national

Chinese coast guard keeps up pressure on Japan in island dispute

88 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

88 Comments
Login to comment

same old story: Four Chinese Govt. Boats.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

From now on everyone knows that Japan Today as with all other Japanese media reports on anything are actually far from fact and the truth. The Secrets Act has done it. All reports emanating from now are lies and more lies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Beijing maintains that the islands have been its territory for hundreds of years

Proven by all the ancient Chinese relics found there by absolutely nobody.

China to Japan: We want you to agree that the islands are disputed. So we will do the logical thing and send ships, planes, possibly a sub, and now drones. All in the name of world peace.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

shooting down a drone that envades your airspace and ignores warning to leave seems fairly reasonable to me.

22 ( +26 / -4 )

The CCP/PLA leadership has become unhinged, and it's impossible to negotiate with crazy people who are clearly trying to provoke a fight - or think if they act crazy enough the sane people will back down to avoid a fight. The CCP demand international respect, but do nothing to earn it.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Now who's sabre-rattling.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

"Chinese ships have done this dozens of times since Japan nationalised three of the islands in September 2012"

shouldnt of nationalized the islands )

-17 ( +3 / -20 )

It really belongs to China, after all?

Another Japanese professor states the disputed Diayu/Senkaku islands belong to China. Professor Tadayoshi Murata, of Yokohama National University, supports China’s ownership of the disputed islands. He demonstrated that argument in his book titled “The Origins of the Japan-China Territorial Issue” which was published recently in June of 2013. (Professor Kiyoshi Inoue previously expressed a similar view. He was a Japanese academic, historian, author and professor emeritus of the Kyoto University.)

Read this article in Japan Herald: http://www.japanherald.com/index.php/sid/215566809/scat/c4f2dd8ca8c78044

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

It all started with a Chinese captain ramming a Japanese vessel, he was taken into custody, released without incident. Japanese nationalist started going to the islands, planting flags. Ishihara got in on the action, forcing Noda (who Ishihara thought was weak) to nationalize the islands. None of this would of happened if Noda got relected. The economy, however would of remain in the doldrums. If Abe would of continued with Nodas China policy, none of this would be happening. People sure have short memory.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Abe never learned his idiot mistakes.

-11 ( +4 / -15 )

I wonder what will happen with the surveillance ships if it decide to go near Hawaii waters without permission.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

If its Japanese, probably nothing, they already own the island anyhow.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

China reminds me of that massive baby in 'Spirited Away'.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

“We would have to take firm countermeasures, and all consequences would be the responsibility of the side that caused the provocation,” China’s defense ministry said.

Which would be YOU! If YOU flew a unauthorized drone into Japanese airspace the rest of the world would clearly be able to tell that YOU provoked Japan and caused whatever outcome would happen next. The world would condemn YOU not Japan.

China seriously needs to realize that the rest of the world aren't idiots and that the BS they use on their own citizens doesn't work with the rest of the world. Also about time that they are thrown out of the Security Council I reckon because they aren't fit to be a part of it.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

China need to produce firm proof in support of their claim, If not then Japan has the right to kick on their ass if they use force. Well if you see Chinese history no one will sympathize with these ass holes.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Proven by all the ancient Chinese relics found there by absolutely nobody.

@ReformedBasher--And how many Japanese relics are there? I imagine there might be a crumbling building or two from the failed fishing business that was there, but that was the property of individuals, not the Japanese government.

Like it or not, there is a Japanese map from 1785 labeling the islands as Diaoyu. But I am totally open to the fact that the Chinese were not using them just as the Japanese are not using them now. And while I support things like squatter's rights and terra nullus, you can't just say hey, nobody is using that, they are mine, and then walk away decided that nobody else can do what you just did.

But that won't do, because it the islands are declared terra nullus, both will just make a grab. So what's left? You just accept the fact that Japan took them by process of war during the Sino-Japanese war and have done. China needs to stay away. That is the hard bottom line. But in a decent world, Japan would give them back. China needs accept that won't happen.

And that idiot Ishihara who played a major role in bringing things to this head needs to be relocated permanently to the Senkakus so he can be the first get shot should there be violence.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

China has in affect told Japan they will ignore Japan’s sovereignty, their air space, and their territorial waters, and their right to self defense. And next they will probably demand that all Japanese learn Mandarin! Any rational government would have to look really hard to see anything in the statements made by China as responsible, and or sane! They must be confusing Japan with Tibet!

8 ( +11 / -3 )

ControlFreakOct. 28, 2013 - 06:50PM JST

Like it or not, there is a Japanese map from 1785 labeling the islands as Diaoyu. But I am totally open to the fact that the Chinese were not using them just as the Japanese are not using them now.

So, why you mention? You know well that the 1785 map was drawn by a private citizen and he was punished by the Shogunate government for publishing an incorrect map.

And while I support things like squatter's rights and terra nullus, you can't just say hey, nobody is using that, they are mine, and then walk away decided that nobody else can do what you just did.

The international law mandates the rule of terra nullius. Only one nation can declare acquisition of terra nullius, because there is only one nation that declares first. If a second nation does the same, it is nothing but illegal invasion.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Terra nullius (/ˈtɛrə nʌˈlaɪ.əs/, plural terrae nullius) is a Latin expression deriving from Roman law meaning "land belonging to no one",[1] which is used in international law to describe territory which has never been subject to the sovereignty of any state

Oops. It used to be China's. Terra nullius does not apply.

But Japan still stole it fair and square during the Sino-Japanese war.

You know well that the 1785 map was drawn by a private citizen and he was punished by the Shogunate government for publishing an incorrect map.

@CH3CHO--First time I ever heard that. Did you make it up, or is there a link?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

ControlFreakOct. 28, 2013 - 07:53PM JST

Oops. It used to be China's. Terra nullius does not apply.

Prove it.

First time I ever heard that. Did you make it up, or is there a link?

The 1785 map was drawn by Hayashi Shihei. Here is a link to his biograph written by Saito Chikudo (1815-1852). http://kambun.jp/kambun/saitochiku-hayashi.htm

It says he lived in Sendai. He wrote Kaikoku Heidan and published Sangoku Tsuran (the 1785 map). But Shogunate government ordered the book and map be destroyed. He was arrested and imprisoned on May 16, 1792. He died one year later in 1793.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The funny thing is that maps published by China between 1950-1971 named those islands as Senkaku.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

“You will have to completely rid yourselves of the conventional notion that just the existence of a defense force could act as a deterrent.”

(Abe)

Article 9 needs to be changed ASAP in order to maintain peace. If China really pushed things so far that live fire was exchanged, a military response from Japan would at least restructure China's current view that Asian countries have nothing but hot air to retaliate with.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Abe needs to know his position, as leader of a big country, that he can't behave like a 10-year-old boy jumpimg up and down all day long and saying some low level issues, on the other side I didn't see CN's Xi mention much about military matters and instead only CN's mid level officiers replying these sort of things, It's like father of a family quarrels with sons of another family, is it good for JP?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Mike45Oct. 28, 2013 - 04:39PM JST "Chinese ships have done this dozens of times since Japan nationalised three of the islands in September 2012" shouldnt of nationalized the islands )

China supporters constantly repeat this propaganda mantra without giving any individual thought to it. What difference did it make to China and their claim whether 3 of the 5 islands were owned by Japanese citizens or the Japanese government? The Japanese government has always owned 1 of the 5 islands and even let he US use it as a live bombing training site. Why did this not bother China for all these decades? The Japanese government purchased the 3 islands to keep the Tokyo government under Ishihara from building on them and thereby upsetting China. How does China justify using this government purchase as an excuse to come open with their intent to take the islands? How would China have responded if the Japanese government has done nothing and Ishihara went ahead and built on them? MY guess is the same. Because they were looking for an excuse to make an offensive effort to take the islands.

ike45Oct. 28, 2013 - 05:21PM JST It all started with a Chinese captain ramming a Japanese vessel, he was taken into custody, released without incident.

No, it first stated with the Chinese government forming an organization called the East China Seas Fisheries Research Agency. Under that program approximately 1,000 Chinese fishing boats were recruited from southern Chinese ports to officially "participate in fisheries research". Each boat captain received approximately USD 10,000 and each boat was fitted with a data input system to enter fishing catch data but also to provide real time communications with the Agency. This Agency is part of the Chinese goverment's use of all resources to assist in it's territorial expansion agenda, same as it's former Maritime Surveillance Agency and the current now consolidated China Coast Guard. Chinese fishing boat excursions into Senkakus waters were orchestrated by the Agency, and in 2010 the trawler in question was ordered there to deliberately create an international incident. The Chinese hoped that Japan would hold the captain under it's laws to escalate the incident and fuel the propaganda pushed onto the Chinese public that the Senkakus were Chinese territory. This plan failed when Japan under the DPJ administration called them and simply sent the captain back to China. Having failed, China took the next opportunity when the J-govt intervened to stop Ishihara.

ControlFreakOct. 28, 2013 - 07:53PM JST But Japan still stole it fair and square during the Sino-Japanese war.

There is no evidence to support China's claim that "Japan stole the Senkakus". The WWII allied victors including China (represented by ROC) took away all lands that were "stolen". Simply repeating this false claim does not make it real.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

All of these proactive postures - military drills and belligerent rhetoric carried out by both China and Japan in airwaves and seas are nothing more than a bunch of smoke and mirrors that are being leveraged to score some political points domestically. Aside from childish daredevil games, those hostility can accomplish very little in return, except of pushing each other farther apart for some real progress in trust-building for these two countries..

Let me make this clear, The US are fully aware a simple fact that there are no real "good guys" in these territorial disputes. Questioning my claim? you should find a chance to speak with the police makers in the US Department of State, in private.

I thought that Mr. Abe would be a smart politician, but apparently he is not. Instead of focusing on Abenomics and trying to bring Japan back on the track for economy growth after the Lost Decades, he seems more keen on something that has a huge potential to derail the progress made so far.

As we know that China has been an authoritarian country which has a history of acting on impulses and political agenda to wage wars since 1950's even if the casualties as well as suffering for its people were uncomprehensive in western point of view. If there is an war that breaks out because of those inhabited islets, will Abe administration be willing to take a risk to put Japanese economy on hold or worse, experience huge number of lose of Japanese young lives and detrimental damages of industrial complex that may take years if not decades to repair. Case in point, in 9/11 2001, a terror attack from Islamic terrorists in New York City resulted in thousands of deaths and the destruction of the Twin Towers. In addition, The tragedy cast a spell on the US economy for quite some time, not mention that after 12 years of 9/11, the Freedom Tower built on the Ground Zero is till not completed. Now imagining the missiles would fall in Japanese, Chinese or American major cities when the war between Japan and China takes place, pains or gains for how long ? Go figure.

Mr.Abe might think he can pull the US into the armed conflicts sooner than later , as a result, to teach Chinese some lessons, ideally, destroy Chinese arm forces and its military establishments before Chinese could become full fledged. The problem is that pushing such an aggressive strategy not only is extremely dangerous for the entire world but also self destructive if it fallers.

It is indisputable that America's military might is the most superior in the world. However, Do the US Government and President Obama want the exact same things as Mr.Abe wants ?

Don't forget beyond of ideology differences, The US has invested trillion of dollars in China; in turn, good and services produced by Chinese companies are flowing into the US markets. keeping the inflation rate in America artificially low. Does anyone think ,practically, the geopolitical equilibrium and the benefits participated by both the US and China should be go down the drain for the sake of Mr. Abe's ambition of nationalism? You'll be the judge.

It's natural, you'd ask what should Japan and China do instead? Well, for a starter, drop those nationalism nonsense would be nice. and It'd be better to put energies together and start working with The US to develop a peaceful political solution to resolve the issue ASAP.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I'd like to hear more about the other islands China claims as their own that they are fighting with Philippines and Vietnam over. What are the sizes of the islands and how do people in those countries feel

4 ( +4 / -0 )

EthanWilberOct. 29, 2013 - 12:37AM JST

Let me make this clear, The US are fully aware a simple fact that there are no real "good guys" in these territorial >disputes. Questioning my claim? you should find a chance to speak with the police makers in the US Department of >State, in private. Mr.Abe might think he can pull the US into the armed conflicts sooner than later , as a result, to teach Chinese some >lessons, ideally, destroy Chinese arm forces and its military establishments before Chinese could become full fledged.

Being simply verbose does not change nonsense. China are in the eyes of Asian countries and the world "the bad guys". Why? Because they are attempting to change the status quo, i.e; peace on the region, through force and the threat of force. This is something that the world agrees with. China's economic rise is welcomed, but not their military and territorial expansionism, especially when it rattles regional security and becomes the concern that it has. China's military strategy is with the United States as the main target. Not Japan, not the Philippines not Vietnam, etc. Because none of those countries have or even want strategic dominance in the region, something held only by the United States and something that China has openly declared an intent to replace as early as 2003. Conceivably China could even have become the leader in Asia is it weren't a one-party dictatorship and embraced democratic ideals. Unfortunately the CCP appears to have no intentions of adapting to the needs of the people or the evolutionary path of nations, so China remains the antithesis of American ideals and it's agenda of spreading democracy.

The problem is that pushing such an aggressive strategy not only is extremely dangerous for the entire world but also self destructive if it fallers.

It is indisputable that America's military might is the most superior in the world. However, Do the US Government and President Obama want the exact same things as Mr.Abe wants ?

Don't forget beyond of ideology differences, The US has invested trillion of dollars in China; in turn, good and services produced by Chinese companies are flowing into the US markets. keeping the inflation rate in America artificially low. Does anyone think ,practically, the geopolitical equilibrium and the benefits participated by both the US and China should be go down the drain for the sake of Mr. Abe's ambition of nationalism? You'll be the judge.

It's natural, you'd ask what should Japan and China do instead? Well, for a starter, drop those nationalism nonsense would be nice. and It'd be better to put energies together and start working with The US to develop a peaceful political solution to resolve the issue ASAP.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

There is no evidence to support China's claim that "Japan stole the Senkakus".

@OssanAmerica--Its more like evidence goes ignored by those who don't want to see it. I already presented evidence, but you don't want to see it.

The 1785 map was drawn by Hayashi Shihei. Here is a link to his biograph written by Saito Chikudo (1815-1852). http://kambun.jp/kambun/saitochiku-hayashi.htm

A link written in archaic all kanji Japanese? Is that a joke?

He wrote Kaikoku Heidan and published Sangoku Tsuran (the 1785 map). But Shogunate government ordered the book and map be destroyed. He was arrested and imprisoned on May 16, 1792. He died one year later in 1793.

He was not punished for that map but for a different work on military matters which he published without permission. Besides, if it was destroyed, how did it find its way onto the internet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute But let us not get bogged down on side issues.

He gave the islands the same name the Chinese do today. How did he do that? Obviously he knew what the Chinese called them. The Chinese had a name for them even then, one hundred years before Japan claimed terra nullius.

The terra nullius claim was complete hogwash from a time when Japan engaging in complete hogwash to justify brutal colonialism. Or is it your belief that Hayashi had a crystal ball he used to know the Chinese name of the islands from the future?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It doesn't matter who "owned" the islands before 1895, or any other date. The problem is that now, the Chinese government have come up with the imaginary "9-dashed line" and have decided to use their military to force the internationally recognized "owners" to give in to their demands.

China is the country provoking Japan, the Philippines, et. al. Just like they invaded Tibet in the 1950s now they want to expand to the south and east and take whatever they want by military action.

This is becoming a threat to world peace. The Chinese should start behaving as a mature power rather than behaving like Japan did in the early 1900s. We all know where that ended up. China should know better.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Let clarify some of the misconceptions here. Some people still have the misguided idea that when Japanese government already owned 1 of 5 islands it would be OK for the government to nationalize three more. The problem is Japanese government unilaterally changed the status quo agreed by the two leaders before, and nationalization is not the same as private possession. Anyone can see the difference that nationalization can boost Japan’s sovereignty claim. There are also other means to stop private citizens from building on the islands but Japanese government chose not to go that route. Japan changed the status quo and came up with silly excuses, such as nationalization to avoid upsetting China, terra nullius claim, and “no dispute” claim. You might notice that for four decades there had been some little crashes off and on but they had always been kept under lid by China. China kept its words for four decades but Japan broke it in order to achieve its political gains. So, how can we blame China for reasserting its sovereignty claim? You can also notice that China has never bad-mouthed or smeared Japan in any way, but we heard a lot of it coming from Japan especially from Abe himself. China has used non-aggressive means to claim its sovereignty but we can’t say the same for Japan, in one instance using eight fighter jets to chase away a non-armed Chinese plane. Japan has constantly provoked and bullied China thinking that it has the US as its ally so it can do anything. So, how can we trust Japan when its leader always promotes confrontation and tries to destabilize the region?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

OssanAmerica Being simply verbose does not change nonsense. China are in the eyes of Asian countries and the world "the bad guys". Why? Because they are attempting to change the status quo, i.e; peace on the region, through force and the threat of force. This is something that the world agrees with. China's economic rise is welcomed, but not their military and territorial expansionism, especially when it rattles regional security and becomes the concern that it has. China's military strategy is with the United States as the main target. Not Japan, not the Philippines not Vietnam, etc. Because none of those countries have or even want strategic dominance in the region, something held only by the United States and something that China has openly declared an intent to replace as early as 2003. Conceivably China could even have become the leader in Asia is it weren't a one-party dictatorship and embraced democratic ideals. Unfortunately the CCP appears to have no intentions of adapting to the needs of the people or the evolutionary path of nations, so China remains the antithesis of American ideals and it's agenda of spreading democracy.

Really ? Are you serious or you have been misinformed. :) It won't 'matter.

FYI, after Arab spring, Obama administration has adapted a more practical approach in American doctrine. Unfortunately spreading democracy has become ,no longer, American's focus in its current foreign policy.

In doubt, ask Ms. Susan Rice, President Obama National Security Adviser.

I'd also absolutely agree with you that being simply verbose or outspoken on the issue of Senkakus islands do not change neither the nonsense nor the outcome. The sad part of geopolitical reality is that, in the end, there are no forever friends or forever enemies, perhaps only forever national interests.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Beijing said if Japan fired on its unmanned aircraft, it “would constitute a serious provocation, an act of war of sorts”.

And Beijing would be right. What Beijing left out is if Japan fired on a Chinese drone in Japanese airspace, it would be justified act of war.

And therefore, Beijing has it right when it says: "and all consequences would be the responsibility of the side that caused the provocation,” That country being China, by flying into Japanese airspace.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It's surprising to see how people are urging the amendment of Article 9 without understanding why it was implemented in first place and what the Article means to accomplish. The clause was designed to outlaw Japan from engaging in wars to resolve Int'l disputes. It renounced Japan's right to act in hostile or aggressive ways. In fact the current heightened conflict with China is exactly the kind of situation Article 9 was meant to diffuse by allowing peaceful negotiations and compromises to take place instead of facing off each other with arms in hand. Another reasons is enacting this law helped to avoid Japan's Emperor from being dethroned after the war for his responsibilities as the head of the Imperial Govt. Therefore Mr. Abe is gravely mistaken to think he can go back on the promises made half a century ago by the Govt. that desired to sincerely atone for it's destructive past while keeping it's National integrity in tact.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Flowers,

You confuse claims of sovereignty with claim of ownership.

Tokyodoumo

First, Do not confuse disagreement with misunderstanding.

Second, one wonder whether you understand that Japanese leaders did not chose Art 9. SCAP forced it on Japan. The question is whether it is still operable.

The problem is not Art 9. Its Yasukuni and Japanese revisionism.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Many people on this forum ask for proof of Chinese ownership of disputed island. Just read the new book by a Japanese professor, they are all in the book… unless you can disprove it.

Read this article in Japan Herald: http://www.japanherald.com/index.php/sid/215566809/scat/c4f2dd8ca8c78044

Tadayoshi Murata, of Yokohama National University, supports Chinese scholars’ research and claim that China has ownership of the disputed islands. He demonstrated that with references and evidence in his new book titled “The Origins of the Japan-China Territorial Issue” which was published recently in June of 2013. He argued Japan and China should peacefully coexist without this issue.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Japan makes claim to islands in 1895. The same year that the country takes over Taiwan. Coincidence or taking advantage of the situation? These islands belong to Taiwan.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

fw360

Many books say the mob killed JFK. Prove them wrong. See, it don't work that way.

Here are the facts: neither Japan nor China have any pre-modern claims on the islets. Japan seized them in 1895 and a Japanese business concern with permanent residents was established.

Japan has the better claim, and possession.

China may dispute that claim. China may not use force to further their claim.

China currently is using force and the threat of force to alter the status quo. These actions by China are incongruent with international law.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Why would Japan embark on a non-viable survey for ten years to determine without any doubt that Diaoyu was terra nullius? If, as Japan claims, the ten years spent surveying the islands would mean they were likely to encounter Chinese fisherman taking shelter there in a storm and not actually terra nullius, would Japan have accepted that the islands were visited by Chinese fishermen? Then why Japan did not lay claim to Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands before 1894 the year Japan vanquished Qing China’s navy? Why wait until 1896 after Japan forced an unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki on China in 1895 to pass an imperial decree to make Diaoyu a Japanese territory? Surely it is obvious that Japan had not surveyed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands to verify that it is no man’s land or uninhabited, because Japan could not as Japan knew the islands belong to China.

That accounts why Japan could not claim to discover the islands unless by outright war of conquest, which Japan did in 1894, and issued an imperial decree in 1896 to make Diaoyu a part of the Japanese Empire after the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Thus it would appear to me Japan is disingenuous, as Japan well knew long before her 1894 defeat of China, the Senkaku Islands were named as Diaoyu, a fishing platform for Chinese fishermen to take refuge in storms and route markers. To say Japan surveyed ten years the islands she called Senkaku Islands was a pretence Japan did not hear of the name Diaoyu used by China centuries before Japan called it Senkaku Islands.

The truth is very much lacking from Japan. To claim terra nullius is to say no one ever lived there before, and at the point of time, the discovery was made. Thus, having ‘proved’ terra nullius, Japan purported to land in Diaoyu and claims it as a discovery. That was what precisely Japan trying to legitimise their theft and answerable to no one with what is suspiciously a big lie.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Second, one wonder whether you understand that Japanese leaders did not chose Art 9. SCAP forced it on Japan. The question is whether it is still operable.

The problem is not Art 9. Its Yasukuni and Japanese revisionism."

Of course they didnt choose Article 9. It took 2 atomic bombs just to get them to surrender; even after Hiroshima they were ready to die for the Emperor. They didnt even choose the constitution McAuthur and staff originally drafted, McAuthur had to strong arm the situation in order to get the Japanese administration to conform. SCAP forced everything on Japan, whats the point of your logic? The right extremist in government do not care at all about the post war constitution, they want it all gone.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

ControlFreakOct. 29, 2013 - 12:55AM JST

A link written in archaic all kanji Japanese? Is that a joke?

You cannot be better. If a biography written in Japan in the first half of 1800's were in English, it would be a big joke.

Besides, if it was destroyed, how did it find its way onto the internet?

The map was brought to France where it was reprinted. The French version maps were circulated in Europe and became well known by Europeans. That is the problem. But the point is the map was an unofficial map drawn by a private citizen and that the drawer lived in a rural city of Sendai where scant information about Ryukyu islands or Senkaku islands was available.

flowersOct. 29, 2013 - 02:48AM JST

Let clarify some of the misconceptions here. Some people still have the misguided idea that when Japanese government already owned 1 of 5 islands it would be OK for the government to nationalize three more.

Who, did you think, granted the ownership to the private owners? The Japanese government granted the private ownership to the owners in the first place. If the islands belonged to China, the private ownership would have been void in the first place. So, if you think the private owners own the islands, it is same as the islands belong to Japan.

Anyone can see the difference that nationalization can boost Japan’s sovereignty claim.

No. It works the opposite way. A nation must protect the rights and properties of its citizens. But a nation can give up its own property. When PM Noda bought the islands, many Japanese worried that he may present the islands to China.

EthanWilberOct. 29, 2013 - 12:37AM JST

If you do not want a war, you need a well trained army.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

sfjp330

The islands were incorported in January of 1895 (prior to Treaty of Shimonoseki)and not 1896. The term "Senkaku" was used by Japanese Navy as early as 1873 in their survey report. What Japanese called "Uotsuri" is not same as "Diaoyu" for the chinese character used is inversed.

This has been addressed to you on number of occasions but you keep repeating this over and over.

And lastly, STOP COPY/PASTING some blog you got off the internet and pass it off as your own.

http://blog.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-769271-1-1.html

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

A link written in archaic all kanji Japanese? Is that a joke?

Click on the words "代語訳" to see a translation in modern Japanese.

Click on the words "解説" to see commentary.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

CHINA IS LOOKING FOR A FIGHT AND JAPAN NEEDS TO STAND UP AND DEAL WITH THE BULLY !

0 ( +4 / -4 )

how is japan suppose to know if a drone is chinese or not? its not like the chinese file a flight plan ahead of time?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@JTDanMan

Compared to the researches/evidences in this and other books on this subject (by Chinese and Japanese scholars) that support Chinese ownership, your assertion of Japanese ownership is just that... an assertion.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

fw360Oct. 29, 2013 - 02:32PM JST

Compared to the researches/evidences in this and other books on this subject (by Chinese and Japanese scholars) that support Chinese ownership

Great. Why do not you bring the case to International Court of Justice?

Japan repeatedly expressed its will to abide by international laws. Win the case and Japan will concede. You do not need any ship or drone.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Great. Why do not you bring the case to International Court of Justice?

@CH3CHO--I heard that China did submit evidence to the ICJ. Japan denies there is a dispute and won't go to the ICJ.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@ControlFreak

Have any links since that is the first I ever heard.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

ControlFreakOct. 29, 2013 - 04:34PM JST

@CH3CHO--I heard that China did submit evidence to the ICJ. Japan denies there is a dispute and won't go to the ICJ.

This misinformation is over the top. http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

I can agree with you on this point, China should go to ICJ, if it has not yet... Let the result be binding on Japan and China. So that Asia and the world can avoid a major conflict which is no good to anybody.

But I thought the official Japanese position is there is "no dispute" on the islands!?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I think this UN general assembly address by PM Noda at that time on September 26, 2012 merits more attention. He meant China and Korea in this address.

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/assembly2012/67_address_pm_en.html

Supporting the United Nations in promoting the "rule of law" continues to be a huge challenge. Once again, in cooperation with the United Nations, I call for nations to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ as Japan did and for non-member countries of the ICC and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to join at an early date.

There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law. The world should pay more attention to the role the international judicial institutions can play in the peaceful settlement of disputes.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

An interesting read:

http://www.kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/?_r=0

Have any links since that is the first I ever heard.

@SamuraiBlue--Be mindful that I did not say it was fact. I said I heard it.

Well, if Japan truly believes that China has no legitimate claim to the islets then what is Japan waiting for? According to Chinese officials, China has already submitted their evidentiary material.

http://nihongonews.wordpress.com/2012/11/07/senkaku_and_world_court/

What I am sure of is that Japan refuses to even recognize the dispute, which seems a bit odd since so many of you claim their case is rock solid and air tight.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Be mindful that I did not say it was fact. I said I heard it.

Rather ironic coming from someone that asked another poster if they had a link or if they had made something up.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ControlFreak

Japan does not recognize a dispute plainly because there is no dispute, it is simple as that. PRC can easily make it a dispute by either declaring war over the islands OR ask international moderation through ICJ.

I don't see PRC doing either.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

ControlFreakOct. 29, 2013 - 04:34PM JST "Great. Why do not you bring the case to International Court of Justice? @CH3CHO--I heard that China did submit evidence to the ICJ. Japan denies there is a dispute and won't go to the >ICJ.

LOL. Thanks for the laugh. Do you think for a moment that if China actually did this it wouldn't be all over the news including here on JT???

0 ( +2 / -2 )

fw360

Researches/evidences in this and other books on this subject support the claims that the Great Walls of Chinas weres only three feets tall. And was buiilts by aliens from other planets.

Chinese assertion to the otherwise is just that... an assertions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tokyodoumoOct. 29, 2013 - 03:59AM JST It's surprising to see how people are urging the amendment of Article 9 without understanding why it was implemented >in first place and what the Article means to accomplish. The clause was designed to outlaw Japan from engaging in >wars to resolve Int'l disputes. It renounced Japan's right to act in hostile or aggressive ways.

So you interpret Article 9 to mean that another country can bomb, attack, invade Japan with military force and Japan may not use military force to defend and repel the aggressors?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Do you think for a moment that if China actually did this it wouldn't be all over the news including here on JT?

@OssanAmerica--Yes, I do. I have no idea of the inner workings of the ICJ with regard to territorial disputes and simple submissions of evidence. I don't know what they would keep under wraps for a case that is not yet being officially tried. Further, I do not know when this happened if it happened. Nor do I believe the media to be unbiased. I am also well aware that mine is the minority opinion and those of you who are quite simply anti-China and/or pro-Japan are not going trip over your own shoe laces in any sort of rush to present fair and complete evidence. So I have to ask if its you who is kidding, as if you don't know that.

So you interpret Article 9 to mean that another country can bomb, attack, invade Japan with military force and Japan may not use military force to defend and repel the aggressors?

Self-defense is not acting in hostile or aggressive ways. Its obvious.

But then it is up for grabs the question of whether having some tiny uninhabited islands grabbed from Japan constitutes a self-defense situation worth allowing a full scale war to occur over. Hitler invading Poland, that would not be. I would rather see Japan let China take those stupid islands then have a war. Its not like China having them would be a genuine threat to Japan, or put Japan in a weaker position should China try to expand further. I think of my family on one hand and those useless island on the other and I chose my family.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hitler invading Poland, that would not be. I would rather see Japan let China take those stupid islands then have a war. Its not like China having them would be a genuine threat to Japan....

That's what the British and French thought when they let Hitler carve up the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. It's harmless, right? Peace in our time, right? Thus emboldened, Hitler proceeded to invade Poland, thinking the British and French were paper tigers.

In a similar fashion Japan carved "Manchukuo" out of China and, although the world powers did a lot of hand wringing, not much was done to stop the conquest. So the Japanese decided they could grab the whole lot and the Americans would cave in and sue for peace because, in Japanese minds, the Americans had no stomach for a fight.

Somebody care to remind me how that turned out?

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. China is proving itself a dunce.

I don't think it is Japan who is making families less safe.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"Japan annexed the unclaimed islands in 1895" -- This same year in 1895 China surrendered to Japan over the first Sino-Japan War. So after learning of this important piece of History that is often left out by Japanese Govt please tell me which Country had a controlling influences over the Island without oppositions?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

CH3CHOOct. 28, 2013 - 07:31PM JST The international law mandates the rule of terra nullius. Only one nation can declare acquisition of terra nullius, because there is only one nation that declares first. If a second nation does the same, it is nothing but illegal invasion.

In 1895, why did the J-goverment depart from an established course from its previous incorporation proceedings? The Daioyu islands incorporation was conspicuously made. In Japan incorporation of Daiyou Islands, China was never notified about Japan's incorporation nor wer any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can Japan explain thees clashing differences of procedures? Was the nearby end of the Sino-Japanese war a coincidence or were political reason behind it? There must've been fear within the Japanese goverment of creating diplomatic hardship with the Chinese in case of an publicized incorporation of the islands.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ControlFreakOct. 30, 2013 - 01:41AM JST "Do you think for a moment that if China actually did this it wouldn't be all over the news including here on JT? @OssanAmerica--Yes, I do. I have no idea of the inner workings of the ICJ with regard to territorial disputes and >simple submissions of evidence.

No one needs to have any idea of the inner workings of the ICJ or sub,missions of evidence to read a headline that says China submitted them. If China had done so, they themselves would have announced it and the media would have been all over it.

I don't know what they would keep under wraps for a case that is not yet being >officially tried. Further, I do not know >when this happened if it happened. Nor do I believe the media to be unbiased. I >am also well aware that mine is the >minority opinion and those of you who are quite simply anti-China and/or pro->Japan are not going trip over your own >shoe laces in any sort of rush to present fair and complete evidence. So I have >to ask if its you who is kidding, as if >you don't know that.

Pro or anti China or Japan is irrelevant to the credibility of your statement. China has not presented anything to the ICJ. You are not just in the minority on this one you are in outer space.

So you interpret Article 9 to mean that another country can bomb, attack, invade Japan with military force and Japan >may not use military force to defend and repel the aggressors?

Self-defense is not acting in hostile or aggressive ways. Its obvious.

No, Self-Defense is defending yourself. Your definition is simply "being passive" and not defense at all.

But then it is up for grabs the question of whether having some tiny uninhabited islands grabbed from Japan >constitutes a self-defense situation worth allowing a full scale war to occur over. Hitler invading Poland, that would not >be. I would rather see Japan let China take those stupid islands then have a war. Its not like China having them would >be a genuine threat to Japan, or put Japan in a weaker position should China try to expand further. I think of my family >on one hand and those useless island on the other and I chose my family

You couldn't be more wrong as to the importance of these islands, their location, in strategic terms. How seriously China, Japan the US are treating it is proof that you are completely incorrect.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

OssanAmerica Oct. 30, 2013 - 05:32AM JST How seriously China, Japan the US are treating it is proof that you are completely incorrect.

Yes, so serious that U.S. is neutral. U.S. has made it very clear that it takes no position in this conflict.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@JTDanMan

The problem with your argument is: there are no such books about the Great Wall of China.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't know what they would keep under wraps for a case that is not yet being officially tried.

China has never struck me as being a shy country when it comes to talking about territory that they bellieve to be theirs (including Okinawa apparently). So, I think they would be the first ones to trumpet the fact that they have brought their case before the ICJ. Don't you?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So, I think they would be the first ones to trumpet the fact that they have brought their case before the ICJ. Don't you?

@slumdog--Yup. That is why I was not too surprised even when I posted this the first time:

According to Chinese officials, China has already submitted their evidentiary material.

No, Self-Defense is defending yourself. Your definition is simply "being passive" and not defense at all.

@OssanAmerica--And there is a difference between defending yourself, and defending a rock in your yard.

No one needs to have any idea of the inner workings of the ICJ or sub,missions of evidence to read a headline that says China submitted them.

Reading comp strikes again. If the ICJ keeps such things under wraps, it won't make the headlines.

If China had done so, they themselves would have announced it and the media would have been all over it.

I already submitted a source that says they announced it. But I am not defending the source, merely saying someone said so. The media all over it?? You mean like they tripped over themselves in their rush to report Occupy Wall Street? Puhleeze. The mass media is anything but free and dedicated to keeping us properly informed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

there are no such books about the Great Wall of China

Yes, there are.

Prove me wrong.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

sfjp330Oct. 30, 2013 - 05:39AM JST "OssanAmerica Oct. 30, 2013 - 05:32AM JST How seriously China, Japan the US are treating it is proof that you are completely incorrect. Yes, so serious that U.S. is neutral. U.S. has made it very clear that it takes no position in this conflict.

Can we not repeat this again? Please don't keep raising the same issue over and over again. The U.S. is "neutral" only on the question of sovereignty. The US has told China several times that if they try to take the Senkakus by force the U.S. will defend them against China. Does that sound very "neutral" to you?

"The U.S. made its position on the East China Sea territorial dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands very clear this week when U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel met with his Japanese counterpart Itsunori Onodera. During talks with Onodera, Hagel confirmed that the U.S. will be supporting Japan, clarifying its commitment to its ally by referring to the islands by their Japanese name “Senkaku” and saying that the islands “fall under our security obligations,” http://www.ibtimes.com/us-takes-japans-side-disputed-territory-east-china-sea-saying-senkaku-islands-fall-under-security

"This was her statement at a joint news conference at the State Department following talks with Japan’s foreign minister, Kishida Fumio, on January 18 that the United States “opposes” any actions that would undermine Japanese administrative control of the Senkaku Islands. Clinton’s statement was taken by both Japan and China as a sharp change–a “pivot” toward Japan–in the U.S. position on the Japan-China dispute. Up to then, the U.S. position had been that Japanese administrative control, being a fact, placed the Senkakus under the terms of Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty. However, the U.S. does not “take a position” on the dispute between China and Japan on sovereignty over the islands. By “opposing” China’s challenge to Japanese administrative control (a challenge based on China’s claim of sovereignty) the U.S.–following Clinton’s statement–has unambiguously taken a position on the matter." http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2013/02/07/

"Visiting U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told Chinese National Defense Minister Liang Guanglie in Beijing that the security treaty obligating the United States to come to the defense of Japan would be applied to the Senkakus, which are called the Diaoyu Islands in China." http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201209210061

ControlFreakOct. 30, 2013 - 10:10PM JST

"No, Self-Defense is defending yourself. Your definition is simply "being passive" and not defense at all."

@OssanAmerica--And there is a difference between defending yourself, and defending a rock in your yard.

No you are wrong once again. Defense as used in terms of nations and states refers to people, territory and property. Whether that entails a city, an island or a rock is irrelevant to the definition.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OssanJapan Oct. 31, 2013 - 03:42AM JST The U.S. is "neutral" only on the question of sovereignty. The US has told China several times that if they try to take the Senkakus by force the U.S. will defend them against China. Does that sound very "neutral" to you?

Again, U.S. will not go to war over a piece of rock. Let Japan handle China themselves. Besides Japan has 20K companies inside China and the trade with China accounts for 21 percent of Japan's GDP. Let Japan risk the economic chaos after the war. U.S. continues to have fragile economy, and they depend heavily on bilateral trade with trade with China, and I doubt another war is the answer. U.S. is already sick and tired of the war.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@fw360

Another Japanese professor states the disputed Diayu/Senkaku islands belong to China. Professor Tadayoshi Murata,

Your link doesn't follow through, try pressing "read more". However I have found out more by looking up Tadayoshi Murata. What he actually advocates is compromise, not Chinese ownership. If you really agree with Professor Tadayoshi Murata you would first start by trying to post in the free Chinese press that China should not resort to military threats, not resort to vandalism of Japanese property and goods in China, and not resort to anti-Japanese propoganda in the press. Any chance you agree with this?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

sfjp330Oct. 31, 2013 - 05:22AM JST OssanJapan Oct. 31, 2013 - 03:42AM JST The U.S. is "neutral" only on the question of sovereignty. The US has told China several times that if they try to take the Senkakus by force the U.S. will defend them against China. Does that sound very "neutral" to you? Again, U.S. will not go to war over a piece of rock.

Again, The Senkakus are NOT a piece of rock. China, Japan and the United States do not think so, So please stop repeating this nonsense. China would not be putting in the effort that they are if they were simply a "piece of rock".

Let Japan handle China themselves.

Exactly China's position with regard to the multiple disputes it has with Asian neighbors.

Besides Japan has 20K companies inside China and the trade with China accounts for 21 percent of Japan's GDP. >Let Japan risk the economic chaos after the war.

What war? The one that China is going to start? But why would they with that much Japanese investment in their country?

U.S. continues to have fragile economy, and they depend heavily on bilateral trade with trade with China, and I doubt >another war is the answer. U.S. is already sick and tired of the war.

The US public is sick and tired of pointless Mideast semi-civil wars that have no exit. The world's most powerful dictatorship starting a war to attain strategic dominance of the region is a different matter. Look up American history and see if you can spot a pattern in US reaction when that scenario arises.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yup. That is why I was not too surprised even when I posted this the first time:

Yes. After that, you also posted this:

I have no idea of the inner workings of the ICJ with regard to territorial disputes and simple submissions of evidence. I don't know what they would keep under wraps for a case that is not yet being officially tried. Further, I do not know when this happened if it happened.

Perhaps you should consider getting your position straight.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

JTDanMan

there are no such books about the Great Wall of China. Yes, there are. Prove me wrong.

@JTDanMan--You want someone to prove something does not exist? Hardly the beginning or end of the logic flaws in the argumentation of the pro-Japan because they are anti-China side.

Perhaps you should consider getting your position straight.

@slumdog--My position is straight. I heard the Chinese submitted evidence of their claim. I cannot verify it. If its true, I don't know how the ICJ will treat it ie if they will make the fact public. What I do know is that the Japanese are just plain in denial there is a dispute, which is pretty ridiculous considering their claim to Dokdo. And so I know the Japanese have not submitted evidence.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

My position is straight.

Your position seems to be more about being anti-Japanese position than anything else.

I heard the Chinese submitted evidence of their claim. I cannot verify it.

Perhaps you cannot verify it because the article you linked is about a year old and it is only quoted in that article. You did not hear it, by the way, you read it.

What I do know is that the Japanese are just plain in denial there is a dispute,

I addressed this already. Japan has made it clear they understand there is a disagreement. It is just that they believe the facts are indisputable. That is not the same thing as denying there is a dispute. Dispute has two meanings and you are choosing to see the one that fits into your attempted argument. But, it does not reflect the Japanese position accurately in my opinion.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

ControlFreak

China has not submited anything to the International Court of Justice. PERIOD. If they did, it would be on the ICJ updates. Perhaps you are confused with the Limits of Continental Shelf which China submitted. But this again has no merit to territorial disputes since UNCLOS and the precedence set forth by ITLOS sets a median line (status quo) when there is an overlapping EEZ.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

nigelboy seems to be correct as there appears to be nothing regarding China v. Japan on the docket:

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your position seems to be more about being anti-Japanese position than anything else.

@slumdog--How about the part where I said the islands belong to Japan?

Your argument seems to be about cherry picking phrases from paragraphs rather than read everything.

I addressed this already. Japan has made it clear they understand there is a disagreement.

Disagreement or dispute?

And you harp on me for semantics.

Perhaps you are confused with the Limits of Continental Shelf which China submitted.

@Nigelboy--I posted a link. If you have a problem with it, address the link. Don't accuse me of being confused if the article in the link is.

And I say again in case you guys lose the plot again. I am not defending that link. I merely stated that the link said something, and I further stated I cannot verify it.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

How about the part where I said the islands belong to Japan?

Where did you specifically say that? If you did say that, what the heck are you arguing about then?

Disagreement or dispute?

Japan understands that China disagrees but Japan believes that it is indisputable that the islands are theirs. You seem to agree, so what exactly is your problem?

As was posted above, PM Noda spoke in 2012 about this very clearly:

There are still a number of territorial and maritime disputes in many parts of the world. It is the philosophy of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as a shared principle in the international community, to settle disputes in a peaceful manner based on international law. Japan, under any circumstance, is determined to comply with the principle and seek peaceful solutions based on international law.

Japan admits the disagreements clearly and is also clear that it is determined to follow international law.

I posted a link. If you have a problem with it, address the link. Don't accuse me of being confused if the article in the link is.

You posted the link as support for your argument. Like it or not, you are married to it. If the article is mistaken and you used it as support, it only follows that you are also mistaken.

I merely stated that the link said something, and I further stated I cannot verify it.

No, not exactly. You said you 'heard that China did submit evidence to the ICJ' and were asked for a link. If your link does not support your argument, you should not have used it. It certainly is not the readers fault for pointing it out to you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

nigelboyOct. 31, 2013 - 04:11PM JST China has not submited anything to the International Court of Justice. PERIOD.

There is no benefit for China to file to ICJ. The stances of both countries with regard to the DiaoyuSenkaku Islands are too far apart to be able to bring the problem to a third party, including to the ICJ for resolution. The issue of territory for both countries is combined with ethnic pride and it has become a very sensitive matter. Currently, it would be better to think about how to manage the issue rather than try to resolve it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

sfjp330Nov. 01, 2013 - 03:37AM JST "nigelboyOct. 31, 2013 - 04:11PM JST China has not submited anything to the International Court of Justice. PERIOD.

There is no benefit for China to file to ICJ.

Sure there is. China could conceivably LEGALLY take title to the Senkakus. It wouldn;t have to resort to bullying and intimidation tactics and could improve it;s image in the world.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Ossan

We already know this many times over. What a worthless comment. What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what does it matter? What is important the most for Japanese or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of Senkaku/Daiyou. So your back to square one.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

China is getting more like a bully now than ever before. I think that the fact that they are getting stronger is not boding well for the rest of the countries nearby,,, and later, the world. While most countries that get stronger want to help their people with their new wealth, the Chinese military (peopled by folks with ossified communist brains) want to push others and bully their ways to other's lands. For example, the Chinese says that all of the South China Seas islands belong to them, Ha! What about all those other countries that are much closer to those islands? The Philippines lost islands that are closer to them than to China because the Philippines are weaker than China. Japan should never waiver from their property or they will lose these islands now - and other island later.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Nigelboy--I posted a link. If you have a problem with it, address the link. Don't accuse me of being confused if the article in the link is.

You and the author. Sorry. I should of made it clear. There is no submission of evidentary material by China to ICJ, PERIOD.

And I say again in case you guys lose the plot again. I am not defending that link. I merely stated that the link said something, and I further stated I cannot verify it.

What can I say. "Lazy" best fits your description since all you had to do was go into the ICJ website which details how the judicial process begins.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

nigelboy Nov. 01, 2013 - 07:18AM JST There is no submission of evidentary material by China to ICJ, PERIOD.

China has not suffered any serious damage from their non-response to that claim.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

sfjp330Nov. 01, 2013 - 05:28AM JST @Ossan We already know this many times over. What a worthless comment.

If you know this stop repeatedly raising the same issue. And I assure you my comments are worth more than your constant copy & page jobs plagiarizing other sites.

What can ICJ do? ICJ means nothing. Regardless if Japan or China went to ICJ, there is no guarantee that loser of >the case will not follow the ruling that was not in their favor. Nobody is going to enforce the ruling anyway. So what >does it matter? What is important the most for Japanese or Chinese politicians is the public opinion, and they will not >respect the ruling that is not favorable on the sovereignty of Senkaku/Daiyou. So your back to square one.

Firstly Japan can't go to the ICJ over the Senkakus. Can we get that clear? Only the claimant can. Japan is a signatory to an agreement that makes accepting an ICJ ruling compulsory. So you are totally wrong in saying that there is no guarantee that the loser would not follow the ICJ ruling. As for China, it is up to them to bring it to the ICJ. But China refuses to do so. They sit on the Permanent UNSC, the ICJ is an arm of the UN, and they refuse to sign the agreement making acceptance of an ICJ ruling compulsory. Looks very bad for China. But if they do, many Asian nations will take them to the ICJ. Even China doesn't want to stop trade with all of them.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp330Nov. 01, 2013 - 07:38AM JST nigelboy Nov. 01, 2013 - 07:18AM JST There is no submission of evidentary material by China to ICJ, PERIOD. China has not suffered any serious damage from their non-response to that claim.

sfjp330Nov. 01, 2013 - 05:28AM JST What a worthless comment

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Wow... china really need to learn to let stuff go... The islands are not theirs. Sucks that theyre being idiots. Theyre wanting to pick a fight and very soon theyre going to have it and then what? WWIII?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the islands are chinese , the islands are japanese , no problem , give them to the UNO , and let them make a big prison on the islands

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites