has never held the sovereignty of Taiwan, the PRC cannot use the "successor government theory" to claim that that sovereignty now belongs to the PRC.   According to international law, there was no transfer of Taiwan's sovereignty to the ROC at the surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops, nor in either of the two post-war peace treaties.   Clearly, China has no legal claim to sovereignty over Taiwan. Hmortar 06:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan has not be challenged by any country, and has been recognized by the world including Japan and the US. "Successor government theory" can be and should be applied here. Therefore, after UN resolution 2758 in 1971, I don't see how PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan can be disputed from a legal stand point. Redcloud822 14:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The significance of UN Resolution 2758 

message: Given the way current arguements are orgnizedm the pro-Indepedent views seem to have the last word. I suggest to orgnize the arguements as a pro arguements section for one POV followed with a rebuttal to that POV, then another section of pro arguements for the second POV followed with a rebuttal, so on and so forth. This way anyone can add to his/her supporting or rebuttal arguements without having to edit/delete the view points from the other side. Also arguements of Pro-ROC and Pro-PRC should be separate, current format provides a bias as if the Pro-ROC and Pro-PRC are the same camp, which is not necessarily true. Redcloud822 05:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree with laying out the arguments that way. Anytime something becomes a list of arguments followed by rebuttals and counterarguments, the list becomes (1) something without end, and (2) non-neutral. The latter because the rebuttals would inherently imply that the original argument is wrong. In terms of PRC vs ROC arguments, I believe their arguments have a lot in common, which is why they share a large section. The "blue" and "red" factions, AFAIK, generally do belong to the same side on this issue, disagreeing only over each other's legitimacy as to being the legitimate Chinese government.Ngchen 02:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right now the Taiwan Independence arguements serve as both a platform and a rebuttal. Yet, Pro-China arguements have no way to put a rebuttal. The claims such as Taiwan is a state of the US, should easily be refuted. But there is no way for it to be done. Redcloud822 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of the organization of arguments 

message: The link in the page referring to General Order No.1 by Gen. MacArthru does not show the text of original General Order No.1. The article paraphased the order as to say that the order was issued to direct the Japanese troops instead of ROC troops. Was the Allied troops in China under the command of Gen. MacArthur? If the Allied troops in China were not under the command of Gen. MacArthur, how could he issue commands to Chinese troops? Redcloud822 05:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The representatives of the Supreme Allied Commander in the China Theater, Chiang Kai-shek (i.e. the Republic of China military forces), were directed to go to Taiwan and accept the surrender of Japanese troops according to the directions of General Douglas MacArthur, head of the United States Military Government, in General Order No. 1, which was issued September 2, 1945."
When examining the original text of General Order No.1 by MacArthur, one finds in no place Gen. MacArthur ever dircted the representitives of Chiang Kai-shek. The statement in the article can be considered weasel words. Please make some corrections. Welcome comments. Redcloud822 15:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on General order No.1 by MacArthur 

message: The Chinese sovereignty argument is weak, and was rewritten by a Taiwan independence supporter Hmortar. I edited that section to strengthen the arguments. My editing was reverted by Gangsta another independence biased editor, who accused me of POV pushing. This is unreasonable. I suppose the whole section of Legal Arguments was written to provide both POV's. Gangsta's explanation for reverting my editing is unacceptable. If Taiwan Independence supporters can push their POV in their section of Legal Argument, why accuse someone pushing pro-China POV in pro-China section of the Legal Arguments? Need third party comment. Redcloud822 16:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that your edit seems fine, and is more concise than the earlier version. Perhaps Certified Gangsta can explain why he feels it is POV pushing? Ngchen 18:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, from the Chinese perspective, the SFPT is irrelevant with regard to their claims for the simple reason that they never signed it. So it cannot affect their claims' validity one way or another. Sure, this is a POV, but it is one that is correctly attributed to China. Ngchen 13:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Gangsta, I see where you're coming from, and generally I'd agree with you.  However, in this particular case, I think Redcloud is right - the whole Legal Argument section is designed to explain the various POVs.  Now, I won't go far as to say that both the ROC and PRC believe the SFPT is irrelevant to the case of Taiwan's independence (or lack thereof).  However, I do think that this POV is worth noting in the Legal Arguments section, whether under the "Common to both ROC and PRC" heading or under the PRC alone. Folic Acid 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chinese sovereignty argument weak 

message: I see that Certified.Gangsta removed the links to the History of China and the Category:Politics of Taiwan with the allegation that it was "POV pushing."  How are the history of China and the politics of Taiwan links pushing a particular POV?  It seems to me that history is THE primary source of determination of the ROC's (and Taiwan's) legal status, and that Chinese history is a central factor in that determination.  Thoughts?  -- Folic Acid 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing links in the "See Also" section? 

message: What does point 7 in the section "Arguments for the Republic of China and/or People's Republic of China sovereignty claims" mean ?
Do PRC/ROC consider itself a successor state or successor government ?
Siyac 15:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is that the entire world currently considers Taiwan (implicitly) to be part of China. Regardless of the government that is recognized as the legitimate one, it is undoubtedly Chinese. Now, for the successor issue, I recently learned from my brother that there is a difference between successor state and successor government. I'm not sure what the official position of the PRC and ROC governments is on that, although I know that what is uncontested is that the order of succession went like this Qing dynasty -> ROC. The PRC considers itself the  successor of the ROC from its founding on 10-1-1949. Not surprisingly, the ROC denies ever being succeded and de jure considers itself the legitimate government of all China.Ngchen 12:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Actually ROC government still claims to be the sole legitimate government of China(including Taiwan) up to today.
It is stated in every ROC communiques on establishing diplomatic relations with other states as follows:
There is only one China in the world;
The government of Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China;
Taiwan is part of China
The aforementioned 3 policies are identical to PRC's "One-China" policy,
except for that PRC is substitued with ROC.
The aforementioned communiques can be obtained from National Library in Taiwan or from ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
This proves that PRC succeeded PRC as a successor government instead of a successor state.
This proves also that Taiwan is not a state yet and that ROC was established
as a successor government of Imperial Chinese government in 1912, 
not a new state.
Please could someone incorporate this information into the article.
Siyac 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimacy claim 

message: I removed the section below because first, there are countries that recognize Taiwan (ROC)
The United Nations regards Taiwan as a "province of China".
The problem is that the source isn't a reliable indicator of the UN position.  It is merely an informational document from one of the many UN agencies.  It is not a General Assembly resolution nor a Security Council resolution. Readin (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the fact that such a statement was made by an official UN agency, and I'm sure can be found on other UN documents in general, would imply some sort of recognition, would it not? At the very least, if any UN member considered the statement incorrect or such, a protest would be made.Ngchen (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But does the cited source support the assertion? I think not. The cited supporting source is the UN/LOCODE page for the code TW. The UN/LOCODE Manual] says: "The designations employed and the presentation of the material in the United Nations Code for ports and other locations (UN/LOCODE) do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN position 

message: I slapped a dubious tag on "Taiwan has been a part of Chinese territory since Ming dynasty(by written record)." because in all the times I've read about Konxinga, there has been no reference to him taking Taiwan from the Ming, only from the Dutch.  Further, all the readings I've read about the Dutch in Taiwan, there has been no mention of a Ming presence, only aborigine, Spanish, and later imported Chinese laborers.  If this statement is to remain, particularly the comment about "by written record", a citation will be required. Readin (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick search, and this PRC affiliated site  notes that administrative divisions starting from the Yuan dynasty were established to administer Taiwan. FWIW, Konxinga was a Ming loyalist, who took Taiwan from the Dutch and was hoping to use it as a base to counterattack against the Qing. So it would make no sense to say that he somehow took it from the Ming.Ngchen (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I should have noted that although Koxinga was a Ming loyalist, he was being loyal to a dynasty that no longer existed when he captured Taiwan.Readin (talk) 13:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Written records say Taiwan part of China during Ming dynasty? 

message: I feel that as of now, the external links section is giving undue weight to the borderline fringe theory of the US holding Taiwan's sovereignty. Sure, one link to the theory is OK; however, having multiple ones is excessive, when compared to links arguing for other points of view. Readin argues that the PRC holding sovereignty is equally fringe; I disagree. The PRC and its many supporters (e.g. Russia) argue for PRC sovereignty. No state (not even the US, which actually has stated that it does not make any claim), or any other sort of mainstream entity (such as the KMT, DPP, TSU, CPC, etc.), has made the "US is sovereign" argument. Just because something is published does not mean it's mainstream. Per external links, there is an undue weight issue.Ngchen (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, on closer inspection I see you're point.  I thought you were removing a reference rather than an external link.  You were correct to remove that link so I'll undo my undo.  The external link is bad for many reasons.  It's a good reference but a bad external link.Readin (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links discussion 

message: A long time ago the article had a peer review. I would like to have this article ultimately make featured article status. IMO, what it lacks most right now is sufficient references. Anyone have access to say a large research library or something similar, so that each and every argument can be properly referenced? Thanks. Ngchen (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rounding up references 

message: I added these paras into the article (in a few different places)....but they have been reverted:
(1) China had ceded Formosa to Japan by the peace treaty of Shimonoseki of April 16, 1895. In order to judge the validity of this cession subsequent developments in international law which may, or may not, have affected the validity of cessions achieved as the result of aggressive war must be disregarded. Thus, the validity of this cession can hardly be contested. The joint communiqué which was issued at the Cairo conference (December 1, 1943) and referred to Formosa as one of the territories which Japan had "stolen from the Chinese" and which were to be restored to China was a retrospective moral condemnation of an international transaction which, at the time and long afterwards, was never questioned as being in any way contrary to international law. 
(2) The understandings reached at the Cairo conference of 1943 were at the most legal commitments entered between the three parties to the statement -i.e. China, the United States, and the United Kingdom - regarding their intention to restore, inter alia, Formosa to China. The three Powers reaffirmed this intention in the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, and, on entering the war against Japan, the Soviet Union associated herself with this declaration. In relation to Japan, these inter-allied understandings became binding by the Japanese acceptance of the Potsdam Proclamation (August 14, 1945). Thus whatever final arrangements would be made by the other parties to this instrument of unconditional surrender were to be carried out by Japan. These Powers were China, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. On October 15, 1945, as a result of an order issued on the basis of consultation and agreement between the allied Powers concerned, the Japanese forces' in Formosa surrendered to General Chiang Kai-shek and, with the consent of the Supreme Allied Commander in the Far East, the administration of Formosa was undertaken by the Government of the Republic of China.
(3)Until the treaty of peace with Japan of San Francisco (September 5, 1951) nothing further appears to have happened that in any way affected the legal position of Formosa. Some of the States until then still legally at war with Japan had undertaken commitments inter se on the future of Formosa, and Japan was under an obligation to recognize whatever steps might be taken by the other parties to the instrument of unconditional surrender. It was, therefore, completely in accordance with the legal position as it then existed for the Foreign Office of the United Kingdom to state in reply to a question submitted to it by the Chief Justice of Hong Kong that Formosa was still de jure part of Japan (Civil Air Transport Inc. v. Chennault and Others, 1950). On the other hand, Mr. Acheson expressed the view that Formosa had become Chinese territory (The Times, January 6, 1950). By Article 2 (b) of the treaty of peace of San Francisco of 1951 Japan renounced "all right, title and claim to Formosa." This meant that, in relation to Japan, Formosa ceased to be Japanese territory and the other parties to the peace treaty had become the co-sovereigns of Formosa.
(4) The position as it has existed since is similar to that after the renunciation by Germany in favour of the principal allied and associated Powers of all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions under the peace treaty of Versailles or that of Turkey since the peace treaty of Lausanne in relation to those parts of the Ottoman Empire which had been detached from it. Until the Powers other than Japan who are parties to the peace treaty of San Francisco decide otherwise, they exercise in law a condominium over Formosa. Whether those of them who entered commitments at Cairo and Potsdam regarding Formosa with China intend to honour them, and in relation to which of the two Chinas, is perhaps a complicated but, in any case, a separate issue. What is clear is that General Chiang Kai-shek exercises only a delegated authority in Formosa. It is exercised by him on behalf of those parties to the peace treaty of San Francisco who recognize his Government either as that of China or at least in relation to Formosa. These States are free agents to decide collectively on the future of this territory outside the United Nations or, with the consent of the latter, to transfer their condominium to the United Nations.
Don't these paragraphs provide an excellent and fantastically succinct summary of the position. Why have they been deleted in their entirety? Regards. Staighre (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A better idea....I will add these in as support for the claim (under a new section) that those who are sovereign in Taiwan/Formosa are those Powers (except Japan) who are parties to the Treaty of San Francisco. Regards. Staighre (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't read it all but your text sounds more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. Just in the first paragraph, even without looking at the meaning, there are plenty of POV words that shouldn't be there: "can hardly be contested", "in any way", etc. Also some of the paragraphs seem to repeat some sections of the article and may contain original research or non-attributed POVs. Rather than putting your paragraphs as is, perhaps you could simply expand or rewrite some parts of the article. Laurent (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation Laurent. Regards.Staighre (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the revert?

message: An anonymous editor has added the following to the article...
This is from United States government paper,
DR. ROGER C.S. LIN, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant-Appellee
and see the two case of this paper on page 18,
Cheng Fu Shenq v. Rogers,177 F. Supp. 281 (D.D.C. 1959)
In article 2 of the Japanese Peace Treaty, which entered into force April 28, 1952, Japan renounced all `right, title and claim' to Formosa. Neither this agreement nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to China."
Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China.
Rogers v. Cheng Fu Sheng,280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
But in the view of our State Department, no agreement has 'purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to (the Republic of) China.'
I believe that this addition is unwarranted, in that we are basically dealing with a near-fringe theory. Perhaps some of this material could be moved to other sections? Finally, it's the holding of court cases that really matters. There are notability issues, even with the holdings. The rest I feel doesn't belong; how notable is dicta, if it's even that? Legal briefs would hold little weight either. Barring additional discussion, I plan to trim the section to its barest essentials in around a week. Ngchen (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments of United States sovereignty claims 

message: I've moved the following content added to the Arguments for United States sovereignty claims section in this edit here from the article for possible reformatting/rewording and incorporation into the article. 
This is from United States government paper,
DR. ROGER C.S. LIN, et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Defendant-Appellee
and see the two case of this paper on page 18,
Cheng Fu Shenq v. Rogers,177 F. Supp. 281 (D.D.C. 1959)
In article 2 of the Japanese Peace Treaty, which entered into force April 28, 1952, Japan renounced all `right, title and claim' to Formosa. Neither this agreement nor any other agreement thereafter has purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to China."
Formosa may be said to be a territory or an area occupied and administered by the Government of the Republic of China, but is not officially recognized as being a part of the Republic of China.
Rogers v. Cheng Fu Sheng,280 F.2d 663 (D.C. Cir. 1960)
But in the view of our State Department, no agreement has 'purported to transfer the sovereignty of Formosa to (the Republic of) China.'
I don't have time to spend on this myself at present. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content moved here from article 

message: Point 5, Cairo Declaration transferring sovereignty to China. As stated here, the argument fails to recognize the legal distinction between "country" and "government". Because sovereignty is vested in governments, not countries, Cairo explicitly declared transfer of sovereignty to the ROC, not "China".
I point this out not to take issue with the argument, but to say that while the ambiguity of "China" works in favor of the pro-PRC/unification side, it significantly and needlessly weakens the argument for pro-ROC/independence advocates. Which is why it's been my experience that, while pro-unification/PRC advocates generally say "China", pro-ROC advocates usually have taken great pains to say "ROC".
The distinction is crucial to the strength and direction of the argument, which it why I think it's misleading to cite the argument, as currently worded, as common to both sides. At least, there should be a note explaining the terminological distinctions, and their significance.
CNJECulver (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments common to both the PRC and ROC 

message: In point 2 of this sub-section, someone has slapped by whom and citation needed tags on "China was prohibited". Since the section is not making the claim itself, but merely claims to be reporting arguments offered by "various groups", it shouldn't be necessary for the article to footnote other people's claims. It is only necessary for the article to document that "various groups" have, indeed, made these arguments.
Speaking of which, this section doesn't do that.
CNJECulver (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments by various groups that claim Taiwan should declare itself to be an independent sovereign nation