§ 3.5 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government: (1) whether China ceded Formosa to Japan by the Peace Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895; (2) whether, in formally proclaiming herself in a state of war with Japan on December 8, 1941, and at the same time declaring the abrogation of all treaties including the Treaty of Shimonoseki, she recovered her sovereign rights over Formosa; and (3) whether anything has since occurred, and, if so, what is its nature, to deprive her—from the point of view of International Law—of those sovereign rights.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, in answer to the first part of the Noble Viscount's Question: Formosa and the Pescadores were ceded to Japan by China in the Shimonoseki Treaty of 1895. In answer to the second part: 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. In view of this the third part of the Question does not arise.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I beg to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, on which of course it will be necessary to solve certain points of interpretation. Is the noble Marquess aware 498 that, as reported in The Times of January 6, 1950, Mr. Acheson, then Secretary of State, made it clear that, whatever sort of China was recognised, Formosa should be regarded as part of it, and that the United States was not going to alter its opinion on this subject merely because those in control in China were not friendly to the United States. Following that, is this not the view which has been consistently maintained by the United States Government, and, if it is not, then their Treaty with the Republic of China of December, 1954, would consequently be invalid.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I do not think it would be for me to interpret American ideas. But perhaps it might be helpful if I reminded the noble Viscount of a reply which has been given to a similar question in another place, to this effect: that under the Peace Treaty of 1952 Japan formally renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores. This, however, did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the Peoples' 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 of which is uncertain and undetermined.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess, but in view of the conflict of opinion between the United Kingdom and the United States on this particular matter, would he consider taking it for interpretation to the International Court of Justice?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMight I ask the noble Marquess whether the Formosan people have lost completely their sovereign rights?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I have done my best to answer a factual question. As all your Lordships are aware, this is a complicated and delicate matter, and I would appreciate it if your Lordships would put any further Questions down so that they might receive full consideration.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, might I ask the noble Marquess who has the sovereign right over the Island of Formosa?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I do not know whether the noble Viscount heard my suggestion; that was, that perhaps he would be kind enough to put the Question down.