The US Court of Appeals in Washington on Wednesday ruled in favor of the US government in a lawsuit that argues the US is Taiwan’s principal occupying power based on the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) and enjoys sovereign authority.
Reaffirming that the court does not deal with political matters, the judges said the question was inconclusive.
“Addressing [the] Appellants’ claims would require identification of Taiwan’s sovereign. The Executive Branch has deliberately remained silent on this issue and we cannot intrude on its decision,” the judges said. “Therefore, as the district court correctly concluded, consideration of Appellants’ claims is barred by the political question doctrine.”
In December 2006, Roger Lin (林志昇) and other Taiwanese expatriates took their case to US courts, arguing that Japan relinquished control over Taiwan and Penghu after World War II but did not return it to China.
The group asked the US court system to determine what rights Taiwanese have based on the treaty and the US Constitution, including whether they should be issued US passports.
Lin said the treaty did not address sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu, meaning the US was still the principal occupying power.
The lawsuit began at Washington’s district court, where Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in favor of the US government, arguing that courts do not deal with political matters.
Despite the latest setback, Lin and former Judicial Yuan vice president Cheng Chung-mo (城仲模), who is the representative plaintiff, called the ruling encouraging.
“This is a breakthrough for the court to retain its ruling on Taiwanese people’s status as stateless,” Cheng said.
The judgment said the people of Taiwan “have uncertain status in the world community.”
“America and China’s tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory,” the judges said. “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.”
But they added: “Determining Appellants’ nationality would require us to trespass into a controversial area of U.S. foreign policy in order to resolve a question the Executive Branch intentionally left unanswered for over sixty years: who exercises sovereignty over Taiwan. This we cannot do.”
The “political question doctrine bars consideration of Appellants’ claims,” the judges said.
“Appellants may even be correct; careful analysis of the SFPT might lead us to conclude the United States has temporary sovereignty. But we will never know, because the political question doctrine forbids us from commencing that analysis. We do not dictate to the Executive what governments serve as the supreme political authorities of foreign lands,” the ruling said.
The judges said that then-US president Jimmy Carter’s switch of diplomatic recognition in 1979 from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China prompted the US’ Taiwan Relation Act, which lays out the US’ “unofficial relationship with ‘the people of Taiwan.’”
Cheng said the group would appeal to the Supreme Court, hoping the court could hold a public hearing on the case.
Cheng expressed optimism that the court would hear the case.
Lin said the status of 32 postwar occupied areas including Guam, Puerto Rico and other places had been resolved by the Supreme Court and he was confident about winning the case.
SEPARATE: The MAC rebutted Beijing’s claim that Taiwan is China’s province, asserting that UN Resolution 2758 neither mentions Taiwan nor grants the PRC authority over it The “status quo” of democratic Taiwan and autocratic China not belonging to each other has long been recognized by the international community, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said yesterday in its rebuttal of Beijing’s claim that Taiwan can only be represented in the UN as “Taiwan, Province of China.” Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) yesterday at a news conference of the third session at the 14th National People’s Congress said that Taiwan can only be referred to as “Taiwan, Province of China” at the UN. Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory, which is not only history but
NATIONAL SECURITY: The Chinese influencer shared multiple videos on social media in which she claimed Taiwan is a part of China and supported its annexation Freedom of speech does not allow comments by Chinese residents in Taiwan that compromise national security or social stability, the nation’s top officials said yesterday, after the National Immigration Agency (NIA) revoked the residency permit of a Chinese influencer who published videos advocating China annexing Taiwan by force. Taiwan welcomes all foreigners to settle here and make families so long as they “love the land and people of Taiwan,” Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) told lawmakers during a plenary session at the Legislative Yuan in Taipei. The public power of the government must be asserted when necessary and the Ministry of
CROSSED A LINE: While entertainers working in China have made pro-China statements before, this time it seriously affected the nation’s security and interests, a source said The Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) late on Saturday night condemned the comments of Taiwanese entertainers who reposted Chinese statements denigrating Taiwan’s sovereignty. The nation’s cross-strait affairs authority issued the statement after several Taiwanese entertainers, including Patty Hou (侯佩岑), Ouyang Nana (歐陽娜娜) and Michelle Chen (陳妍希), on Friday and Saturday shared on their respective Sina Weibo (微博) accounts a post by state broadcaster China Central Television. The post showed an image of a map of Taiwan along with the five stars of the Chinese flag, and the message: “Taiwan is never a country. It never was and never will be.” The post followed remarks
Proposed amendments would forbid the use of all personal electronic devices during school hours in high schools and below, starting from the next school year in August, the Ministry of Education said on Monday. The Regulations on the Use of Mobile Devices at Educational Facilities up to High Schools (高級中等以下學校校園行動載具使用原則) state that mobile devices — defined as mobile phones, laptops, tablets, smartwatches or other wearables — should be turned off at school. The changes would stipulate that use of such devices during class is forbidden, and the devices should be handed to a teacher or the school for safekeeping. The amendments also say