1. What is the full name of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty?
A: In Chinese it is called中華民國與日本國間和平條約 (abbreviated: 中日和約) and in Japanese it is called日本國と中華民國との間の平和條約 (abbreviated: 日華條約). In English it is called the “Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan” (abbreviated here as “ROC-Japan Peace Treaty”).

2. When and where was the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty signed? When did it enter into force?
A: It was signed on 28 April 1952 by the governments of the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the Taipei Guest House, and entered into force on 5 August of the same year by the exchange of the instruments of ratification at the Taipei Guest House.

3. Who represented the government of the ROC in negotiating and signing the treaty?
A: Mr. Yeh Kung-chao, the ROC’s Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1949 to 1958, acted as plenipotentiary representative of the ROC in negotiations with the Japanese delegation headed by Mr. Isao Kawada. Mr. Yeh, who has a master’s degree in literature from Cambridge University in England, was a well-known scholar and diplomat in his time.

4. What are the key provisions of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty?
A: The ROC-Japan Peace Treaty has a total of 14 articles. The major purposes of the treaty are to:
(1) terminate the state of war between the two sides (acts of war actually came to an end on 15 August 1945, and Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender on 2 September, but the formality of a peace treaty was still needed to terminate the state of war); and

(2) settle the post-war relationship between the two sides (e.g. arrange for the handling of territorial claims, war reparations, and the disposition of property of each nation and its nationals in the other nation’s territory).

The key provisions of the peace treaty include the following:
(1) The state of war between the ROC and Japan is terminated. (Article 1)

(2) Under Article 2 of the San Francisco Treaty, Japan renounces all right to Taiwan, Penghu, the Spratly Islands, and the Paracel Islands. (Article 2)

(3) The disposition of the property and claims of each nation and its nationals against the other nation or its nationals are made the subject of special arrangements between the Government of the ROC and the Government of Japan. (Article 3)

(4) Japan recognizes that all treaties concluded with China before 1941 have become null and void as a consequence of the war. (Article 4)

(5) The treaty confirms that nationals of the ROC shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan and Penghu. (Article 10)

(6) Other: The treaty also contains provisions pertaining to economic and trade relations, air transport, and fishing. (Articles 7, 8, 9)

5. What is the relationship between the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty and Taiwan’s territorial sovereignty?
A: Japan on 15 August 1945 announced its unconditional surrender as per the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation signed by China, the United States, and Britain (the Soviet Union formally became a signatory on August 8 of that year), and on 2 September the same year signed the Instrument of Surrender on board the USS Missouri. In the Instrument of Surrender, Japan reiterated its pledge to abide by the Potsdam Proclamation, Clause 8 of which requires that the terms of the Cairo Declaration be carried out, and limits Japanese sovereignty to the four main islands of Japan. The Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943, meanwhile, specifically requires that after the war Japan must restore Manchuria, Formosa (Taiwan), and the Pescadores (Penghu) to the ROC. The ROC thus restored its territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu in accordance with the provisions of the three agreements and commitments. On 25 October 1945, the ROC government formally restored the sovereignty over Taiwan from the Japanese governor of Taiwan and has exercised its rule there ever since. Seven years later, the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952 once again reaffirmed, in the form of a peace treaty, the ROC’s territorial sovereignty over Taiwan.

6. What is the relationship between the ROC- Japan Peace Treaty and the San Francisco Treaty?
A: The Treaty of Peace with Japan, also known as the San Francisco Peace Treaty, was signed on 8 September 1951 at the San Francisco Peace Conference by Japan and 48 of the United Nations members in attendance at the Conference (the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia had walked out in protest). The treaty entered into force on 28 April 1952, formally ending the state of war between the Allies and Japan.

The ROC-Japan Peace Treaty and the San Francisco Peace Treaty are closely connected in the following ways:
(1) Article 2 of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty abides by the requirements of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and provides as follows: “It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands.”

(2) Article 4 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty sets out provisions governing handling of the property and claims, in areas relinquished by Japan, of Japan and its nationals, as well as handling of the property and claims in Japan of those areas and their nationals. Article 26 requires that Japan be prepared to conclude with any State which is at war with Japan, and which is not a signatory of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, a bilateral treaty of peace on the same or substantially the same terms as are provided for in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The ROC-Japan Peace Treaty is just such a bilateral treaty of peace signed in accordance with this provision of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

(3) Article 11 of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty provides as follows: “Unless otherwise provided for in the present Treaty and the documents supplementary thereto, any problem arising between the Republic of China and Japan as a result of the existence of a state of war shall be settled in accordance with the relevant provisions of the San Francisco Treaty.”

7. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, why did Japan only renounce all right to Taiwan and the Penghu islands, while stopping short of restoring them to the ROC?
A: Due to the extremely complicated international situation at that time, such as the Chinese civil war, the Korean War, etc., the parties came to the consensus that Japan would renounce its territorial claims in Article 2 without mentioning the nation to which any particular territory would be restored, and that the treaty would further empower any of the parties and Japan to enter into separate bilateral treaties to resolve territorial issues, including Taiwan, Penghu, the Kuril Islands, Sakhalin, the Antarctic Ocean, and the Spratly Islands. But signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty is beside the point; the restoration of Taiwan to ROC sovereignty took place on 25 October 1945, and the legal basis for it is the combination of Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. The ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952 is a formal reaffirmation of this transfer of sovereignty.

8. What are the specific provisions in the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty that show that Japan has restored territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC?
A: The preamble to the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty expressly states that the two parties to the treaty are “the Republic of China and Japan.” Article 3 provides that the disposition of the property and claims of each nation and its nationals against the other nation or its nationals “shall be the subject of special arrangements between the Government of the Republic of China and the Government of Japan.” Article 10 states that “...nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants of Taiwan and Penghu who are of [ROC] nationality.” The fact that this article regards the then 6 million inhabitants of Taiwan as having ROC nationality naturally signifies that Japan regarded Taiwan as belonging to the ROC, otherwise there would have been no such provision. It is thus apparent from the preamble and Articles 3 and 10 of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty that if Japan did not regard Taiwan as belonging to the ROC, then this provision would have been meaningless, and it could never have been implemented. It is therefore an established fact that sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu has been transferred to the ROC on 25 October 1945, and that the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty is a bilateral treaty between the ROC and Japan which confirms the termination of war between the two sides and establishes diplomatic relations and friendly ties between them. At the same time, it reaffirms the fact that sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu belongs to the ROC.

9. Where in the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty does it provide for friendly ties between the two countries in the future?
A: The ROC-Japan Peace Treaty provides that the Republic of China and Japan will endeavor to conclude, as soon as possible, treaties or agreements to govern trading, maritime, and other commercial relations (Article 7), civil air transport (Article 8), and the regulation or limitation of fishing and the conservation and development of fisheries on the high seas (Article 9). One example of such an agreement is the Pact Governing Trade Between the Republic of China and Japan, which was signed and entered into force on 13 June 1953.

10. Did Japan’s unilateral termination of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty in 1972 affect the status of Taiwan?
A: No, it did not. After Japan and mainland China established diplomatic relations in 1972, Japan’s Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira did unilaterally announce at a press conference that Japan was terminating the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952. However, such a move did not affect Taiwan’s legal status for two reasons.

First of all, the ROC government’s restoration of its territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu is based on the combination of the three war-time commit- ments –the 1943 Cairo Declaration, the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation, and the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender. All these agreements and commitments were executed on or before 25 October 1945 and Taiwan has been restored to the ROC ever since. Therefore, Taiwan’s status is, of course, unaffected by any action of Japan 27 years later.

Secondly, Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that “the termination of a treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present Convention ... does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.” The reaffirmation of the restoration of Taiwan and Penghu to ROC sovereignty under the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952 is exactly a case in point. As the Treaty entered into force on 5 August 1952 and has been legally executed ever since, the legal status of Taiwan is naturally unaffected. (The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is generally recognized by scholars of international law as customary international law, which is binding upon all nations in treaty-related matters.)

11. Just like the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty requires Japan to renounce all right to Taiwan (including sovereignty) without expressly mentioning that it is relinquishing its rights to the ROC. Does this imply that “the status of Taiwan has not been settled?”
A: No, the status of Taiwan has always been settled. Prior to May 8, 1895, the day when the Treaty of Shimonoseki entered into force and Taiwan was ceded to Japan , it was Chinese territory. Beginning on that date, it became Japanese territory. Fifty years later, Japan lost the war and surrendered unconditionally to the Allies, including ROC. On 25 October 1945, Taiwan’s sovereignty was restored to the Republic of China again. Before that day, it was Japanese territory; beginning on that day, it was ROC territory again. Therefore, Taiwan’s status has never been unsettled.

As stated above, the restoration of Taiwan and Penghu to ROC sovereignty was legally executed and entered into force once: (1) Japan declared its unconditional surrender on 15 August 1945 as per the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation; (2) Japan signed the Instrument of Surrender on 2 September 1945 and formally surrendered to the Allies; and (3) the ROC announced on 25 October 1945 that it was beginning to exercise sovereignty over Taiwan. In the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952, Japan reaffirmed, by means of a treaty, certain formal and legally binding agreements and commitments that it had already made during the war. In point of fact, sovereignty over Taiwan by that time had already been transferred to the ROC for almost seven years in accordance with the three legally binding agreements and commitments.

The view that Taiwan’s status is unsettled is therefore incorrect. Those who support that view only focus on Article 2 of the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty, where Japan does not expressly relinquish sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu to any particular country. They ignore the fact that Article 2 is simply a reiteration of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and that the San Francisco Peace Treaty requires Japan to adopt special arrangements with the appropriate country, and that the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty was concluded between Japan and ROC exactly on the basis of this provision in order to confirm the fact that sovereignty over Taiwan had already been transferred to the ROC in 1945. Japan already renounced all right to Taiwan and Penghu in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, so what need did it have to go to the further step of concluding a separate peace treaty with the ROC? Furthermore, the ROC had already exercised sovereignty over Taiwan for seven years by that time; restoring ROC citizenship to the local inhabitants, establishing local governments, and holding local elections were all sovereign acts, and no country raised any objection. Quite clearly, the objective of both the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951 and the ROC-Japan Peace Treaty of 1952 is to reaffirm by treaty that Taiwan's territorial sovereignty belongs to the ROC.