參考文獻

美國承認中華人民共和國（政府）是中國唯一的合法政府，但對於中國的「只有一個中國，且台灣是中國的一部份」的立場只有認知。因為美國對後面這個議題並無採取立場，因此本部門認為列名為「台灣」或「中國」所傳達的訊息與總統的承認政策一致－－各該選項涉及的是地理描述，並非主張台灣是身為主權國家的中國的一部份。

“The United States recognizes the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government of China, but it merely acknowledges the Chinese position that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China. J.A. 154. Because the United States does not take a position on the latter issue, the Department concluded that listing either “Taiwan” or “China” would convey a message consistent with the President’s recognition policy—either option involves a geographic description, not an assertion that Taiwan is or is not part of sovereign China. ”

http://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/zivotofsky-v-kerry-brief-merits

涵義：美國僅「認知」但未承認中華人民共和國「台灣是中國的一部分」的立場。

只要一個中國不會被理解成台灣是中國的一部分，本人對此就完全沒有意見。

“so long as one China is not understood to mean that Taiwan is part of China, then I have no problem with it at all.”

Two Congressmen Look at "One China", HERIrAGE FOUND., Feb. 6, 2004

涵義：美國的一個中國政策不包括「台灣是中國的一部分」

六大保證：在與中華人民共和國往來時，美國不會：
1)設定對台軍售的終止日；2)就對台軍售諮詢中國；3)在中華人民共和國與台灣之間扮演居中斡旋的腳色；4)修改台灣關係法；5)變更對台灣主權的立場；或 6)對台北施壓使其與北京進行協商。

“Six Assurance: in dealing with the P.R.C. government, the United States would not: 1) set a date for termination of arms sales to Taiwan; 2) consult with China on arms sales to Taiwan; 3) play a mediation role between P.R.C. and Taiwan; 4) revise the Taiwan Relations Act; 5) change its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan; or 6) exert pressure on Taipei to enter into negotiations with Beijing.”

The "Six Assurances" to Taiwan (July 1982),

涵義：美國不會因為與中國往來而改變對台澎法理主權的立場

嗯，我並不想去推斷【中華人民共和國政府是否會要求我們將部隊撤出台灣】。我們已經將立場講得很清楚。本次投票不會影響我們的政策。

“Well, I don't want to speculate [about the P.R.C. government asking us to remove our troops from Taiwan]. We have made our position clear. Our policy is unaffected by this vote.”

Statements at Press Conference Discussing United Nations' Decision on Chinese Representation, in DEP'T ST. BULL., Dec. 1971, at 541.

涵義：美國在 2758 號決議案投贊成票不影響她對台澎主權的立場。

現在，基於中華民國軍隊代表戰勝的盟國接受投降的事實，我們認為中華民國在台灣及澎湖行使合法治理權限。

“Now, we regard the Republic of China as exercising legitimate authority over Taiwan and the Pescadores by virtue of the fact that ROC forces had accepted the surrender of Formosa on behalf of the victorious allies.”

https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/04/26/2003756348

涵義：中華民國代表盟軍接受投降是其治理台澎的合法依據

「自十七世紀中葉到 1895 年，福爾摩莎是中華帝國的一部分。在 1895 年，中國依據下關條約將福爾摩莎割讓給日本。於 1943 年 11 月，美國、英國及中國宣佈其滿洲、福爾摩莎及澎湖群島『應返還中華民國』是他們的『意圖』。蘇聯在1945.9.2的波茲坦宣言中，以及日本在其降伏文書中都接受該宣言所載項目。同盟國最高總司令之後發布了第一號指令，盟軍設在日本帝國的總部隨之發布一般命令第一號，要求在福爾摩莎的日本指揮官向中華民國的蔣介石總司令投降。從 1945 年 9 月開始，美國及其他同盟國接受中國對該島嶼進行治理。在1952.4.28生效的對日和約中，日本放棄對福爾摩莎一切『權利、權源與請求權』。此協議或其他之後任何協議都無意將福爾摩莎的主權移轉給中國。」

「依據福爾摩莎的歷史背景資料，顯示同盟國在開羅表示他們有意讓中國恢復對福爾摩莎的主權，且中華民國在戰爭結束時於台灣接受日本軍隊投降。其也指出日本於對日和約中放棄對福爾摩莎一切權利、權源與請求權。但在該和約及其他和約中，並未將福爾摩沙明確地割讓給中國。因此，其狀況是，同盟國仍必須對福爾摩沙的地位作成協議或條約才行。」

從前述國務院之官方聲明，顯示美國承認中華民國是中國的合法政府；中華民國的臨時首都從 1949 年 12 月已就在台灣(福爾摩莎)的台北；中華民國政府對該島嶼實施治理；福爾摩莎的主權尚未移轉到中國；且除非在之後簽署適當的條約，否則福爾摩莎並不是中國這個國家的一部分，至少還未成為其一部分。福爾摩莎可以說是由中華民國政府所佔領及治理的領地或地區，但並未被正式承認為中華民國的一部分。為避免作出此等承認，國務院的表達方式極為注意且細心。

“'Since the middle of the 17th century and up to 1895 Formosa was a part of the Chinese Empire. In 1895 under the Treaty of Shimonoseki China ceded Formosa to Japan. In the Cairo conference in November 1943 the United States, United Kingdom, and China declared it was their 'purpose' that Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores 'shall be restored to the Republic of China'. Thereafter in August 1945 in the Potsdam conference the United States, United Kingdom, and China declared that 'the terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out.' This Potsdam declaration was subsequently adhered to by the U.S.S.R. On September 2, 1945, the Japanese Government, in the instrument of surrender, accepted the provisions of the declaration. The Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied Powers then issued Directive No. 1 under which the Japanese Imperial Headquarters issued General Order No. 1 requiring Japanese commanders in Formosa to surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China. Since September 1945 the United States and the other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island. 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.' (Emphasis supplied.)

'In giving the historical background of Formosa it has been pointed out that at Cairo the Allies stated it was their purpose to restore Formosa to Chinese sovereignty and at the end of the war the Republic of China received the surrender of Japanese forces in Formosa. It has also been pointed out that under the Japanese Peace Treaty Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Formosa. However, neither in that treaty nor in any other treaty has there been any definitive cession to China of Formosa. The situation is, then, one where the Allied Powers still have to come to some agreement or treaty with respect to the status of Formosa.' (Emphasis supplied.)

From the foregoing official pronouncements of the Department of State, it appears that the United States recognizes the Government of the Republic of China as the legal government of China; that the provisional capital of the Republic of China has been at Taipei, Taiwan (Formosa) since December 1949; that the Government of the Republic of China exercises authority over the island; that the sovereignty of Formosa has not been transferred to China; and that Formosa is not a part of China as a country, at least not as yet, and not until and unless appropriate treaties are hereafter entered into. 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. Expressions of the State Department are drawn with care and circumspection to refrain from such recognition.”

District Court District of Columbia

涵義：台澎主權並未移轉給中華民國

在 1945 年，中華民國被委託治理（福爾摩莎與澎湖群島），

“[i]n 1945, [t]he Republic of China was entrusted with authority over (Formosa and the Pescadores), ”

Our Foreign Policies in Asia, DEP'T ST. BULL., Feb. 1955 at 329

涵義：中華民國是受委託治理台澎。

參議院批准本條約並不會強化或弱化蔣政府對於國際地位尚未決定之福爾摩莎的主權主張。

“Senate approval of the Treaty would neither strengthen nor weaken the Chiang Governmen's [sic] claim to sovereignty over Formosa, the international status of which is yet to be decided.”

Senate Approves Formosa Treaty, N.Y. TIMEs, Feb. 10, 1955

涵義：中美共同防禦條約不影響「台澎主權未定」的法理狀態。

蔣【介石】將軍僅被要求為同盟國及相關國家管理它們（福爾摩莎及澎湖群島），等待關於其所有權的最終決定。

“General Chiang [Kai-shek] was merely asked to administer them (Formosa and the Pescadores) for the Allied and associated powers pending a final decision as to their ownership.'”

New Formosa Bid, N.Y. Times, Feb. 7, 1955, at Al

涵義：蔣介石（中華民國）是依同盟國的要求管理台澎。

艾森豪政府「並未將福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的主權視為已定，且【共同防禦條約】並不會將這些島嶼的主權交給蔣介石」。

“the Eisenhower administration "does not regard the sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores as . . . settled and the [Mutual Defense T]reaty would not give General Chiang sovereignty over these islands."”

New Formosa Bid, N.Y. Times, Feb. 7, 1955, at Al

涵義：「台澎主權未定」是美國立場，中美共同防禦條約沒有移轉主權的效力。

邱吉爾說：開羅福爾摩莎宣言已經過時

“Cairo Formosa Declaration Out of Date, Says Churchill”

N.Y. Times, Feb. 2, 1955, at Al.

涵義：依現實狀況開羅宣言已無法適用。

台灣與澎湖的主權並沒有在對日和約中移轉給中華民國。對這些島嶼的主權問題尚未作出最終決定。

“sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores was not considered to have been transferred to the Republic of China in the Japanese Peace Treaty and that the question of sovereignty over these islands was not yet finally determined.”

Roderick MacFarquhar, Sino-American Relations, 1949-71 (New Abbot: David & Charles, 1972), 112-13

涵義：台澎主權並未在舊金山和約移轉給中華民國

【嚴】格按法律來說，福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的主權從未確定過。這是因為對日和約僅涉及讓日本放棄對這些島嶼的權利與（主權）權源。但對日和約並未決定其未來的（主權）權源，這在中華民國與日本訂定的和約中也沒有決定。因此，這些島嶼（福爾摩莎與澎湖群島）的法律地位和始終是中國領土的離岸島嶼（金門與馬祖）的法律地位是不同的。

“[T]echnical sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores has never been settled. That is because the Japanese peace treaty merely involves a renunciation by Japan of its right and title to these islands. But the future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan. Therefore, the juridical status of these islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, is different from the juridical status of the offshore islands [Quemoy and Matsu] which have always been Chinese territory.”

Remarks at News Conference on the Purpose of Treaty with R.O.C. (Dec. 1, 1954), in DEP'T ST. BULL., Dec. 1954, at 896.

涵義：舊金山和約與台北和約都未決定台澎主權歸屬。台澎法理地位與金馬不同。

對日和約並未決定其未來的（主權）權源，這在中華民國與日本訂定的和約中也沒有決定。

“[T]he future title is not determined by the Japanese peace treaty, nor is it determined by the peace treaty which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan.”

DEP'T ST. BULL., Dec. 1954, at 896.

涵義：舊金山和約與台北和約都未決定台澎主權歸屬。

【第】2 條...僅限定日本主權的界線。確切指明每一塊日本前領土的最終處置...會是比較好的。但...同盟國為日本被要求放棄的部份該怎麼處理爭執不休......。明智的做法是...在將來透過此條約之外的國際解決方法來處理這些疑問。

“[A]rticle 2 . . . merely delimit[s] Japanese sovereignty. [S]pecify[ing] precisely the ultimate disposition of each of the ex-Japanese territories... [w] ould have been neater. But ... the Allies quarrel about what shall be done with what Japan is... required to give up .... The wise course was...leaving the future to resolve doubts by invoking international solvents other than this Treaty.”

Statements at the Second Plenary Session, DEP'T ST. BULL., Sept. 1951, at 458.

涵義：由於對處理方式無法達成共識，故將此問題留到日後處理。

美國政府並不認為和約應採納「日本在1945年8月9日接受波茨坦宣言已使日本正式或終局放棄該宣言所處理之地區的主權」這種論點。

“The United States Government does not feel that the Treaty should adopt the theory that Japan's acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 9, 1945 constituted a formal or final renunciation of sovereignty by Japan over the areas dealt with in the Declaration.”

Rusk note of August 10, 1951

涵義：日本接受波茨坦宣言不構成對宣言所處理之地區主權的正式、終局放棄。

同盟國將福爾摩莎的治理及託管工作交給中國，一如日本被交給我們，而且現在仍處於那樣的狀態下。

“[t]he Allies turned over ... the administration and the trusteeship of Formosa to China, just as Japan was turned over to us, and it is still in that status.”

General MacArthur's Statement, N.Y. Times, May 5, 1951, at A7

涵義：中華民國是在同盟國的委託下治理台澎。

就嚴格法律文義而言【福爾摩莎】仍是戰敗日本的一部分。大日本帝國各領土區塊的處置尚未正式決定。

“Legalistically [Formosa] is still a part of defeated Japan. The disposition of the various segments of the Empire ofJapan has not yet been formally determined.”

General MacArthur's Statement, N.Y. Times, May 5, 1951, at A7

涵義：台澎主權在 1951 年仍屬於日本。

有特定的協議...在雅爾達及其他地方作成，但就嚴格法律文義而言，福爾摩莎仍是大日本帝國的一部分。

“[t]here were certain agreements that were entered into . . . at Yalta, and other places, but legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan”

General MacArthur's Statement, N.Y. Times, May 5, 1951, at A7

涵義：縱然有關於移轉台澎主權的協議，台澎主權此時仍屬於日本。

美只承認國民政府，故無意邀中共商談。至臺灣則按開羅宣言紀錄應交還中華民國。但同時曾面告英國大使，以國民政府堅持台灣為中國領土之一部份，與中共主張相同，均已認為中國內部問題，今若明文交還，則美派第七艦隊保障台灣，將失卻根據，而徒使中共與蘇聯對美更加干涉之譴責，故在此階段，美不得不將台灣問題留為懸案，俾易應付。

“美只承認國民政府，故無意邀中共商談。至臺灣則按開羅宣言紀錄應交還中華民國。但同時曾面告英國大使，以國民政府堅持台灣為中國領土之一部份，與中共主張相同，均已認為中國內部問題，今若明文交還，則美派第七艦隊保障台灣，將失卻根據，而徒使中共與蘇聯對美更加干涉之譴責，故在此階段，美不得不將台灣問題留為懸案，俾易應付。”

中華民國外交問題研究會《金山合約與中日和約的關係》臺北市：中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會，1966年8月，頁6

涵義：國民政府堅持台灣為中國領土之一部份，與中共主張相同，均已認為中國內部問題，今若明文交還，則美派第七艦隊保障台灣將失卻根據。

1943 年的開羅宣言提到將「滿洲地區、福爾摩莎及澎湖還給中華民國」。依據美國政府的看法，該份宣言，就和雅爾達及波茲坦等戰時宣言一樣，必須受到將所有相關因素皆納入考量後作成的任何最終和平條約的限制。美國無法接受「其他所有未出席開羅會議的同盟國的意見應全部忽略」這個顯然是由蘇聯政府提出的看法。此外，美國認為宣言（例如在開羅發布的宣言）有必要依據聯合國憲章進行考量。會員國依該憲章所負的義務應優先於其他任何國際協議。

“The Cairo Declaration of 1943 stated the purpose to restore "Manchuria. Formosa and the Pescadores to the Republic of China." That Declaration, like other wartime declarations such as those of Yalta and Potsdam, was in the opinion of the United States Government subject to any final peace settlement where all relevant factors should be considered. The United States cannot accept the view, apparently put forward by the Soviet government, that the views of other Allies not represented at Cairo must be wholly ignored. Also, the United States believes that declarations such as that issued at Cairo must necessarily be considered in the light of the United Nations Charter, the obligations of which prevail over any other international agreement.”

DocuMENTs ON INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 1949-1950, at 622-23 (M. Carl)le ed. 1953); 3 ,VHrIEMAN DiGEsT, supra note 2, at 511-12 (1964).

涵義：思考層面較完整的和平條約的效力應優於戰時宣言。聯合國憲章之效力優先於戰時宣言。

顧：關於台灣等領土問題，我認為只須日本依照波茨坦宣言投降條件，聲明放棄對該項領土等一切主權，由協約國自行處理，無須日本個別追認撥歸何國。

杜：此亦是美之主張。但台灣問題或仍須先由聯合國討論，且杜魯門、艾德禮會議之公告，亦曾提及此點。否則美之派艦保臺之舉，似無根據。同時為應付聯合國內主張臺灣應歸中共之若干會員國起見，亦不得不將該問題留在聯合國議程上。

“顧：關於台灣等領土問題，我認為只須日本依照波茨坦宣言投降條件，聲明放棄對該項領土等一切主權，由協約國自行處理，無須日本個別追認撥歸何國。

杜：此亦是美之主張。但台灣問題或仍須先由聯合國討論，且杜魯門、艾德禮會議之公告，亦曾提及此點。否則美之派艦保臺之舉，似無根據。同時為應付聯合國內主張臺灣應歸中共之若干會員國起見，亦不得不將該問題留在聯合國議程上。”

中華民國外交問題研究會《金山合約與中日和約的關係》臺北市：中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會，1966年8月，頁11

涵義：台灣問題仍須先由聯合國討論，否則美之派艦保臺之舉，似無根據。

凍結台灣島地位，即是維持中國國民政府地位。故深盼貴國代表不在聯合國會議席上積極反對美國對台立場。如貴國政府為表明貴國立場，而聲明台灣為貴國領土，美可瞭解。但如貴國在會議席上堅決反對美國對台立場，力與爭辯，未免增加美國困難，使美不能貫澈保持台灣，維持貴國政府國際地位之宗旨。蓋如美亦認台灣已純為中國領土，不特貴國政府代表權問題即須解決，而美之派遣第七艦隊保臺，及自取領導地位，出為主持此案，亦將失卻根據。

“凍結台灣島地位，即是維持中國國民政府地位。故深盼貴國代表不在聯合國會議席上積極反對美國對台立場。如貴國政府為表明貴國立場，而聲明台灣為貴國領土，美可瞭解。但如貴國在會議席上堅決反對美國對台立場，力與爭辯，未免增加美國困難，使美不能貫澈保持台灣，維持貴國政府國際地位之宗旨。蓋如美亦認台灣已純為中國領土，不特貴國政府代表權問題即須解決，而美之派遣第七艦隊保臺，及自取領導地位，出為主持此案，亦將失卻根據。”

中華民國外交問題研究會《金山合約與中日和約的關係》臺北市：中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會，1966年8月，頁6

涵義：如美亦認台灣已純為中國領土，派遣第七艦隊保臺將失卻根據。

美國認為...福爾摩莎及居住於該處的近八百萬住民的未來應該依據聯合國憲章以和平方式解決。

“The United States believes ... that the future of Formosa and of the nearly 8 million people inhabited there should be settled by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. ”

Memorandum from the Office of Legal Advisor, Dep't of State, to the Director of the Office of Republic of China Affairs (July 13, 1971)

涵義：台澎法理歸屬問題應依聯合國憲章和平解決。

開羅宣言...聲明福爾摩莎應返還給中國。該宣言也聲明...應該讓韓國自由、獨立。在大多數和福爾摩莎有關的討論中，我們都被人提醒福爾摩莎是該宣言中的內容，但中國和俄國都忘了該宣言中關於韓國的部份。當然，在未來的和約中，開羅宣言會是重要的思考因素。但未來的和約是未來的事。

“The Cairo Declaration .. .declares that Formosa should be returned to China. It also declares ... that Korea should be free and independent. In most of the discussions that we have about Formosa, we are reminded about the Formosan part of the Declaration, and both the Chinese and the Russians forget about the Korean part of the Declaration. Surely, the Declaration of Cairo is an important factor to be taken into consideration in the future settlement. But the future settlement is for the future.”

Foreign Policies Toward Asia, A Television Interview with Sec'y Acheson (Sept. 10, 1950), in DEP'T ST. BULL., Sept. 1950,

涵義：中蘇違反開羅宣言中關於韓國的聲明，使中蘇提出主張的立足點發生動搖。

該島嶼的實際地位是盟軍在太平洋地區勝利後取自日本的領土。和其他這類領土一樣，其法律地位在決定其未來的國際行動發生之前無法定案。中國政府是被同盟國要求到該島嶼接受日本軍隊投降。這是中國目前在那裡的原因。

“The actual status of the island is that it is territory taken from Japan by the victory of the Allied Forces in the Pacific. Like other such territories, its legal status cannot be fixed until there is international action to determine its future. The Chinese Government was asked by the Allies to take the surrender of the Japanese forces on the island. That is the reason the Chinese are there now.”

Letter from Ambassador Austin to Sec'y-Gen. Lie, Aug. 25, 1950, DEP'T ST.

涵義：台澎法理地位尚未決定，中國只是到台澎受降。

美國歡迎聯合國關切福爾摩莎一案。我方會允許聯合國在此或在當地進行完整的調查。我方相信聯合國的關切將對該問題的和平，而非強制解決，帶來貢獻。

“The United States would welcome United Nations consideration of the case of Formosa. We would approve full United Nations investigation here or on the spot.' We believe that United Nations consideration would contribute to a peaceful, rather than a forceable [sic] solution of that problem.”

Position on the Formosan Question, Letter to U.N. Sec'y-Gen., Trygve Lie (Aug. 25, 1950), in DEP'T ST. BULL., Sept. 1950, at 411.

涵義：美國贊同聯合國介入台澎法理歸屬問題。

【共產主義者】攻擊韓國讓狀況變得很清楚...共產主義的行為已經從造成國家覆滅升級到征服獨立【國】家，且現在將要開始訴諸武裝侵略及戰爭...共產主義勢力佔領福爾摩莎將成為對太平洋地區，及在該地區發揮合法、必要功能的【美國】軍隊之安全的直接威脅。

“The [Communists'] attack upon Korea makes it plain ...that communism has passed beyond the use of subversion to conquer independent [N]ations and will now use armed invasion and war .... [T] he occupation of Formosa by Communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to [U.S.] forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.”

Statement on Korea, N.Y. Times, June 28, 1950, at Al.

涵義：台灣落入共產主義者手中不利於太平洋地區及美國在當地軍隊的安全。

藉由將在日本投降後經營福爾摩沙的任務指派給中華民國政府，身為同盟國領導者的美國建立了一個「以同盟國為本人，中華民國政府為代理人」的代理關係，以待日後簽訂和平條約。

“by assigning the task of the post-surrender operation of Formosa to the R.O.C. government, the United States, as the leading power of the Allies, created an agency relationship between the Allied Powers as the principal and the R.O.C. government as the agent, pending a peace settlement. ”

Statement on Korea, N.Y. Times, June 28, 1950, at Al.

涵義：中華民國政府是以同盟國代理人的身分到台澎受降及管理台澎。

福爾摩沙未來的地位必需等太平洋地區恢復安全，依與日本簽訂的和平條約或經聯合國考量後決定。

“[t]he determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”

Statement on Korea, N.Y. Times, June 28, 1950, at Al.

涵義：台澎法理地位在 1950 年尚未確定。

【依】循【開羅宣言及波茲坦宣言】，福爾摩莎被交給蔣介石總司令，且在過去四年裡，美國及其他同盟國接受中國在該島嶼行使管理權。

“[i]n keeping with the [Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation], Formosa was surrendered to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and for the past four years the United States and the other allied powers have accepted the exercise of Chinese authority over the island.”

Text of Statement on Formosa, N.Y. Times, Jan. 6, 1950, at A3

涵義：會讓中華民國到台澎受降及管理台澎是基於開羅宣言及波茲坦宣言所表達之意向。

中國人已經治理福爾摩莎四年...[該]當局進行的此項佔領行為...被視為依該承諾進行。

“The Chinese have administered Formosa for four years .... [The] authority in that occupation ... was regarded as in accordance with the commitments.”

540 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 1865.

涵義：會讓中華民國到台澎進行軍事佔領是基於開羅宣言所表達之意向。

是的。Caradon 爵士 11 月 28 日就我們在聯合國大會中對中國代表權議題的投票內容進行說明時，指出了我們對福爾摩莎地位的立場。其陳述複本可在圖書館找到。我們仍維持「福爾摩沙島的主權未定」的觀點。

“Yes. Our position on the status of Formosa was outlined on 28th November by my noble Friend Lord Caradon in his explanation of our vote in the General Assembly of the United Nations on the question of Chinese representation in that organisation. A copy of his statement is in the Library. It remains our view that sovereignty over the island of Formosa is undetermined.”

HC Deb 19 December 1966 vol 738 cc185-6W

涵義：英國認為台灣島主權未定。

我政府認為聯合國裡中國的席次應由中華人民共和國的代表取得。至於福爾摩莎，我們的觀點是該島嶼的主權未定。

“Her Majesty's Government believe that the China seat in the United Nations should be occupied by representatives of the Chinese People's Republic. As for Formosa, it is our view that sovereignty over this island is undetermined.”

HC Deb 23 June 1966 vol 730 c130W

涵義：英國認為台灣島主權未定。

台灣島的主權尚未決定。因此，就我們的觀點，「誰應該在聯合國代表福爾摩莎」這個問題的答案也尚未決定。我對這份實質決議稿所投的贊成票並不會改變吾國政府對這一點的立場。

“Sovereignty over the island of Formosa is undetermined. It therefore follows, in our view, that the question of who should represent Formosa in the United Nations is also undetermined. The vote which I shall cast in favour of the substantive draft resolution does not prejudice the position of my Government on this point.”

21 U.N. GAOR, U.N. Doc. A/PV.1481, at 9 (1966).

涵義：英國認為台澎主權未定，且英國在聯合國投票的內容並不影響其立場。

依據國際法，國家並不能以片面宣布的方式取回先前依條約割讓的領土主權。因此，中（華民）國不能，也沒有因為在 1941 年片面廢除此（馬關）條約而取回這些領土的主權。

“according to International Law, a State cannot merely by unilateral declaration regain rights of sovereignty which it has formally ceded by Treaty. China therefore could not, and did not, regain sovereign rights over these territories by the unilateral denunciation of this Treaty in 1941.”

HL Deb 13 November 1958 vol 212 cc497-9

涵義：中華民國無法藉由片面廢除馬關條約取回台澎主權

開羅宣言...是以意向聲明書的形式表達，而因為那只是一份意向聲明書，其拘束力僅及於表達當時的意向...

“[t]he Cairo Declaration .. .was couched in the form of a statement of intention, and as it was merely a statement of intention, it is merely binding in so far as it states the intent at that time ...”

540 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 1869.

涵義：開羅宣言只是意向聲明書。

開羅宣言...本身無法移轉主權。該文件確實對參與者施加了特定的道德義務。但該宣言和眼前關於「誰是，誰不是目前擁有福爾摩莎主權的國家」的法律論證並沒有密切關係。

“Cairo Declaration ... cannot by itself transfer sovereignty. That document does impose certain moral obligations on those who take part in it, but it is not really germane to the present legal argument on what is or is not today the present sovereignty over Formosa.”

540 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 1870

涵義：開羅宣言無法移轉主權，僅產生道德義務。

將蔣介石放在那裏（台灣）的安排是讓他到那裏負責為同盟國全體進行軍事占領，等待與日本簽署的和約。或如果和約未對福爾摩沙的地位作出最終處置（實際上沒有），則等待對福爾摩沙的最終處置－這也尚未發生。這項安排並不會讓台澎成為中國的領土。

“The arrangements made with Chiang Kai-shek put him there on a basis of military occupancy, responsible to the whole body of the Allies, pending a peace treaty with Japan or, if the status of Formosa was not finally settled by that treaty (which it
was not), then pending an eventual settlement about Formosa—which has not yet taken place. The arrangements did not of themselves constitute the territory Chinese. ”

CAB 129/73/38; Former Reference: C (55) 38

涵義：蔣介石在台灣是負責為同盟國全體進行軍事占領，等待最終處置。這項安排並不會讓台澎成為中國的領土。

此宣言是一份指出福爾摩莎應在戰後返還中國的意向聲明書。而返還從未發生...

“This Declaration was a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war. This retrocession has, in fact, never taken place...”

HC Deb 04 February 1955 vol 536 cc159-60W

涵義：開羅宣言是未實現的意向聲明書。

從【開羅宣言】作成之後發生了很多事情。福爾摩莎問題已經成為和其他一些國家有緊密關聯的國際問題。

“since [the Cairo Declaration] was made a lot of things have happened. The problem of Formosa has become an international problem in which a number of other [N] ations are closely concerned."”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 901.

涵義：台澎主權歸屬問題已無法依開羅宣言解決。

其中僅包含一份共同意圖的聲明。

“[i]t contained merely a statement of common purpose.”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 901

涵義：開羅宣言只是意向聲明書。

由中國軍隊從日本手中取走...【但】這並不是領土割讓，其本身也不涉及任何主權變更。

“taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces .... [B] ut this was not a cession, nor did it in itself involve any change of sovereignty."”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) 159 (1955).

涵義：中華民國不因佔領台澎取得台澎主權。

中國軍隊依據同盟國總司令的指示從日本手中取得福爾摩莎的治理工作。對蔣介石所做的安排讓他到那裡進行軍事佔領以等待進一步安排，這項安排本身並不會使該領土變成中國的。

“[T]he administration of Formosa was taken over from the Japanese by Chinese forces at the direction of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. The arrangements made with Chiang Kai-shek put him there on a basis of military occupation pending further arrangements, and did not of themselves constitute the territory Chinese.”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 159

涵義：中華民國是依同盟國指示治理台澎，其不因佔領台澎取得台澎主權。

在 1943 年 11 月的開羅宣言中，同盟國指出「所有日本從中國竊取的領土如...福爾摩莎及澎湖群島，應返還中華民國」是他們的意圖。這份宣言是一份意向書，指出福爾摩莎應在戰後歸還中國。而其歸還，實際上，從未發生過...

“In the Cairo Declaration of November, 1943, the Allies stated that it was their purpose 'that all the territories which Japan has stolen from the Chinese such as ... Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China... ' This Declaration was a statement of intention that Formosa should be retroceded to China after the war. This retrocession has, in fact, never taken place ...”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 159.

涵義：開羅宣言只是未實現的意向聲明書。

福爾摩莎的主權到 1952 為止屬於日本。對日和約後來生效，當時福爾摩莎正被中國的國民黨政府軍事佔領，福爾摩莎是在 1945 年委託該政府治理......這項軍事佔領並不能給予【中國的國民黨政府】法律上主權。

“Formosa['s] sovereignty was Japanese until 1952. The Japanese Treaty entered into force, and at that time Formosa was being administered by the Chinese Nationalists, to whom it was entrusted in 1945, as a military occupation .... This military occupancy could not give [the Chinese Nationalists] legal sovereignty.”

540 PARa. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 1871

涵義：台澎主權在 1952 年以前屬於日本，中華民國不因佔領台澎取得台澎主權。

【福爾摩莎及澎湖群島】從日本在 1945 年投降開始就在中國的國民黨政府手中....【福爾摩莎和離岸島嶼金門與馬祖】始終被當成不同的議題處理....。福爾摩莎在本世紀從未成為中國的一部分，而福爾摩莎的地位...則是依據【Atlee】政府所簽署的舊金山和約處理...離岸島嶼【金門與馬祖】過去始終被我們視為，而現在也被我們視為中國的一部分。貴院應小心區別。

“[Formosa and the Pescadores] have been in Chinese Nationalist hands ever since the Japanese surrender in 1945....[Formosa and the offshore islands Quemoy and Matsu] have always been treated as separate issues .... Formosa has never in this century been a part of China and the status of Formosa ... was dealt with by the Treaty of San Francisco, signed by the [Atlee] Government .... The offshore islands [Quemoy and Matsu] have always been .regarded, and are now regarded, by us as part of China .... [The] distinction which...the House should carefully maintain.”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 158, 160.

涵義：台澎從 1945 年開始被中華民國佔領。台澎的法理地位依舊金山和約處理，金馬則是中國的一部分。

依據 1952 年 4 月（生效的）和約，日本正式放棄對福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的一切權利、權源與請求權；但再一次地，這並沒有產生移轉主權給中國的效力，不論是中華人民共和國或是中國的國民黨政府當局。因此，就吾國政府的觀點，福爾摩莎及澎湖是法理主權不確定或尚未決定的領土。

“[u]nder the Peace Treaty of April, 1952, Japan formally renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores; but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the People's Republic of China or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities. Formosa and the Pescadores are therefore, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, territory the de jure sovereignty over which is uncertain or undermined.”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 159.

涵義：日本於舊金山和約放棄台澎主權並未產生移轉主權給任一中國政府的效力。台澎法理主權未定。

從 Mr. Dulles 簽署和約時所說的話可以清楚知道，就其立場的法律詮釋而言，其立場與我們的立場並沒有衝突。

“It is clear from what Mr. Dulles said at the time of signing of the Treaty that he was in no conflict with us on the legal interpretation of the position.”

540 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1955) 1865, 1870-71.

涵義：美國與英國都認為台澎法理主權未定。

蔣介石...在共產革命中被逐出自己的國家...他逃到福爾摩莎避難，到現在（1954 年）還在那裡。

“Chiang Kai-shek who . . . was driven out of his country by a Communist revolution . . . and who took refuge upon Formosa, where he still remains [in 1954].”

530 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1954) 494.

涵義：蔣介石是為了逃難才到台澎。

我也看不到有任何理由使福爾摩莎不該在之後的某一天交給聯合國照管。

“Nor do I see any reason why at some subsequent date Formosa should not be ... placed in the custody of the United Nations.”

530 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1954) 494.

涵義：台澎主權歸屬問題可交由聯合國處理。

福爾摩莎的未來應交由聯合國決定，而非訴諸武力。

“the future of Formosa should be settled by the United Nations and not by force of arms.”

496 PARE. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1952) 1027.

涵義：台澎主權之歸屬應由聯合國決定。

聯合國憲章第 73 條...很清楚地指出，對於從敵國分離並依託管章節處置的領土...其原則是，這些領土的住民的利益是最重要的。

“Article 73 of the United Nations Charter ... lays it down clearly that territories detached from enemy States come under the trusteeship section where . . . 'the principle is laid down that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount.”

496 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1952) 1027.

涵義：住民的利益是處理分離領土時的最高原則。

開羅宣言也宣告了讓韓國依正當方式達成自由與獨立的意向。宣言也明白接受兩大原則：無侵略及無領土野心...【Atlee】首相【於 1950 年 12 月 14 日】進一步說，在中國以行動展現她不會阻礙開羅宣言中關於韓國部份的實現，並接受該宣言的基本原則之前，將很難為該【福爾摩莎】問題找到滿意的解決方案。

“The Cairo Declaration also proclaimed the intention that Korea should in due course become free and independent. It also expressed acceptance of two principles: non-aggression and no territorial ambitions .... [T]he Prime Minister [Atlee] went on to remark [on December 14, 1950] that until China shows by her action that she is not obstructing fulfilment [sic] of the Cairo Declaration in respect of Korea and accepts the basic principle of that Declaration, it will be difficult to reach a satisfactory solution of this problem [of Formosa]”

478 PARL. DEB., H.C.'(5th ser.) (1951) 2301-02.

涵義：在中國遵守開羅宣言內的原則前，無法接受中國要求取得台澎主權的要求。

福爾摩莎問題現在已經成為一個國際問題。

“the problem of Formosa has now become an international problem.”

487 PARE. DEB. H.C., (5th ser.) (1951) 2302.

涵義：台澎法理歸屬問題是國際問題。

就吾國政府的觀點，【福爾摩莎問題】是一個可以在適當時刻有效地交由聯合國考量的問題。

“In the view of His Majesty's Government, [the problem of Formosa] is a question which could usefully be considered by the United Nations at the appropriate time. ”

487 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1951) 2302.

涵義：台澎主權歸屬問題可交由聯合國處理。

我認為「將福爾摩莎住民的願望納入考量」顯然是值得做的。

“I think it is clearly desirable that the wishes of the inhabitants of Formosa should be taken into account.”

487 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1951) 2302.

涵義：應考量台澎住民的意見。

該條約也約定日本放棄對福爾摩莎及澎湖群島的主權。該條約本身並未決定這些島嶼的未來。福爾摩莎的未來在開羅宣言中有提到，但該宣言也包含關於韓國的條款，以及無侵略、無領土野心的基本原則。在中國以行動展現它接受這些條款與原則之前，將難以在福爾摩莎問題上達成最終協議。必須循正當方式尋找解決方案，並遵循聯合國憲章的宗旨與原則。不過，在此時延後與日本講和是錯誤。因此，我們作成的結論是，在日本和平條約之中，福爾摩莎的適當處理方式，是在和約中僅規定日本放棄主權。

“The treaty also provides for Japan to renounce its sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores Islands. The treaty itself does not determine the future of these islands. The future of Formosa was referred to in the Cairo Declaration but that declaration also contained provisions in respect to Korea together with the basic principles of non-aggression and no territorial ambitions. Until China shows by her action that she accepts those provisions and principles, it will be difficult to reach a final settlement of the problem of Formosa. In due course a solution must be found, in accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. In the meantime, however, it would be wrong to postpone making peace with Japan. We therefore came to the conclusion that the proper treatment of Formosa in the context of the Japanese peace treaty was for the treaty to provide only for renunciation of Japanese sovereignty.”

CONFERENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURE OF THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS (Dep't of State Pub. 4392, 1951) at 93

涵義：舊金山和約未決定台澎主權。開羅宣言之適用受韓戰影響發生障礙。未及早正式結束與日本的交戰關係，僅要求日本放棄台澎主權。

吾國政府的主要目標，是協助為福爾摩莎問題找到一個廣被接受且和平的解決方案....我們自然應該善用每一個在聯合國裡提出解決方案的機會。

“The main aim of His Majesty's Government is to help in securing a generally acceptable and peaceful solution of the Formosan problem .... Naturally we shall take advantage of any opportunity which may arise within the United Nations to bring about a solution.”

478 PARE. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1950) 174.

涵義：若有機會應將台澎法理歸屬問題交聯合國處理。

福爾摩沙仍舊是日本的法理上領土，而且並沒有福爾摩沙政府存在。在日本投降後，當時的中國政府（中華民國政府）在其餘同盟國同意之下，接下該領土的暫時性治理工作，以等待之後簽訂和平條約對該領土的地位作成最終決定。

“Formosa is still de jure Japanese territory and there is no Government of Formosa as such. Following on the surrender of Japan, the Chinese Government of the day assumed, with the consent of the remaining Allies, the provisional administration of the territory pending the final determination of its status at a peace settlement.”

478 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1950) 60.

涵義：台澎仍為日本法理上領土，中華民國政府只是暫時治理台澎。

由於福爾摩莎當前治理的性質是暫時性的，吾國政府希望福爾摩沙的處置能如過去一再思議的，與日本的和平條約一併決定。

“because of the provisional nature of the present administration of Formosa, it is the hope of His Majesty's Government that the disposal of Formosa will be decided, as has always been contemplated, in connection with the peace settlement, with Japan.”

478 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) (1950) 60.

涵義：英國建議在舊金山和約中徹底處理台澎法理歸屬問題。

國民政府當局...目前正控制該島嶼（福爾摩莎）。但福爾摩莎法理地位的任何變動，只能透過和日本簽署的和平條約才能正式生效。

“the Chinese Nationalist authorities . . . are in control of the island [Formosa. However, any] change in the legal status of Formosa can only be formally effected in a treaty of peace with Japan.”

469 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th ser.) 1679 (1949).

涵義：中華民國不因佔領台澎取得台澎主權。

單方宣言無法影響福爾摩莎的法理地位

“[u] nilateral declarations could not affect the legal status of Formosa”

536 PARL. DEB., H.C. (5th Ser.) (1955) 216.

涵義：中華民國無法因其片面宣告取得台澎主權。

目前【美國】的條約草稿及美國 5 月 19 日提出的備忘錄證明，美國政府拒絕履行開羅協議中和將台灣島及澎湖群島返還給中國的部分，以及將中國排除在對日和約準備工作之外的作法，直接違反了中國對其領土具有的國家權利。

“In the meantime the [U.S.] draft treaty and the memorandum of the United States of America of May 19 testify to the fact that the Government of the United States is going on with direct violation of the national rights of China with respect to its territory in refusing to fulfilling the Cairo agreement regarding the return of Taiwan island and the Pescadores Islands to China as well as with exclusion of China from preparation of a peace treaty with Japan.”

Memorandum of the U.S.S.R., (June 10, 1951)

涵義：美國所擬舊金山和約的內容及處理方式違反中共的利益。

法方確認，法國政府承認中華人民共和國政府為中國唯一合法政府，台灣為中國領土不可分割的一部分。

“La partie française a confirmé que le gouvernement français reconnaît le gouvernement de la République Populaire de Chine comme l'unique gouvernement légal de la Chine, et Taïwan comme une partie intégrante du territoire chinois.”

https://www.vie-publique.fr/discours/133004-communique-conjoint-franco-chinois-en-date-du-12-janvier-1994-sur-le-r

涵義：法國政府承認台灣是中國領土

在對日和約中，「福爾摩莎（台灣）從日本分離，但並未歸屬於任何國家」。所以，福爾摩莎未決定的狀態「必須在某一天決定，並將福爾摩莎居民的願望納入考量。」

“"Formosa (Taiwan) was detached from Japan, but it was not attached to anyone" under the Peace Treaty with Japan. Hence Formosa's undetermined status "must be decided one of these days, taking the wishes of the Formosa population into consideration."”

N.Y. Times, Apr. 24, 1964. at 4, col. 4. See also Editorial, Sell-Deterininalion for Taiwan, N.Y. Times, May 19, 1964, at 36, col. 2 (supporting Pompidou's statement).

涵義：台澎主權不屬於任何國家，未來決定時應考量住民想法。

印度政府認為在條約中規定福爾摩莎島應歸還中國是最重要的。其歸還的時間與方式可以另行協商。但在企圖對日本和所有交戰政府間的關係進行規範的文件中無視過去的國際協議，讓該島嶼的未來處於未定狀態，在印度政府眼中，既不恰當也非權宜之計。

“[T]he Government of India attach[es] the greatest importance to the Treaty providing that the Island of Formosa should be returned to China. The time and manner of such return might be the subject of separate negotiations but to leave the future of the Island undetermined, in spite of past international agreements, in a document which attempts to regulate the relations ofJapan with all Governments that were engaged in the last war against her does not appear to the Government of India to be either just or expedient.”

India Refuses To Be Party to Treaty, Memorandum of India

涵義：印度政府認為舊金山和約未將台澎主權移轉給中國。

吾國政府相信此項省略背後的原因，是要提供依聯合國憲章處理此問題的機會，並將自決 (self-determination) 原則及這些領土的住民表達的要求納入考量。

“My government trusts that the reason behind this omission is to afford the opportunity to deal with this question in accordance with the United Nations Charter, taking into consideration the principle of self-determination and the expressed desire of the inhabitants of these territories.”

CONFERENCE FOR THE CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURE OF THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS (Dep't of State Pub. 4392, 1951) at 93

涵義：埃及政府認為舊金山和約未決定台澎主權歸屬，此問題之後可依聯合國憲章解決。

事實上，這兩個地方正由我們控制，無疑構成我們領土的一部分。然而微妙的國際形勢使得它們不屬於我們．在現行情況下，日本沒有權利把台灣和澎湖群島轉移給我們，即使日本有意如此，我們也不能接受……。

“In fact, we are controlling them now, and undoubtedly they constitute a part of our territories. However, the delicate international situation makes it that they do not belong to us. Under present circumstances, Japan has no right to transfer Formosa and the Pescadores to us; nor can we accept such a transfer from Japan even if she so wishes…”

Despatch No.31 from the American Embassy in Taipei to the Department of State, July 23, 1952, Enclosure 2, at p.2.

涵義：臺澎主權不屬於中華民國，日本亦無權將臺澎主權移轉給中華民國。

在舊金山和約中「沒有條款約定將【這些島嶼】返還給中國。由於這些領土之前是我們所擁有，目前在我們的控制之下，且日本已經在台北和約中指出它已經在舊金山和約中這些領土。所以這些領土已經事實上還給我們。

“under the San Francisco Peace Treaty “no provision was made for the return [of these islands] to China. Inasmuch as these territories were originally owned by us and as they are now under our control and, furthermore, Japan has renounced in the Sino–Japanese peace treaty these territories under the San Francisco Treaty of Peace, they are, therefore, in fact restored to us.”

Despatch No.31 from the American Embassy in Taipei to the Department of State, July 23, 1952, Enclosure 2, at p.1.

涵義：舊金山和約並未將臺澎返還給中華民國，而中華民國自認為事實上控制臺澎等於臺澎已經返還給中華民國。

中日和約對於日本前所占我之領土，因格於金山和約之規定，除規定由日本予以放棄外，並未明定其歸還我國。

“中日和約對於日本前所占我之領土，因格於金山和約之規定，除規定由日本予以放棄外，並未明定其歸還我國。”

中華民國外交問題研究會《中華民國對日和約》臺北市：中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會，1966年9月，頁348

涵義：中日和約未明訂臺澎歸還中華民國。

惟在法律上因金山和約及中日和約均未明定台灣、澎湖之歸屬，故有此項補充規定之必要。

“惟在法律上因金山和約及中日和約均未明定台灣、澎湖之歸屬，故有此項補充規定之必要。”

中華民國外交問題研究會《中華民國對日和約》臺北市：中國國民黨中央委員會黨史委員會，1966年9月，頁349

涵義：中日和約未明訂臺澎歸還中華民國。

台灣原本是海外蠻夷島嶼，與中國不親近。從鄭成功驅逐外國人之後才開始開闢，台灣併入大清版圖時只有三個縣。到康熙末年，台灣本島中間以北仍是蠻夷的土地。

“…台灣本海外島夷，不賓中國。自鄭氏驅逐狉獉始闢，入籍時止三縣；半線以北，康熙之末，猶番土也”

《東槎紀略》〈埔里社紀略〉

涵義：到十九世紀初期大清帝國治理的也只有台灣西部彰化以南地區

台灣自古不屬於中國。

“台灣自古不隸中國。”

〈平定台灣述略〉

涵義：

台灣自古與中國並未相通連，到清朝才第一次被納入版圖。

“台灣自古不通中國，本（清）朝始入版圖”

《皇清職貢圖》（卷三）

涵義：臺灣到清朝才納入中國版圖

台灣自 1683 年（正式統領是 1684）始納入大清帝國版圖，長久以來因海洋千里阻隔，掌地理輿圖等職務的官員未曾細加記錄，致使清治初期缺乏信實的文獻足以參考。

“臺灣自康熙癸亥始入版圖，重洋絕島，職方不紀，初無文獻足以攷信。”

《臺海使槎錄》

涵義：台灣自 1683 年始納入清帝國版圖

台灣遠在東海之外，從原始的太古時代到現在，沒聽說透過通譯，派遣使者來中國朝貢的。

“臺灣遠在東海外，自洪荒迄今，未聞與中國通一譯之貢者。”

《裨海紀遊》

涵義：台灣從古到今（1697）都沒有向中國朝貢過。

台灣原本是化外之地，居住著許多本土番人，並未納入大清帝國版圖。

“台灣一地，原屬化外，土番雜處，未入版圖…”

恭陳台灣棄留疏

涵義：台灣原本並未納入大清帝國版圖

（台灣）這個地方自古以來就未被納入版圖。今天台灣人既然歸屬於大清帝國，就是需要教化的子民。

“…此地自天地開闢以來，未入版圖；今人民既歸天朝，均屬赤子。”

《靖海紀事》〈壤地初闢疏〉

涵義：台灣這個地方自古以來就未被納入版圖。

自從你們父子在台灣舉兵以來，朝廷數次向你們招撫，都無結果，這都是由於地方官員執意要你們薙髮結辮、登岸請降，結果都談不攏。台灣本來就不是中國領土，你們父子自行前往開闢…

“自海上用兵以來，朝廷屢下招撫之令，而議終不成，皆由封疆諸臣執泥削髮登岸，彼此齟齬。台灣本非中國版籍，足下父子自闢荊榛…”

平南將軍貝子賴答致鄭經諭文

涵義：台灣本來就不是中國領土

倭寇所盤據的台灣確實不是中國領土，但若受此侷限，以遠洋為藉口而不出兵進剿，則倭寇永遠無消滅之時。

“賊之所據，誠非版圖。如必局守信地而以遠洋藉口，則賊亦終無殄滅之期。”

《閩海贈言》〈舟師客問〉

涵義：台灣確實不是中國（大明帝國）領土

明朝永樂皇帝時，鄭和下南洋，所到之處各國都爭先恐後向他奉獻金銀珠寶，只有台灣避而不來奉獻，鄭和很生氣，就送給台灣的住民每家一個銅鈴，讓他們掛在脖子上，把他們比擬為狗國。

“永樂時鄭和遍歷東西洋，靡不獻琛恐後，獨東番遠避不至，和惡之，家貽一銅鈴，俾挂諸項，蓋擬之狗國也。”

《明史》〈外國傳〉「雞籠山」

涵義：臺灣被大明帝國視為外國，番地

東北是朝鮮國。正東偏北是日本國。正南偏東是大琉球國（今天的琉球）、小琉球國（台灣）。

“東北，朝鮮國。正東偏北，日本國。正南偏東，大琉球國、小琉球國。”

1368-00-00

涵義：台灣與朝鮮、日本、琉球國一樣是不屬於大明帝國的地方。

海外各國都向中國納貢稱臣，唯獨這個靠近福建的台灣，不曾來歸附。

“海外諸蕃，罔不臣屬，惟王留求邇閩境，未曾歸附”

《元史》〈外夷傳〉「王留求傳」

涵義：大元將台灣稱為王留求，且未納入版圖。

東寧王國在海外，其所在地（台灣）並不屬於大清帝國領土。王侯的貴重財物是屬於我們自己的，衣服帽飾的華麗美觀不輸中國...

“東寧遠在海外，非居版圖之中，王侯之貴，吾自所有，衣冠之盛，不輸中土…”

覆滿清官員孔元彰函

涵義：東寧王國所在地（台灣）並非大清帝國領土

剛開始，南方各地國人加入陳棱軍隊。其中有人懂流求地方語言，所以派人前往要求臣服，流求人不從並抵抗隋國官軍。陳棱將軍將其擊敗，並進攻到首都，每次交戰都把對方打敗。隨軍焚燒宮殿、擄走上千人，載滿戰利品後班師回朝。之後就沒有往來。

“初，棱將南方諸國人從軍，有昆侖人頗解其語，遣人慰諭之，流求不從，拒逆官軍。棱擊走之，進至其都，頻戰皆敗，焚其宮室，虜其男女數千人，載軍實而還。自爾遂絕。”

《隋書》〈東夷列傳〉「流求國」

涵義：隋國將台灣認定為外國。