20170406 美上訴高院 針對林2案 判決翻譯文

20170406美上訴高院 針對林2案 翻譯文
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Risenhoover Dr. Paul Maas:

We affirm the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim against both the United States and Taiwan on the basis of redressability.


We agree with the district court that plaintiffs' alleged loss of Japanese citizenship and resulting statelessness is an injury in fact. Id. at 250-51.


But the plaintiffs did not establish that it is ‥likely, as opposed to
merely speculative," that a declaratory judgment holding the 1946 decrees illegal would redress their injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (internal quotation omitted).


Plaintiffs' injury can only be redressed by foreign nations not before
the court. See id. at 562.


General Chiang Kai-shek and his government fled to Taiwan and established the Republic of China in exile


but it maintains unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan and ‥strategic ambiguity with respect to sovereignty over Taiwan." Id. (internal quotation omitted). See also Amended Complaint ? 75.


the United Nations cannot confer citizenship or force a member-state to
confer citizenship.


Sovereign nations control their own citizenship.


The United Nations' conventions to prevent statelessness do not require signatory nations to confer citizenship on the residents of Taiwan.


See generally Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 U.N.T.S. 117 (Sep. 28, 1954); Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,989 U.N.T.S. 175 (Aug. 30, 1961). The unusual status of residents of Taiwan is not new, and no nation has acted to redress it.


Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a court ruling invalidating the 1946 decrees would likely cause these foreign nations to provide relief.


Cardenas v. Smith, 733 F.2d 909, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Greater Tampa Chamber
of Commerce v. Goldschmidt, 627 F.2d 258, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Taiwan concedes, and we agree, that their injury is ‥fairly traceable" to the 1946 decrees. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal quotation and alteration omitted).


We will not resolve the question.


Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), prevents
the court from assuming Article III jurisdiction, but we may address a case's merits in order to ‥avoid a doubtful issue of statutory jurisdiction." Chalabi v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 543 F.3d 725, 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted).


We affirm the district court's dismissal of the claim for damages on the alternative ground that the case is untimely.


See United States ex rel. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The statute of limitations for a common-law tort is three years, D.C. Code ” 2-301(8).


The Republic of China issued the challenged decrees in 1946.


Plaintiffs' 2015 complaint is more than sixty years too late.


Plaintiffs do not claim that they only became aware of their loss of Japanese citizenship and statelessness within the last three years.


Therefore, even if they could prove a continuing tort, they could only recover
for acts within the last three years. And plaintiffs have not alleged any injurious acts in that period.


檢視次數: 7480

© 2024  
Taiwan Civil Government General Office
  Powered by

成員徽章  |  報告問題  |  服務條款