Are you accusing me of making racist comments?You make racist comments like this in reference to my family and I will report you for it.
Your personal anecdotes are quite meaningless to me. Also, this argument is pointless if you cannot even grasp the basic concept that a legally-binding agreement between two or more countries is a treaty, regardless what name it goes by or whether it implements a ceasefire or a permanent peace. Unless these "international law scholars" are novices or blatantly biased towards Taiwanese independence I sincerely doubt they told you such an agreement is not a treaty under law. On the other hand, that is at best a linguistic argument because the fact is it had a legally-binding effect on Japan regardless.No, it was not a treaty. It was an armistice pending the peace treaty. The final status of Taiwan was determined in the peace treaty. The western powers all regarded Taiwan's status as undetermined following the signing of the armistice pending the peace treaty. History and law do not defend your argument. Nice try parroting the legal rationale of the butchers in Beijing, though. And... even if your legal rationale were valid, if you followed legal reasoning of the ICJ in recent decades, you would understand the notion of effective control in modern international law. I have discussed this matter with more than a dozen scholars of international law and NOT ONE OF THEM agreed with your point of view on the matter. It also goes against basic principles in an introductory textbook of public international law or what is taught in public international law classrooms.