中華民國佔領台灣澎湖的非法性

中華民國佔領台灣澎湖的法律依據，來自於美日太平洋戰後，美國杜魯門總統簽署，在一九四五年九月二日，由美軍麥克阿瑟將軍發布的「一般命令第一號」，到台灣接受日軍投降。首先，美軍能發布命令要蔣介石到台灣，是依照一九零七年海牙第四公約第三篇和戰爭慣例法的規定，美國以武力征服日本和台灣（台灣是日本合法國土），兩國仍然處於形式上的交戰狀態。

在太平洋戰爭以前，停戰通常發生於停戰協定的締結（conclusion of armistice agreement），交戰國暫時中止敵對狀態的協議，包括局部性停戰（local armistice）和全面性停戰（general armistice）。海牙第四公約適用於敵方領土的佔領，一旦敵對狀態結束，則對敵方領土的佔領已失去其交戰性質，海牙第四公約第四十二條規定：「領土如實際被置於敵軍當局的權力之下，即被視為佔領的領土」，同時「佔領只適用於該當局建立和行使其權利的地域（美國稱為軍事政府）」。

一九二零年十一月二十四日義大利米蘭上訴法院依據一九一八年停戰協議有一項判決：「戰時占領並非基於佔領國對佔領區的主權，此點已成為今日國際社會普遍接受的觀念。除非經由和平條約或領土合併，否則不能完全廢止或修改征服國際的權利˙˙˙由停戰協定所造成之領土問題，應被視為一種暫時佔領來處理。」因此，在國際法上締結停戰協定並不意味戰爭狀態當然結束，國際法亦公認佔領未將佔領區的主權轉移至佔領者，此一轉移只有在簽署和平條約或經由征服而合併領土才能達成，交戰時占領具有「暫時性」與「不確定」的特性，佔領者不擁有佔領區之主權，以軍事政府「戰時管轄」佔領區，不得改變佔領區之基本制度，海牙第四公約嚴格規定佔領者必須尊重被佔領區現行法律。看來，中華民國或中華人民共和國欲「併吞」佔領區台灣的美夢已是池中月啦。

中華民國佔領台灣澎湖，與對所謂對敵方領土的「交戰期占領belligerent occupation」是不一樣。「交戰期占領」是指交戰國在戰爭期間，由交戰的一方入侵或佔領另一方領土的一部份或全部。美國本身佔領日本本土四島，是在日本無條件投降之情況，當然，中華民國也是在台灣（日本領土）無條件投降之下，主要佔領權國和次要佔領權國，分別以軍事力進行一種敵對狀態結束後的佔領，佔領後在締結和平條約之前，事實仍存在「不安定性」，縱使和平條約旨在終止敵對狀態，「不安定性」的因素仍然存在，這兩國對佔領地區屠殺（台灣一九四七年發生二二八屠殺精英事件）、對日本與台灣私有財產與國有財產之處理，有必要詳加深究。只要被佔領領土的最後處分尚未做「最終決定」，特別是「人道問題」「佔領區國籍問題」「效忠問題」等都充滿「不安定性」的誘因，所以海牙第四公約第三篇十五個條文（第四十二條至第五十六條）全面適用。

針對日本、日屬台灣一九四五年八月十五日宣布：「無條件投降」，無條件投降與全面停止戰爭法理上本質不同，同盟國當天通電日本要求立刻下令軍隊停止敵對狀態，授權美軍麥克阿瑟將軍接受日本政府投降書（instrument of surrender），由日本政府九月二日在東京灣美艦密蘇里號簽署。

探討「無條件投降」的法律本質，固然不是由被征服者所定義，因為不是「協商性結束敵對狀態」，而是一種「強制性結束敵對狀態」，無條件投降並非要對日本或台灣人民的毀滅。無條件投降（unconditional capitulation）在嚴格的軍事意義上已成為國際法的慣例，投降協定（capitulation）一般會明定投降條款或條件，但是投降（surrender）大部分是無條件的。要求日本無條件投降，是同盟國對日本戰爭的手段，意味在法律上承認日本在軍事上徹底戰敗，而且放棄恢復敵對狀態的情況，所以，日本這種無條件投降應只適用於軍隊。


首先，中華民國代替美軍執行佔領任務，探究其所依法源（. Sources）：

【一般命令第一號命令蔣氏來台灣的內容：】

a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

a. 位於中國(滿洲除外)、台灣及北緯十六度以北法屬印度支那之前日本國指揮官，以及該地駐屯之所有陸、海、空和後備部蔣介石委員長投降。

（一）戰爭國際法源於以下兩種主要法源：
The law of war is derived from two principal sources:

a.　具有法律效力之條約或公約，諸如〈海牙公約〉和〈日內瓦各項公約〉。

a. Lawmaking Treaties ( or Conventions ), such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

b.　習慣。
　
雖然美國所參與簽署之條約或公約，並不包括〈戰時國際法〉之全部內容，但此未成文或慣例法乃為眾多國家習慣所建立，同時也具有國際法所認可之權威。

b. Custom.

Although some of the law of war has not been incorporated in any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party, this body of unwritten or customary law is firmly established by the custom of nations and well defined by recognized authorities on international law.

（二）對美國而言，具有法律效力之條約可與經過美國國會立法的「國內法」具有相同效力，且〈戰爭慣例法〉可與〈盎格魯－美國不成文普通法〉具有相同效力。

Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the national law of the United States and the customary law of war with the unwritten Anglo-American common law.


（三）戰時國際法的效力
Force of the Law of War：

a.　條約技術效力與美國的立場。　

技術上說，每部規範戰爭行為而具法律效力之條約，與條件規範之範圍，僅對批准國或加入國，且未撤簽或廢止國有效。必要時，也僅對在提出保留意見範圍內而批准或加入條約的國家有效。除特別說明者外，本手冊以黑體字印刷之條文為引自美國已無條件批准之條約的款。

a. Technical Force of Treaties and Position of the United States. Technically, each of the lawmaking treaties regarding the conduct of warfare is, to the extent established by its terms, binding only between the States that have ratified or acceded to, and have not thereafter denounced ( withdrawn from ), the treaty or convention and is binding only to the extent permitted by the reservations, if any, that have accompanied such ratification or accession on either side. The treaty provisions quoted in this manual in bold-face type are contained in treaties which have been ratified without reservation, except as otherwise noted, by the United States.

『戰時國際法』條約之條款乃為「不成文法」一般原則中正式與個別適用的部份。條約成員國間應嚴正承擔的義務，亦應被視為代表現代輿論對國際法中交戰國與中立國應確切遵守的意見。

These treaty provisions are in large part but formal and specific applications of general principles of the unwritten law. While solemnly obligatory only as between the parties thereto, they may be said also to represent modern international public opinion as to how belligerents and neutrals should conduct themselves in the particulars indicated.

基於上述理由，引用的條約條款應被美國嚴格遵守和實施，而不考慮是否是此國家之義務。必要時，應明令軍事部隊長美國與任一相關國家不受此處所引用的明文規則之約束，不可暫時性的不遵守或不實施。

For these reasons, the treaty provisions quoted herein will be strictly observed and enforced by United States forces without regard to whether they are legally binding upon this country. Military commanders will be instructed which, if any, of the written rules herein quoted are not legally binding as between the United States and each of the States immediately concerned, and which, if any, for that reason are not for the time being to be observed or enforced.

b.　美國憲法下的條約效力。　

在美國「憲法」下，「條約」屬於國家的最高法律 ( 憲法第 4 條第 2 款 ) 。因此，〈戰時國際法〉相關條約的效力與國會透過的法律相等。其條款必須被軍事與文職人員給予「憲法」與「法規法律」的文字與精神同等嚴密程度的遵守。

b. Force of Treaties Under the Constitution.
Under the Constitution of the United States, treaties constitute part of the "supreme Law of the Land" ( art. VI, clause 2 ). In consequence, treaties relating to the law of war have a force equal to that of laws enacted by the Congress. Their provisions must be observed by both military and civilian personnel with the same strict regard for both the letter and spirit of the law which is required with respect to the Constitution and statutes enacted in pursuance thereof.

c.慣例法的效力。　

〈戰時國際法〉的「不成文法」或「慣例法」約束所有國家。除對因敵方當局之不合法行動而實施正當的報復之外，美國軍隊亦應遵守 ( 參照本彙編第 497 段 ) 。〈戰爭慣例法〉亦為美國法律的一部份，且在不抵觸美國所簽署的條約或對行政或立法部門有約束力的法案協議等範圍內，美國、美國公民，以及其他服務於國家的人員均應遵守之。

c. Force of Customary Law.
The unwritten or customary law of war is binding upon all nations. It will be strictly observed by United States forces, subject only to such exceptions as shall have been directed by competent authority by way of legitimate reprisals for illegal conduct of the enemy ( see par. 497 ). The customary law of war is part of the law of the United States and, insofar as it is not inconsistent with any treaty to which this country is a party or with a controlling executive or legislative act, is binding upon the United States, citizens of the United States, and other persons serving this country.

舊金山和平條約有關佔領問題條文：Article 6 【佔領結束】

a. All occupation forces of the Allied Powers shall be withdrawn from Japan as soon as possible after the coming into force of the present Treaty, and in any case not later than 90 days thereafter. Nothing in this provision shall, however, prevent the stationing or retention of foreign armed forces in Japanese territory under or in consequence of any bilateral or multilateral agreements which have been or may be made between one or more of the Allied Powers, on the one hand, and Japan on the other.

a. 自本條約生效之後，所有「聯盟國佔領軍」應儘速自日本撤出，此項撤軍不得晚於本條約生效後 90 日。若日本與聯盟國締結有關外國軍隊駐紮或保有於日本領土之雙邊或多邊協定者，不受本條規定所限。

【正確解析】：此條文規定《舊金山和約》生效後，所有「聯盟國佔領軍」應儘速自日本撤出，但因為根據第2條b.日本已放棄台灣、澎湖，所以此條文所提到的日本並不包括台灣、澎湖，因為，台灣、澎湖渋及「懸空割讓limbo cession」的政治問題，不能以「平時國際法」做為解釋台灣地位問題。

本文附註參考文件：
美國陸軍戰場手冊 ( Field Manual ) 彙編
FM 27-10　第一章 基本規則與原則
Section I. GENERAL 通則

1. Purpose and Scope 目的與範圍

The purpose of this Manual is to provide authoritative guidance to military personnel on the customary and treaty law applicable to the conduct of warfare on land and to relationships between belligerents and neutral States. Although certain of the legal principles set forth herein have application to warfare at sea and in the air as well as to hostilities on land, this Manual otherwise concerns itself with the rules peculiar to naval and aerial warfare only to the extent that such rules have some direct bearing on the activities of land forces.

本手冊之目的在提供交戰雙方與中立國軍事人員基於〈慣例法〉與〈條約〉，適用於海戰與空戰之戰爭行為威權性之指引。雖然，此處除陸戰之外的許\多原則也同樣適用於海戰與空戰，但本手冊並不特別處理海戰與空戰，只處理陸戰所涉及的相關議題。

This Manual is an official publication of the United States Army. However, those provisions of the Manual which are neither statutes nor the text of treaties to which the United States is a party should not be considered binding upon courts and tribunals applying the law of war. However, such provisions are of evidentiary value insofar as they bear upon questions of custom and practice.

本手冊為美國陸軍所正式出版的文件。但，本手冊的條款中若非美國法律或美國所參與簽署條約的條款內容，應不視為對法庭在適用戰時國際法時具有絕對的拘束力。但是，此條款具有習慣與實務上無上的價值。


FM 27-10　第六章 佔領
353. Subjugation or Conquest Distinguished 確實的平定或征服

Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.

對外戰爭中的交戰國佔領，基於佔有敵方領土，意味被佔領地的主權不授予佔領國。佔領本質上屬於暫時性質。

On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies.

另一方面，平定或征服也會導致主權的移轉，一般須以合併國土的形式且透過和平條約使之生效。當主權轉讓時，前述交戰國佔領當然停止，但佔領地通常繼續被軍事機構所治理一段時間。

358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty 佔領並不移轉主權

Being an incident of war, military occupation confers upon the invading force the means of exercising control for the period of occupation. It does not transfer the sovereignty to the occupant, but simply the authority or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty. The exercise of these. rights results from the established power of the occupant and from the necessity of maintaining law and order, indispensable both to the inhabitants and to the occupying force.

基於涉及戰爭事務，軍事佔領給予入侵軍隊在佔領期間執行控制領地的權力。但這並不移轉主權到佔領者手中，只是賦予此當局執行某些主權的權利。執行此類權利源自於原佔領者之建制權力，以及源自於維持法律與秩序、係對於當地住民和佔領國所不可或缺者。

It is therefore unlawful for a belligerent occupant to annex occupied territory or to create a new State therein while hostilities are still in progress. ( See GC, art. 47; par. 365 herein. )

是故交戰佔領國在戰鬥進行中兼併佔領地，或在那裡建立新國家是不合法的。 ( GC 第 47 條、本彙編第 365 段 )

359. Oath of Allegiance Forbidden 禁止效忠宣誓

It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. ( HR, art. 45. )

禁止強迫佔領地的住民去宣誓效忠敵對國 ( HR 第 45 條 ) 。

361. Termination of Occupation佔領的終止

The law of belligerent occupation generally ceases to be applicable under the conditions set forth in paragraphs 353 and 360. However, with respect to the provisions of GC alone, Article 6 of that Convention provides:

實務上，通常依據本彙編第 353 段與第 360 段中的條件規定交戰佔領在法律上的終止。但有關日內瓦戰時保護平民公約的條款與法第 6 條︰……

362. Necessity for Military Government 軍事政府的必要性

Military government is the form of administration by which an occupying power exercises governmental authority over occupied territory. The necessity for such government arises from the failure or inability of the legitimate government to exercise its functions on account of the military occupation, or the undesirability of allowing it to do so. ( See par. 12, which discusses military government, and par. 354, dealing with civil affairs administration. )

軍事政府是佔領軍對於佔領地區執行政府職權的管理當局型態。對於此種政府的必要性，是由於軍事佔領導而致原來當地合法政府已潰散或不能執行自己的職權，或狀況不允許\時佔領軍不欲其執行職權。 ( 請參見本彙編第 12 段論軍事政府，以及第 354 段處理民政治理的條文 )


「台灣平民政府」委員會召集人 林 志 昇

政治組顧問 何 瑞 元

2008/04/13