Retrocession Day
Observed by	Republic of China
Type	Historical,cultural,nationalist
Date	25 October 1945
Frequency	annual

Retrocession Day is the annual observance and formerpublic holiday inTaiwan commemorating the end ofJapanese rule of Taiwan and Penghu and the claimedreturn of Taiwan to theRepublic of China on 25 October 1945.^[1][2] However, the idea of "Taiwan retrocession" remains in dispute.

Taiwan, then more commonly known to the Western world as "Formosa", became a colony of theEmpire of Japan after theQing dynasty lost theFirst Sino-Japanese War in 1894 and ceded the island with the 1895Treaty of Shimonoseki.Japanese rule in Taiwan lasted until the end ofWorld War II.

In November 1943,Chiang Kai-shek took part in theCairo Conference withFranklin D. Roosevelt andWinston Churchill, who firmly advocated that Japan be required to return all of the territory it had annexed into its empire, including Taiwan and thePenghu (Pescadores) Islands. Article 8 of thePotsdam Declaration, drafted by theUnited States,United Kingdom, and China in July 1945, reiterated that the provisions of theCairo Declaration be thoroughly carried out, and theJapanese Instrument of Surrender stated Japan's agreement to the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation.

Under the authorization of American GeneralDouglas MacArthur'sGeneral Order No. 1,Chen Yi (Chief Executive of Taiwan Province) was escorted byGeorge H. Kerr to Taiwan to accept the Japanese government's surrender as the Chinese delegate. When theJapanese surrendered at the end of World War II, GeneralRikichi Andō,governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed a receipt of Order No. 1 and handed it over toGovernor-General of Taiwan Chen Yi, representing the Republic of China Armed Forces to complete the official turnover inTaipei (known during occupation as Taihoku) on 25 October 1945, at Taipei City Public Auditorium (nowZhongshan Hall). Chen Yi proclaimed that day to be "Retrocession Day" and organized the island into theTaiwan Province of the Republic of China. Chen Yi's unilateral act, however, did not gain agreement from the US and the UK, for both considered Taiwan still under military occupation pending a peace treaty,^[3][4] though the US accepted Chinese authority over Taiwan at the time and viewed the Republic of China as the legal government of China.^[5][6] Taiwan has since been governed by theGovernment of the Republic of China.

The official position of both thePeople's Republic of China (PRC) and theRepublic of China (ROC) is that Taiwan and Penghu were returned to the Republic of China according to the terms of the 1945 Japanese Instrument of Surrender, which stipulated Japan's compliance with the terms of thePotsdam Declaration. The Potsdam Declaration in turn included the terms of the Cairo Declaration, which required Japan to return all conquered territories to China, including Taiwan and thePescadores.^[7]

The ROC clarified its understanding of the Cairo Declaration in 2014 as a legally binding instrument.^[8] Among other things, the clarification listed later treaties and documents that "reaffirmed" aspects of the Cairo Declaration as legally binding, including the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, theTreaty of San Francisco, and theTreaty of Taipei:

The post-war status and jurisdiction over Taiwan and its appertaining islands, including Penghu, was resolved through a series of legal instruments—the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan of 1952. The implementation of the legal obligation to return Taiwan and its appertaining islands (including the Diaoyutai Islands) to the ROC was first stipulated in the Cairo Declaration, and later reaffirmed in the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan. The Cairo Declaration is therefore a legally binding instrument with treaty status.

In November 1950, theUnited States Department of State announced that no formal act restoring sovereignty over Formosa and thePescadores to China had yet occurred;^[9] British officials reiterated this viewpoint in 1955, saying that "The Chinese Nationalists began a military occupation of Formosa and the Pescadores in 1945. However, these areas were under Japanese sovereigntyuntil 1952" and that

[Cairo Declaration] was couched in the form of a statement of intention, and as it was merely a statement of intention, it is merely binding in so far as it states the intent at that time, and therefore it cannot by itself transfer sovereignty.^[10]

In March 1961, in a meeting of theHouse of Councillors of Japan, a councillor of theJapanese Communist Party brought up the notion that Taiwan had been returned to China according to the Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. The then-Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs responded that:

It was specified in Potsdam Proclamation that the articles in Cairo Declaration shall be carried out, and in accordance with Japanese Instrument of Surrender we announced that we would comply with Potsdam Proclamation. However, the so-called Japanese Instrument of Surrender possesses the nature ofarmistice and does not possess the nature of territorial disposition.^[11]

In April 1971, theU.S. Department of State spokesman stated in a press release that the US government regarded the status of Taiwan as unsettled, and that Cairo Declaration was a statement of purpose of theAllies and was never formally implemented or executed.^[12]

As late as December 2014, the US government still considered Taiwan's status an unsettled issue.^[13]

• Supporters of theTaiwan independence movement have argued that Taiwanese retrocession was invalid since there is no precedent in international law in which an instrument of surrender effected a transfer of sovereignty, and they base their belief in part on both a declassified CIA report from March 1949 confirming that Taiwan was not a part of the Republic of China^[14] andPresident Truman's 27 June 1950 statement regarding Taiwan's "undetermined status", which they hold as proof of the leading Allies' views. In a lengthy legal essay published in Tokyo in 1972, ChairmanNg Chiau-tong,World United Formosans for Independence, analyzed the British Parliamentary records and other documents before concluding that thepolitical status of Taiwan was undetermined.^[15]
• Taiwanese historianJim Lee [zh] claims the following: AfterWorld War II ended, officials of theRepublic of China traveled to Taiwan to accept the surrender ofJapanese forces on behalf of theAllies. Although they claimed that it was "Taiwan Retrocession", it was actually a provisionalmilitary occupation and was not a transfer of territories of Taiwan and Penghu. A transfer of territory requires a conclusion of an internationaltreaty in order to be valid. But before the government of the Republic of China was able to conclude a treaty with Japan, it was overthrown by theChinese Communist Party and fledits territory. Consequently, that contributed to the controversy of the "Undetermined Status of Taiwan" and the controversy over "Taiwan Retrocession".^[16]
• TheDemocratic Progressive Party, which rejects the idea of Taiwan being taken back by China, downplayed the event during its two presidencies.^[17][18]
• Because theRepublic of China officials who accepted the surrenders of Japanese Forces in 1945 were all representatives of theAllies of World War II,^[19] there are opinions that Japanese forces on Taiwan actually surrendered to the Allies, not to the Republic of China, and therefore the so-called "Taiwan Retrocession Day" is merely "Surrenders of Japanese Forces to the Allies Day", which marked the beginning ofmilitary occupation and was not a retrocession. The opinions further believe that "Taiwan Retrocession" is a misleading term.^{[20][21][22][23]}
• Writing in theAmerican Journal of International Law in July 2000, Jonathan I. Charney andJ. R. V. Prescott maintained that the Chinese Nationalists (ROC) began a military occupation of Taiwan in 1945 as a result of Japan's surrender,^[24] and that none of the post–World War II peace treaties explicitly ceded sovereignty over Formosa and the Pescadores to any specific state or government.^[25]

• Political status of Taiwan
• Public holidays in Taiwan
• Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan
• Victory over Japan Day
• Zhongshan Hall

Wikimedia Commons has media related toSurrender of Japan in Taiwan.

• Taiwan's Retrocession Day on the Government Information Office website of Taiwan

• Articles needing Japanese script or text
• October observances
• Taiwan under Japanese rule
• Taiwan under Republic of China rule
• 1945 in Taiwan
• 1945 in China

• Articles containing Japanese-language text
• CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list
• CS1 Chinese-language sources (zh)
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Infobox holiday with missing field
• Infobox holiday (other)
• Articles containing Chinese-language text
• Commons category link is on Wikidata