美屬台灣群島方案
林志昇向美請願案記事

2008年3月18日美國聯邦地方法院宣判，根據判決文，有如下記載。
The basis for Plaintiffs claims that they are nationals of the United States is that the United States is allegedly exercising sovereignty over Taiwan. Considering that the United States is holding de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, the Taiwanese people owe permanent allegiance to the United States and have the status of United States nationals (as opposed to citizens). The Plaintiffs would have the Court address a quintessential political question and trespass into the extremely delicate relationship between and among the United States, Taiwan and China. This it is without jurisdiction to do.
原告宣稱，他們是美國國民，是基於所謂的美國主權及於台灣；因此，基於美國對台灣擁有法理主權的考量，這些台灣人負有對美效忠的義務並擁有美國國民身份（非公民）。原告希望本院對此政治問題發表聲明，並涉入相當複雜的美中台三方關係；這是司法權管轄不到的。
The determination of who is sovereign over specific territory is non-justiciable. "Who is the sovereign,de jure or de facto, of a territory, is not a judicial, but a political,question,the determination of which by the legislative and executive of any government conclusively binds the judges, as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government. This principle has always been upheld by this court, and has been affirmed under a great variety of circumstances."
("The determination of sovereignty over an area, the Supreme Court has held, is for the legislative and executive departments")
誰對某地區擁有主權，是無法作司法裁判的。誰對某地區擁有法理或事實主權，是政治問題、不是司法問題。任何政府的立法和行政決策，對法官及其他官員、公民、政府機關單位均產生約束力。本院一向贊同這個原則，這可從過去各類的判例驗證。（最高法院也贊同：一個地區主權的認定，是立法和行政部門的事。）
Plaintiffs ask the Court to interpret General Order No. 1, which was issued by General MacArthur as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers-not by the Executive Branch of the United States Government. They acknowledge that the treaty actually negotiated and signed by the United States, the SFPT, only recognized that Japan had ceded sovereignty over Taiwan and did not address post-war sovereignty over Taiwan. "Interpreting" the SFPT, therefore, is of no assistance in this matter and the Court is without standards or boundaries to guide it in "interpreting" General Order No. 1.
原告要求本院解釋《一般命令第一號》；但是該命令是盟軍最高統帥麥克阿瑟發的，不是美國行政部門。原告認為，美國參與會議並簽字的《舊金山條約》只承認日本割讓對台主權，並沒有指定戰後台灣的主權屬誰。因此，解釋《舊金山條約》對本案也沒有幫助，而且本院也不具法源與權限去解釋《一般命令第一號》。
2009年4月7日美國聯邦上訴法院宣判，根據判決書引言部分，有如下記載。
America and China's tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory. During this time the people on Taiwan have lived without any uniformly recognized government. In practical terms, this means they have uncertain status in the world community which infects the population's day-to-day lives.
美國與中國過去60年間爭吵不休之關係，讓台灣住民（the inhabitants of Taiwan）陷入政治煉獄中。在此期間，台灣人民（the people on Taiwan）生活在無普遍承認的政府統治之下；以實務角度言之，他們在國際社會中並無確定的地位（uncertain status），已影響到這些人的日常生活。
In 1949, China’s civil war—a battle between Chinese nationalists and communists—ended; mainland China fell to the communists and became the People’s Republic of China ("P.R.C."), forcing Chiang Kai-shek to flee to Taiwan and re-establish the Republic of China ("R.O.C.") in exile.
1949年，中國內戰——一場國共戰爭——結束，中國大陸落入共產黨的手中成為(P.R.C.)中華人民共和國，蔣介石的部隊逃往台灣且重建流亡的(R.O.C)中華民國。
The SFPT does not declare which government exercises sovereignty over Taiwan. It does generally identify the United States as "the principal occupying Power," but does not indicate over what. Id. at art. 23(a).
《舊金山和約》並未聲明哪一個政府對台灣行使主權，它一般地做了確認美國是「主要佔領國」，但並未指示美國對台灣行使主權。[翻譯僅供參考]
2009年10月5日，美國最高法院官方網站公布否決了林志昇控美案。
No. 09-33
Title: Roger C. S. Lin, et al., Petitioners 
v. 
United States
Docketed: July 8, 2009 
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
Case Nos.: (08-5078) 
Decision Date: April 7, 2009
Date            Proceedings  and  Orders
Jul 6 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 7, 2009)
  
Aug 3 2009 Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
  
Aug 5 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2009.

Oct 5 2009 Petition DENIED.