中美建交公报 (Chinese Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "中美建交公报" in Chinese language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank Chinese rank
1st place
1st place
2,255th place
67th place
3rd place
8th place
27th place
30th place
527th place
24th place
305th place
511th place
1,053rd place
1,824th place
7,556th place
7,506th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
264th place
298th place
214th place
406th place
1,115th place
1,300th place
5th place
12th place
6,560th place
261st place
low place
low place
14th place
18th place
low place
low place
5,710th place
212th place
low place
2,235th place
2,367th place
2,723rd place
505th place
609th place
1,953rd place
1,684th place
144th place
3rd place
1,676th place
62nd place
20th place
41st place
2,424th place
75th place
low place
427th place
6,261st place
257th place
6,971st place
270th place
209th place
356th place

adst.org

  • Interview with Harvey Feldman (PDF). The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. 2001: 69–70 [2020-08-02]. (原始内容存档 (PDF)于2019-04-24). 

ahrac.com

archive.today

  • Interview with Harvey Feldman (PDF). The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training. Foreign Affairs Oral History Project. 2001: 69–70 [2020-08-02]. (原始内容存档 (PDF)于2019-04-24). 

bbc.com

books.google.com

cambridge.org

dictionary.cambridge.org

cna.com.tw

  • 提勒森:信守台灣關係法和履行所有承諾. 中央社. 2017年6月15日 [2017年7月3日]. (原始内容存档于2017年6月14日) (中文(繁體)). 
  • 學者:美一中政策 不應混淆页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆),張可衣舊金山17日專電,中央社,2018-11-18,"戈迪溫指出,中國持續在國際間以其「一個中國原則」(One China Principle)混淆美國「一個中國政策」(One China Policy),在「一個中國」的定義上,美國從未「承認」(recognize)台灣是中華人民共和國的一部分。他說,在美中之間的三個公報之中,美國僅「認知」(acknowledge)中國認為只有一個中國且台灣是中國的一部份的立場。戈迪溫強調,美國僅是「認知」,但非「承認」,認知並不表示「承認與接受」,但中國將美國所用的「認知」一詞,中譯為「承認」,並以此混淆視聽。"
  • 台灣關係法與三公報 讀懂美國一中政策页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆),中央通訊社,2017-04-05,"中美建交公報…美國認知(acknowledges)中國(人)立場(the Chinese position),只有一個中國,台灣是中國的一部分"。

cnr.cn

news.cnr.cn

collinsdictionary.com

cqvip.com

cstj.cqvip.com

crntt.com

hk.crntt.com

csis.org

  • What Is the U.S. “One China” Policy, and Why Does it Matter?页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆), Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2017-01-13, "The United States did not, however, give in to Chinese demands that it recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan......Instead, Washington acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan was part of China. For geopolitical reasons, both the United States and the PRC were willing to go forward with diplomatic recognition despite their differences on this matter. When China attempted to change the Chinese text from the original acknowledge to recognize, Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher told a Senate hearing questioner, “[W]e regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” In the August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”To this day, the U.S. “one China” position stands: the United States recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China but only acknowledges the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China."

culture.tw

nrch.culture.tw

  • 臺灣大百科全書─中美建交公報页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆),周俊宇,文化部,2009-09-09,"「中美建交公報」,全稱為「中華人民共和國和美利堅合眾國關於建立外交關係的聯合公報」…美國「認知」(acknowledge)中華人民共和國主張「世界上只有一個中國,台灣是中國的一部份」的立場。"

fas.org

  • China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei (PDF). Congressional Research Service: 39. 2014-10-10 [2020-08-02]. (原始内容存档 (PDF)于2017-04-10) (英语). In the Chinese text, the word for “acknowledge” is “cheng ren” (recognize), a change from “ren shi” (acknowledge),used in the 1972 Shanghai Communique. During debate on the TRA in February 1979, Senator Jacob Javits noted the difference and said that “it is very important that we not subscribe to [the Chinese position on one China] either way.” Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher responded that “we regard the English text as being the binding text. We regard the word ‘acknowledge’ as being the word that is determinative for the U.S.” (Wolff and Simon, pp. 310-311). 

google.com.tw

books.google.com.tw

  • Taiwan Communique and Separation of Powers: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session, on Taiwan Communique and Separation of Powers,第31頁,United States Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on Separation of Powers,1983,"The position of the United States is eminently clear. The official position has been that the United States "recognizes the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China. " It has also "acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is a part of China, but the United States has not itself agreed to this position."
  • 王凡. 吴建民传. 世界知识出版社. 2008年: 第137頁. 但在建交公报中用‘承认’更符合中国的立场,于是章文晋最后亲自敲定译为‘承认’ 
  • 施燕华. 浅谈中美建交公报的翻译. 中國翻譯. 2004年, 第25卷 (第1期): 第61頁. 章部长最后亲自敲定译为‘承认’。 
  • 酆邰. 臺灣法律地位問題的研究. 黎明文化事業. 1985年: 第79頁. 中美建交公報中,美國政府僅表示「認知」「中國」的立場,「中國」只有一個,臺灣是「中國」的一部分(中共將英文‘認知’譯爲‘承認’)。 
  • King C. Chen. 《中共對台政策之硏究》. 五南圖書出版. 1990年: 第72頁. 儘管中共將「認知」譯為「承認」,這是中共故意曲解並錯譯,美國的態度,十餘年如一日,從未更改。這個對「主權」看法不同的問題,關係重大 
  • 施克敏. 從華府看臺北. 正中書局. 1993年: 第322頁. 中共方面把(acknowledge)自譯為「承認」,那要不是英文程度有問題,就是蓄意曲解,以從中取利。 
  • 胡偉星. 中國問題研究所 , 编. 冷戰後的亞太安全與臺灣問題. 《中國社會科學季刊》 (香港: 香港社會科學服務中心). 1995年2月, (第10期): 第38頁. 《上海公報》和《建交公報》中,美國都用‘認知’只有一個中國、臺灣是中國的一部分。在中文翻譯中,《建交公報》中的‘認知’被譯為‘承認’。 
  • 中國時報周刊,第11頁,China Times Incorporated,1995年,“「建交公報」裡中共把「認知」(acknowledge)一個中國,台灣是中國的一部分譯作「承認」”
  • 新新聞,第1099-1106期,第37頁,Xin xin wen zhou kan za zhi she,2008,"美國在台灣問題上未曾放棄或改變過使用「認知」,中共對此也心知肚明,祇是在中文上就是硬要把acknowledge翻譯成「承認」"
  • 陳伯志. 中國大陸金融改革之分析:一九九八~二○○一年. 《中國大陸研究》 (國立政治大學國際關係研究中心). 2001-01, 第44卷 (第1期): 第17頁. 一九七八年和美國的建交公報,中共將「認知」翻譯成「承認」 
  • 總統府公報,第6438-6469期,台灣,總統府第5局公報室,2002年,"中共將美國「承認」(recognize)中共政權與「認知」(acknowledge)只有一個中國都中譯成『承認』二字,這是相當狡詰(tricky)的事。"
  • 陳純一; 許耀明; 陳貞如 (编). 兩岸關係與國際法發展. 元照出版. 2016-10-01: 第76頁. 中美建交公報(Normalization Communique)《中美建交公報》於1979年1月1日正式發布…美國認知(acknowledge)「臺灣海峽兩岸中國人都認為只有一個中國,臺灣是中國的一部分」這一立場。 
  • 時報雜誌,第8頁,第 135-147期,1982年,"一九七九年元月一日,美國在與中共的「建交聯合公報」中聲明·美國「認知」中國的立場,即只有一個「中國」,而台灣是「中國」的一部份。"

gov.cn

govopendata.com

ietf.org

ietf.org

datatracker.ietf.org

ldoceonline.com

learnersdictionary.com

ly.gov.tw

macmillandictionary.com

merriam-webster.com

nationalinterest.org

sina.com.cn

finance.sina.com.cn

state.gov

history.state.gov

fpc.state.gov

  • Shirley A. Kan; Wayne M. Morrison. U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues (pdf). Congressional Research Service: 4. 2013-01-04 [2020-08-02]. (原始内容存档 (PDF)于2016-12-11). The position of the United States, as clarified in the China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy report of the Congressional Research Service (date: July 9, 2007) is summed up in five points: # The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. # The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. # U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; # U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and # U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. U.S. policy has considered Taiwan's status as unsettled. These positions remained unchanged in a 2013 report of the Congressional Research Service. 

storm.mg

  • 許詠翔. 斷交40年來美國不變利益:維持台海現狀. 新新聞. No. 第1669期. 2019-02-28 [2020-09-03]. (原始内容存档于2019-03-01). ,"它涉及中美三個聯合公報、《台灣關係法》(Taiwan Relation Act)與六項保證所構成美國對兩岸關係的「戰略性模糊」(strategic ambiguity),包括美國只是「認知」(acknowledge)而非「承認」(recognize)中國自稱「台灣是其一部分」的「一個中國政策」立場"

ucsb.edu

presidency.ucsb.edu

web.archive.org

wikisource.org

zh.wikisource.org

worldcat.org