Fw: [問卦] 有沒有在佔領地建立新國家是不合法的
※ [本文轉錄自 Gossiping 看板 #1M4J1nGQ ]
作者: saveme (hihi) 看板: Gossiping
標題: [問卦] 有沒有在佔領地建立新國家是不合法的八卦
時間: Sun Oct 4 21:58:02 2015
靠邀哩!
那台灣在美國的軍事占領下喊獨立不就變成白癡?
http://www.oceantaiwan.com/eyereach/20050414.htm
358. Occupation Does Not Transfer Sovereignty
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.
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.)
358. 佔領並不移轉主權
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。
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)
_________________________________________________________________
PS:根據SFPT第23條a美國是主要佔領權國,
SFPT第4條b美國軍事政府可以處置台灣,
美國雖然沒有在台灣正式名稱出來叫做軍事政府,
但是透過台灣關係法第15條指定一個統治當局在台灣,
繼續維持在台灣軍事占領.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/341/case.html
Government," it was a government prescribed by an occupying power, and it
depended upon the continuing military occupancy of the territory.
雖然當地政府不再是一個"軍事政府",他是由一個佔領權國指定的一個政府,且他依此持續
軍事佔領該土地.
========中略========
See Article 43 of The Hague Regulations respecting the laws and customs of
war on land with special relation to military authority over the territory of
a hostile state (1907):
看1907年海牙第四公約附則的佔領法第43條:
"The authority of the legitimate power having, in fact, passed into the hands
of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to
restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while
respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country."
當原來具有正當性政府的權力，事實上交給佔領者手中時，除非被情況所制止，後者必須
盡全力恢復和保證該地區的公共秩序與安全，同時遵守該地區已生效的法律。
"Military government . . . is an exercise of sovereignty, and, as such,
dominates the country which is its theater in all the branches of
administration. Whether administered by officers of the army of the
belligerent or by civilians left in office or appointed by him for the
purpose, it is the government of and for all the inhabitants, native or
foreign, wholly superseding the local law and civil authority except insofar
as the same may be permitted by him to subsist. . . . The local laws and
ordinances may be left in force, and in general should be, subject however to
their being in whole or in part suspended and others substituted in their
stead -- in the discretion of the governing authority."
"軍事政府...是一個主權行使,且確切而言,支配是它自己戰區的國家所有政府分支的部門
.不管是由交戰軍隊的軍官管理或是由平民聽任於政府機關或是由他指定為了某種目的,他
是政府含有或為了所有的住民,本國或外國,完全地取代當地的法律和民政當局除了在同樣
的範圍內之外可能由它允許去繼續下去....當地法律和條例可能策略性的撤銷,通常應該
這麼做,然而主要是他們全部或部分被懸置且代替其他--在統治當局的處理權下."
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 110.30.68.213
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1443967089.A.41A.html
→
10/04 21:59, , 1F
10/04 21:59, 1F
→
10/04 21:59, , 2F
10/04 21:59, 2F
→
10/04 21:59, , 3F
10/04 21:59, 3F
推
10/04 21:59, , 4F
10/04 21:59, 4F
→
10/04 22:00, , 5F
10/04 22:00, 5F
→
10/04 22:00, , 6F
10/04 22:00, 6F
→
10/04 22:01, , 7F
10/04 22:01, 7F
→
10/04 22:02, , 8F
10/04 22:02, 8F
→
10/04 22:04, , 9F
10/04 22:04, 9F
推
10/04 22:10, , 10F
10/04 22:10, 10F
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
※ 轉錄者: saveme (110.30.68.213), 10/04/2015 22:27:51
推
10/05 00:09, , 11F
10/05 00:09, 11F
→
10/05 00:09, , 12F
10/05 00:09, 12F
推
10/05 00:14, , 13F
10/05 00:14, 13F
→
10/05 00:16, , 14F
10/05 00:16, 14F
→
10/05 00:16, , 15F
10/05 00:16, 15F
推
10/05 15:31, , 16F
10/05 15:31, 16F
佔領不會因和平條約而終止，這個是有判例的。
推
10/05 23:23, , 17F
10/05 23:23, 17F
→
10/05 23:25, , 18F
10/05 23:25, 18F
推
10/06 00:01, , 19F
10/06 00:01, 19F
你可以去參考這個判例,
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/164/case.html
Early in 1847, the President of the United States, as constitutional
commander-in-chief of the army and navy, authorized the military and naval
commanders of the United States forces in California to exercise the
belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil and military
government for the conquered territory, with power to impose duties on
imports and tonnage for the support of such government and of the army, which
had the conquest in possession.
在1847年美國總統是憲法上陸軍與海軍的統帥,經授權對美國陸軍與海軍軍隊的指揮官在
加州行使一個征服者交戰的權利,和在被征服的領土上形成一個民事與軍事政府,有權力在
被征服的領土上徵進口稅和船舶噸稅去支撐維持這樣的政府和軍隊的消費。
The formation of the civil government in California, when it was done, was
the lawful exercise of a belligerent right over a conquered territory. It was
the existing government when the territory was ceded to the United States as
a conquest, and did not cease as a matter of course or as a consequence of
the restoration of peace, and it was rightfully continued after peace was
made with Mexico until Congress legislated otherwise, under its
constitutional power, to dispose of and make all needful rules and
regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.
當加勒福尼亞平民政府組成完成時,是在被征服領土上行使交戰權力下有合乎法理的地位.
當這樣存在的政府在被割讓給美國且視為被征服的領土上時,
是不能被視為理所當然的停止運作或是在恢復和平之後的結果後被視為已經停止運作,
且除此之外,他是直到國會立法在與墨西哥簽署和平條約後扔然持續正當運作,
在這樣的憲法權力下,
去處理與做關於領土或是所有權屬於美國下所有必要的法律與規則.
The President might have dissolved it by withdrawing the army and navy
officers who administered it, but he did not do so. Congress could have put
an end to it, but that was not done. The right inference from the inaction of
both is that it was meant to be continued until it had been legislatively
changed.
總統可以中止它(佔領該地))藉由撤退管理它的陸軍與海軍軍官,但他沒有這麼做.國會可
以將它終結,但那樣並沒有被這麼做.這樣的權利從兩者的不作為推斷它意指持續到合法的
改變為止.
※ 編輯: saveme (39.12.29.111), 10/06/2015 21:03:31