FAQs
| Category | Territorial cession |
| Sub-Category | Limbo |
| Question | In the 1952 treaty, Japan ceded Taiwan, but did not designate a "receiving country." Has such a situation ever occurred before? |
| Answer | Yes, a similar situation was seen in the 1899 Spanish American Peace Treaty, with regard to the situation of Cuba. |
Analysis
A definition of “cession” is useful for reference –
cede: (1) to renounce possession of, especially by treaty, (2) to transfer control of or sovereignty over specific property or territory, especially by treaty, (3) to relinquish and/or give up something such as land, rights, or power, (4) [noun] cession
Note: According to the dictionary definition of cede as given above, there is no strict requirement that a "receiving country" be designated in order to complete the act of ceding, or making a cession.
When territory is ceded without the specification of a "receiving country" it may simply be called a limbo cession.
Note: According to the dictionary definition of cede as given above, there is no strict requirement that a "receiving country" be designated in order to complete the act of ceding, or making a cession.
When territory is ceded without the specification of a "receiving country" it may simply be called a limbo cession.
A chart which compares the peace treaty specifications for Cuba and Taiwan is given below –
| Item | Treaty of Paris specifications for Cuba | SFPT specifications for Taiwan |
| United States is the (principal) occupying power | Article 1 | Article 23(a) |
| Original "owner" did indeed cede the territory | Article 1 | Article 2(b) |
| No "receiving country" was specified (i.e. "limbo cession") | Article 1 | Article 2(b) |
| USMG has disposition rights over the territory | Article 1 | Article 4(b) |
| Military government is present, and military occupation is a reality | Article 1 | Article 4(b) and the Hague Conventions (1907) |
| USMG jurisdiction continues past the date when the peace treaty comes into effect | Article 1, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cross v. Harrison (1853) | Article 4(b), Article 23(a), and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cross v. Harrison (1853) |
Further References and Links
Taiwan's Legal Status: Taiwan's Legal Status: An Overview of the San Francisco Peace Treaty
Areas Conquered by U.S. Military Forces and therefore under USMG Jurisdiction -- with later "new disposition" by peace treaty