Legal Status of Taiwan

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The legal question of which constitutional structure de jure the sovereignty over the island of Taiwan exercises, is controversial. Various legal claims are being made by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC) and supporters of an independent Taiwan on this issue, with a variety of arguments from all sides. The question has an important impact on Taiwan's political status and affects many aspects of international law . De facto, sovereignty over Taiwan is exercised by the Republic of China (widely known as "Taiwan").

Historical overview

Taiwan (Formosa) and the Pescadors were ceded to Imperial Japan on May 8, 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki by the Qing Dynasty ( China ) (Articles 2b and 2c of the treaty, which from the Chinese point of view is one of the unequal treaties ). Kinmen and Matsu on the Fujian coast , and the islands in the South China Sea currently controlled by the Republic of China in Taiwan were not part of the assignment . In an immediate response to the treaty, officials in Taiwan declared independence in hopes of returning the island to the rule of the Qing Dynasty. The Republic of Taiwan broke up after 12 days amid internal political squabbles, but local leaders continued to resist in hopes of independence. The incoming Japanese troops crushed the independence movement in a five-month operation. The Qing dynasty was subsequently overthrown and replaced by the Republic of China .

Chiang Kai-shek

With the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War , the government of the Republic of China declared the Treaty of Shimonoseki invalid in its declaration of war on Japan. The war shortly after the Second World War on. The United States of America entered the war in December 1941. Most of the military attacks on Japanese facilities and forces in Taiwan were carried out by the United States Armed Forces. At the Cairo Conference , the United States, the United Kingdom and the Republic of China agreed that Taiwan should be returned to the Republic of China after the war, and the Potsdam Declaration outlined the conditions for surrender . Japan was finally defeated in 1945 by the allies that made up the Republic of China. When Japan surrendered unconditionally, it accepted the conditions of the Potsdam Declaration in its declaration of surrender. Japanese forces in Taiwan were ordered to surrender to the representative of the highest allied commander in China, Chiang Kai-Shek (i.e. the Army of the Republic of China). This order was issued on September 2, 1945 by General Douglas MacArthur , the Allied Commander in Chief , as General Order No. 1 added. Governor Chen Yi soon proclaimed "Taiwan Retransfer Day" on October 25, 1945.

After the events of the February 28, 1947 incident , the US consulate in Taipei prepared a report that was completed in early March 1947 and called for immediate US or United Nations intervention . Based on the argument that the Japanese surrender had not formally transferred the sovereignty of Taiwan to the Republic of China, Taiwan was legally still part of Japan and was occupied by the USA (which had given the administration of the occupying power to nationalist China). With this status, such an intervention was appropriate. However, this approach was rejected by the US State Department. In a newspaper report after the "228 incidents" there were reports of some Taiwanese who wanted to turn to the United Nations to place the island under an international mandate, since at that time China's claim to the island was not formalized under any international treaty and therefore the island was still under an aggressive occupation. They later requested a seat as a representative in the upcoming peace conference with Japan, in the hope of a plebiscite to determine the island's political future.

On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China and established a communist state on the mainland.

After the outbreak of the Korean War , US President Harry S. Truman decided to "neutralize" Taiwan, claiming that the Taiwan question could spark a new world war. In June 1950, President Truman, who until then had only given passive support to Chiang Kai-Shek and was ready to let Taiwan fall into the hands of the Chinese communists, vowed to prevent the spread of communism and dispatched the 7th US Fleet into the Taiwan Straits to prevent an attack by the People's Republic of China on Taiwan, but also an attack by the Republic of China on mainland China. He stated that the "determination of the future status of Formosa must await a restoration of peace in the Pacific, a peace treaty with Japan or a resolution by the United Nations." President Truman later reiterated the position in his message to the United States Congress , " that all questions concerning Formosa must be settled by peaceful measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations . ”The People's Republic of China branded this procedure as“ monstrous interference in the internal affairs of China ”.

On September 8, 1950, President Truman ordered the then foreign affairs advisor to the US Secretary of State , John Foster Dulles , to implement the "neutralization" of the Taiwan question through the draft peace treaty with Japan of 1951. According to George H. Kerr's memoir Formosa Betrayed , Dulles designed one Plan according to which Japan should initially only surrender sovereignty over Taiwan without handing it over to another state. This was later to be decided together with the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the Republic of China on behalf of the other nations participating in the peace treaty. If these four parties cannot reach an agreement within a year, the Taiwan issue should be brought before the United Nations, of which the Republic of China was still a member.

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru signs the San Francisco Peace Treaty

When Japan regained full sovereignty with the 1952 Peace Treaty of San Francisco , it gave up all legal titles and claims over Taiwan and the pescadors. There are many voices that Japanese sovereignty only ended there. Noteworthy was the absence of the Republic of China, which was expelled from mainland China in the course of the Chinese civil war in December 1949 and moved to Taiwan, at the peace conference. The People's Republic of China, which was proclaimed on October 1, 1949, was also not invited. The lack of invitation probably resulted from the discussion of which government was the legitimate government of China (which both sides claimed to be); Considerations in the context of the Cold War might have also played a role. Some major governments attending the conference, such as the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, had already established relations with the People's Republic of China, while others, such as the US and Japan, still had relations with the Republic of China.

The United Kingdom was at that time on record that the Treaty of San Francisco "does not determine the future of these islands", and therefore the United Kingdom, along with Australia and New Zealand , are happy to sign this peace agreement. One of the main reasons given by the Delegate of the Soviet Union for not signing the treaty was: “This draft contains only a reference to the relinquishment of Japan's rights to these areas [Taiwan], but deliberately avoids any reference to the future fate of this area. "

Article 25 of the treaty officially stipulated that only the allies defined in the treaty could benefit from the treaty. China was not named as one of the allies, although Article 21 still granted limited benefits to China from Articles 10 and 14 (a) 2. Japan's relinquishment of Taiwan is unusual in the sense that no recipient of Taiwan's sovereignty was named in the sense of Dulle's "neutralization" of Taiwan. The Republic of China protested against the lack of an invitation to the San Francisco peace treaty, but without result.

The Taipei Treaty between the Republic of China and Japan was subsequently concluded (and came into force on August 5, 1952), in which Japan basically confirmed the terms of the Peace Treaty of San Francisco and formalized the peace between the Republic of China and Japan. It also canceled all previous treaties between China and Japan, including the Shimonoseki treaty. Article 10 of the treaty specified: “For the purpose of this present treaty, residents and previous residents of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (Pescadors) and their descendants shall be considered part of the population of the Republic of China, in accordance with the laws and regulations that from the Republic of China to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (Pescadors) to date or possibly in the future. "

However, after signing the treaty, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of China George Kung-ch'ao Yeh (葉公 超) told parliament that “the delicate international situation is responsible for the fact that Taiwan and the pescadors do not belong to us . In the current circumstances , Japan has no right to surrender Taiwan to us, nor can we accept that surrender by Japan even if it so wishes ”. In July 1971, the position of the US State Department was and is to this day: "As Taiwan and the Pescadors are not covered by any international treaty, sovereignty over this area is an open question awaiting a future international solution."

Legal arguments

Arguments for both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China's claims to Taiwan

Arguments that are used by both the Republic and the People's Republic ("Chinese" can refer to both states that consider themselves to be legitimate representatives of China)

  1. Taiwan had been part of Chinese territory since the time of the Qing Dynasty (1644–1911), which gave the island the status of a prefecture of Fujian Province in 1684 (partly documented by written documents).
  2. The war of aggression waged by Japan against China from 1937 was a violation of the peace obligation laid down in the Treaty of Shimonoseki . This violation made the treaty invalid ab initio , with the result that the transfer of sovereignty over Taiwan from China to Japan in the legal sense never took place. Thus Japan “stole” Taiwan from China when it took control of the island in 1895.
  3. When Japan surrendered at the end of World War II, it accepted the Cairo Declaration of December 1, 1943 and the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945. It clearly stated that China's sovereignty over Taiwan was to be restored after the Second World War.
  4. The assumption of sovereignty over Taiwan on October 25, 1945 (almost four years before the founding of the People's Republic) by the Republic of China remained unchallenged. Had a third party been legally sovereign over Taiwan, it would have had to file its claims. Since this has not happened for years, any existing rights would be barred by third parties and after the legal principle of adverse possession ( Preskription passed) to the Republic of China. The lack of any contradiction to Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan by non-Chinese governments to this day reinforces this argument.
  5. Since the San Francisco Peace Treaty was negotiated to the exclusion of the Chinese governments (both the Republic and the People's Republic), it is not binding on China. Moreover, since it has not been ratified by either the Republic or the People's Republic of China, it is irrelevant for sovereignty over Chinese territory.

Arguments for the Republic of China's Claim

  1. The structure in Taiwan meets the requirements of the so-called three-element theory (according to Jellinek and the Montevideo Convention of December 26, 1933), according to which a state requires a state territory, a state people and a state authority.
  2. The Republic of China has existed since its foundation in 1911, now on the greatly reduced national territory of the main island of Taiwan along with penghu, matzu, etc.
  3. The emergence and continuation of a state is a purely factual event (also circumscribed), so that declarations and treaties by third countries generally have no effect. The constitutional clause of the People's Republic (see 3. below) is therefore irrelevant.
  4. In terms of legal theory, recognition is purely declaratory. For this reason, collective non-recognition by third countries alone cannot negate the statehood of the Republic of China.
  5. The People's Republic of China has never actually exercised state power over the island of Taiwan.
  6. The only relevance of the San Francisco peace treaty to Taiwan was that it restored Japan's sovereignty. On the effective date, April 28, 1952, sovereign Japan could cede the island of Taiwan and the Penghu Archipelago to the recipient country, the Republic of China, as an equal state.
  7. The Taipei Treaty is the formal peace agreement between Japan and the Republic of China. In this, Japan once again recognized the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations. In addition, all previous contracts between Japan and China, including the Shimonoseki Treaty, will be annulled.
  8. According to the Uti possidetis principle , the Republic of China is legal sovereign over Taiwan as it clearly controlled the island when the 1952 Treaty of Taipei came into force.
  9. Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China says “The territory of the Republic of China” is defined “according to the existing national borders ...” . As a historical part of China, Taiwan is naturally included in it. Because of the invalidity of the Shimonoseki ab initio treaty, Taiwan has never ceased to be part of China. Therefore, there is no need for a new formal resolution by the National Assembly to reintegrate Taiwan into the Republic of China.
  10. After the Second World War, no state has challenged the sovereignty of the Republic of China over Taiwan except for the People's Republic of China, which were opponents of the civil war. This validates the Republic of China's claim to sovereignty.
  11. With the defense treaty signed with the Republic of China in 1955, the USA implicitly recognizes its sovereignty over Taiwan.
  12. A previously neglected factor in the discussion about Taiwan's membership of the Republic of China is that the Quemoy and Matsu archipelagos, which were not conquered by the People's Republic of China, have undisputedly belonged to its association of states since the founding of the Republic in 1911/12. If one should actually negate the above reasons for Taiwan's membership of the Republic of China, it must nevertheless be recognized that even a Republic of China reduced to those archipelagos as a micro-state would have all state capabilities. In this way, with the Sino-Japanese "Treaty of Taipei", it could have obtained the island of Taiwan from Japanese sovereignty in accordance with international law.

Arguments for the claim of the People's Republic of China

  1. The People's Republic of China does not recognize the unequal treaties concluded by the Qing government in the 19th century, the “century of humiliation”, and thus also the treaty of Shimonoseki. Therefore, from the perspective of the People's Republic, Taiwan was always part of China and thus from 1912 the Republic of China as the successor state of the Qing dynasty. The People's Republic of China, as confirmed by Resolution 2758 of the UN General Assembly , is in turn the legal successor state of the Republic of China and has thus also taken over the rightful sovereignty over Taiwan with its sovereignty over mainland China.
  2. Assuming the fundamental unity of China (arguments for Taiwan's affiliation with China: see above), the People's Republic of China is the legal successor of the Republic of China, as it existed before 1949, through an overall successful revolution. As such, it is also recognized internationally; In fact, the Republic of China no longer raises any objections to it either.
  3. The preamble to the 1982 Constitution of the People's Republic of China states “Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the noble duty of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to undertake the great task of reunifying the fatherland. In building socialism, it is an imperative to build on workers, peasants and intellectuals, and to unite all available forces. ” (Taiwan was not mentioned in versions of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China before 1978.)

Arguments for an independent Taiwanese state

Arguments for an already independent and sovereign Taiwan

  1. The peace obligation laid down in the Shimonoseki Treaty was already violated by China through the Boxer Rebellion , as a result of which the Boxer Treaty of 1901 was signed as a peace treaty between the great powers and China. Therefore, the Second Sino-Japanese War did not invalidate the Shimonoseki Treaty. This was also dispositive and therefore not contestable, irreversible, valid and does not count among the unequal contracts . All contractual provisions have been met. The 200,000,000 taels paid by China to Japan were not returned and Korea did not become a country dependent on China again. Accordingly, the transfer of sovereignty to Japan was a legitimate conquest, confirmed by treaty and not a theft, as misrepresented in the Cairo Declaration : ( "[...] all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese [...]" ).
  2. The sovereignty of the Qing Dynasty only effectively reached Taiwan on the west coast, the island was not counted as an integral part of Chinese territory.
  3. The Cairo Declaration was an unsigned communiqué with no legal basis, while the Potsdam Declaration limited Japan's surrender in time. Modus vivendi and armistices do not have the option of transferring sovereignty. Only contracts can legally do this.
  4. Claims for retransfer by the Republic of China in 1949 were legally unjustifiable and impossible, since Taiwan was part of Japan de jure before the post-war peace treaty of San Francisco , which came into force on April 28, 1952. As a result, the mass naturalization of all Taiwanese in the Republic of China in January 1946 is illegal and ab initio invalid. After the peace treaty of San Francisco entered into force, the state sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to the people of Taiwan.
  5. In addition to the opinion that Taiwan is not legally part of the Republic of China, there is still the more widespread view that a functioning democracy has been established in Taiwan, which is based on popular sovereignty .
  6. The transfer of sovereignty to the Republic of China by law does not apply to Taiwan's case:
  1. Transfer of sovereignty is a lengthy, righteous process that cannot be interrupted by law and must be carried out under currently applicable law (“possessio longa, continua, et pacifica, nec sit ligitima interruptio”). For such a transfer, the consent of the issuing state must be obtained. There is no such thing in the case of Taiwan, as this formal process was never initiated.
  2. Legal transfer of sovereignty is not generally recognized. The International Court of Justice ruled that Belgium retained sovereignty over some territories despite the failure to exercise its rights and consent on the Belgian side to surrender to the Netherlands more than 100 years earlier.
  3. Taiwanese were banned from protesting after the February 28 incident , suppressing all pro-independence voices and violating human rights.
  4. Japan was unable to suppress protests during its colonial rule over Taiwan , but it did not relinquish its sovereignty over Taiwan until April 28, 1952.

Arguments for a declaration of independence for Taiwan

  1. As a territory that was detached from a hostile nation after World War II within the meaning of Articles 76b and 77b of the United Nations Charter , Taiwan qualified for the “UN trusteeship program” and would be declared independent after a certain period of time. The charter was signed by the Republic of China in 1945 and was also defined in the Yalta Conference . As a member of the UN at the time, it was a contractual obligation of the Republic of China to follow the charter and to help the people of Taiwan to their right of self-determination .
  2. The San Francisco peace treaty is final without specifying a clear recipient country. China was prohibited from acquiring Taiwan for its own benefit when the deal was finalized. Furthermore, the Treaty of Taipei did not come into force until three months after the Treaty of Francisco on August 5, 1952. However, this treaty, which was concluded between the Republic of China and Japan, cannot determine who Taiwan belongs to, as it became legally effective after the surrender of all sovereignty over Taiwan. Japan could no longer determine the sovereignty of Taiwan.
  3. The peace made by the Boxer Treaty of 1901 was broken by the Sino-Japanese War, while Article 10 of the Treaty of San Francisco provided for the return of the territories to China in 1901, not 1895. Accordingly, the return of Taiwan was carried out without having any sovereignty, as Taiwan was not part of China when the Republic of China was founded in 1911. Furthermore, the Treaty of Taipei was canceled in 1972 at the request of the People's Republic of China.
  4. The Taiwan assignment was neither unusual nor unique. Cuba serves as a precedent when it was ceded by Spain without naming a recipient country in the Peace of Paris of 1898 . Cuba gained independence in 1902. At the end of the Second World War, Libya and Somalia were ceded to Italy without specifying a recipient country. Both countries later became independent.
  5. The national law of the Republic of China was published in February 1929. Since then, the Legislative Yuan law has been amended, shortened, or expanded to allow mass naturalization of the Taiwanese population after World War II. Since there was no valid law at the time, there is no legal basis to recognize Taiwanese as citizens of the Republic of China. This is relevant in relation to Article 10 of the Taipei Treaty, which states: “For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) […] "
  6. Furthermore, the current government of the Republic of China is not the same as that which surrendered in 1945. In addition, since the end of the White Terror , the current government has only been elected by the people of Taiwan and not by the Chinese people. The pan-green coalition therefore emphasizes that (due to popular sovereignty) constitutional changes and changes to the country's name can be carried out through referendums.
  7. The omission of a recipient country in the Treaty of San Francisco is not to be seen as an accident or failure of the signatories, but to be explained by the problems of the government of the Republic of China, which failed to maintain its functions as the de jure and de facto government of China and execute. When they fled to Taiwan in December 1949, the Republic of China was already considered a government in exile . International law excludes acts by governments in exile that are supposed to legitimize them as local governments. As a result, Taiwan's international problems can be traced back to the fact that the Republic of China, as a government in exile, is not internationally recognized as a legitimate government of Taiwan.

Arguments in favor of the United States' claim

A small group has argued that the United States holds sovereignty over Taiwan based on the declaration of cessation in the San Francisco peace treaty, which was passed without a named recipient. Article 23 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty designates the US as "the supreme occupying power" in relation to the territories delimited in the treaty, including "Formosa and the Pescadors".

The argument also states that the ROC forces were acting under the leadership of the United States when they took over administration of Taiwan after the surrender ceremony with the Japanese ended on October 25, 1945. This principal-agent relationship between the US and the ROC, it is argued, has not yet been formally terminated.

In the hope of clarifying the situation, Dr. Roger CS Lin on 24 October 2006 Taiwanese with a group of residents, including members of the Taiwanese nation party , filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia , a US federal district court one. The complaint asked the court to determine whether plaintiffs, including members of the Taiwan Nation Party, could enjoy certain rights under the United States Constitution and other US law. Based on the peace treaty with Japan , in which the US is and still is the supreme occupying power, the plaintiffs argue that Taiwan - after Japan surrenders all rights and claims regarding Taiwan - comes under US jurisdiction. The government of the United States opposed this proposal positively.

On March 18, 2008, the federal district court agreed with the United States government and ruled that this case was a political issue. As such, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and dismissed the applicants. The plaintiffs appealed against this decision. In 2009, the incarcerated Taiwanese ex-President Chen Shui-bian also invoked the United States ' claim to sovereignty.

See also

Portal: China  - Overview of Wikipedia content on China

literature

  • R. Bush, M. O'Hanlon: A War Like No Other: The Truth About China's Challenge to America . Wiley, 2007, ISBN 978-0-471-98677-5 .
  • R. Bush: Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait. Brookings Institution Press, 2006, ISBN 0-8157-1290-1 .
  • T. Carpenter: America's Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan . Palgrave Macmillan, 2006, ISBN 1-4039-6841-1 .
  • B. Cole: Taiwan's Security: History and Prospects. Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0-415-36581-3 .
  • J. Copper: Playing with Fire: The Looming War with China over Taiwan . Praeger Security International General Interest, 2006, ISBN 0-275-98888-0 .
  • Federation of American Scientists ao: Chinese Nuclear Forces and US Nuclear War Planning 2006. (PDF; 12.6 MB)
  • B. Gill: Rising Star: China's New Security Diplomacy. Brookings Institution Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-8157-3146-7 .
  • S. Shirk: China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise . Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-19-530609-5 .
  • Lin, Hsin-ho: The status of the Republic of China (Taiwan) under international law following the exclusion of the national Chinese government from the United Nations. Ebelsbach 1986.
  • M. Neukirchen: The Representation of China and the Status of Taiwan in International Law. Nomos Verlag, Hamburg 2003.
  • C. Petzold: The Status of Taiwan under International Law, ROC Nomos Verlag, 2007.
  • S. Tsang: If China Attacks Taiwan: Military Strategy, Politics and Economics. Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0-415-40785-0 .
  • NB Tucker: Dangerous Strait: the US-Taiwan-China Crisis . Columbia University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-231-13564-5 .
  • Thomas Weyrauch: China's neglected republic. 100 years in the shadow of world history. Volume 1 (1911-1949) . Longtai 2009, ISBN 978-3-938946-14-5 .
  • Thomas Weyrauch: China's neglected republic. 100 years in the shadow of world history. Volume 2 (1950-2011) . Longtai 2011, ISBN 978-3-938946-15-2 .
  • Thomas Weyrauch: Considerations under international law on the existence of the Republic of China. Analysis, reviews and recommendations . Longtai 2011, ISBN 978-3-938946-19-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ select.nytimes.com
  2. ↑ select.nytimes.com
  3. ↑ trumanlibrary.org
  4. ↑ trumanlibrary.org
  5. ↑ taipeitimes.com
  6. ^ Weyrauch: Considerations under international law on the existence of the Republic of China. 2011, p. 28.
  7. ^ Weyrauch: Considerations under international law on the existence of the Republic of China. 2011, p. 21 ff. The verbatim declaration of the Japanese negotiator was included in the protocol of the negotiations for the Taipei Treaty: "I assure you that the treaty is valid for all territories under the control of the government of the Republic of China."
  8. ↑ old.npf.org.tw ( Memento from September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
  9. ^ Weyrauch: Considerations under international law on the existence of the Republic of China. 2011, p. 25 ff.
  10. ^ Boxer Protocol, Beijing September 7, 1901; Peace Agreement between the Great Powers ( Memento of February 10, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), last accessed on April 14, 2009 (English)
  11. ↑ CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER CERTAIN FRONTIER LAND , Author: International Court of Justice, Issue Date: June 20, 1959, Found on: October 6, 2007. Note: new link (found on: June 13, 2012), alternative links: Scholar search ( from internet archive)
  12. ↑ Taiwan Documents Project , last accessed on April 14, 2009 (English)
  13. ↑ Roger Lin: Taiwan is US Territory. In: Taipei Times. December 31, 2006, found October 6, 2007.
  14. ^ Law Offices of Charles H_ Camp News , found Jan. 28, 2007.
  15. ↑ Roger CS Lin et al: Civil Action No. 2006–1825 , issued by UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, found on April 16, 2008.
  16. ↑ Roger CS Lin et al: USCA Court Documents ( Memento of September 30, 2009 in the Internet Archive ), published by: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, in Washington, DC (USA), found on December 9, 2008.
  17. ↑ Roger CS Lin et al: USCA Court Documents ( September 30, 2009 memento in the Internet Archive ), published by: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, in Washington, DC (USA), found on January 3, 2009.
  18. ↑ Ex-President Chen suing Obama, Gates