Packed courtroom greets judges in Taiwan treaty lawsuit

http://www.examiner.com/x-1969-Boston-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m2d...


February 5, 1:59 PM
by Michael Richardson, Boston Progressive Examiner



A standing room only crowd filled the courtroom in the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals where a three-judge panel heard arguments on interpretation of the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty that officially ended World War II with Japan.

The case, Roger C. S. Lin, et al v. United States seeks a declaration of rights under the peace treaty, which transferred the island of Formosa to United States military control. There is presently a three-way tug of war over the future of Taiwan, as the island is presently known.

Communist China wants "reunification" despite never controlling the prosperous island. Then there is the Republic of China, which the U.S. allowed to be a caretaker government-in-exile when the Communist revolution of 1949 swept mainland China, which wants to be independent. Finally, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and others are seeking recognition of U.S. territorial control under the 1952 treaty.

Attorney Charles Camp argued for the plaintiffs and was questioned by the three judges. Camp reports that the substantive issues of the case were well understood by the court.

"When the Government lawyer was asked whether any document had ever changed that provision of the treaty [regarding U.S. military occupation], the Government said no. When asked by one of the judges whether the Executive branch could unilaterally change the provision in the treaty making the U.S. the principal occupier of Taiwan, the Government lawyer hesitated and the judge then answered the question himself. He said the Executive branch cannot unilaterally change the language of a treaty."

At one point in the hearing, the Justice Department asserted the 1952 treaty was "irrelevant" leaving the judges stunned at the lack of a substantive response. One of the judges wondered if the U.S. was trying to "walk away" from its treaty obligations.

The main thrust of the government case was that it was a political decision and not a legal one. However, the Justice Dept. attorneys did not cite a single case that would deprive the Court of Appeals from interpreting rights under treaties.

A win by plaintiffs would put them in a similar situation with the residents of American Samoa where the island inhabitants are considered U.S. nationals but not citizens. Plaintiffs are seeking use of U.S. passports and other legal protections that would come with territorial status.

A judicial declaration of rights under the treaty would end the arms build-up and ease tensions between Taiwan and China. Last week the United States allowed Raytheon Corporation to sell $154 million worth of Patriot missiles to Taiwan. President Obama's new National Intelligence director Dennis Blair is expected to urge more missile sales if the unresolved status quo is maintained.

No date for a decision by the Court of Appeals has been announced.



有關台灣條約的審判，法庭被擠爆　■examiner.com（2009.02.05）雲程譯

在哥倫比亞特區的美國上訴法院的法庭內擠滿人僅容立足空間，三位法官的庭聽取兩造對於正式終止二次大戰的1952年〈舊金山和約〉之詮釋。

本案「林志昇等人控美國政府」（Roger C. S. Lin, et al v. United States）尋求在和約下的權利聲明，即將台灣移轉至美國軍事管轄下。目前，對台灣的前途有三種勢力在拉鋸。

共產中國無視於連一天都沒有控制過這個富饒島嶼的事實，而想要「統一」。至於中華民國，在1949年共產革命被逐出中國後，被美國允許作為代管的流亡政府，則想要獨立。最後，控方等人則在1952年的和約下要美國承認對台灣的領土管轄權。

控方律師Charles Camp申論並接受法官質問。Camp說本案的精髓已經為法庭所知悉。

「當政府的律師被問到，是否有任何文件曾經改變過前述（有關美國軍事佔領的）條約？政府律師回答並沒有。當一位法官問到，是否行政部門能片面改變美國作為「台灣主要佔領者」的條約條文？政府律師有所遲疑時，法官隨之替律師回答。他說行政部門不能改變條約用語（內容）。」

聽證中的一個論點是，美國司法部聲稱1952年的條約是「無關的」，法官震驚而楞了一會。一位法官質疑，是否美國企圖推卸其條約義務？

美國政府關鍵的主張是這是「政治決定」，並非「法律問題」。不過，司法部的律師未曾引述任何案件來說服法庭。

控方若勝訴，將使美屬薩模亞得以比照，成為美國國民而非公民。控方尋求依據領土的地位而應擁有美國護照，與其他法律保障。

基於條約的法律權利判決，將終止武裝且和緩台灣與中國的緊張。上週，美國允許出售雷神公司（Raytheon Corporation）價值1億5400萬美元的愛國者飛彈給台灣。歐巴馬總統新的國家情報首長Dennis Blair可能將促進更多飛彈的銷售，假使未解決的地位現狀仍然持續。

法庭並未宣布宣判的日期。