Talks between China and Japan at G20 unlikely

No, no, no. Only the CCP is at loggerheads over the Senkakus and making it an issue. While Japan has recognized administrative control over the islands any friction being generated over them is all down to China.

Mr Li needs to look up 'provocative' in a dictionary, and maybe 'hypocrite' too. To the CCP, it seems you are being 'provocative' if you don't give into their bullying or buy into whatever bogus claims they are making.

1.The natural resources are not the main reason, the dignity of the nation and indeed the background of histroy is the primary reason.

The initiator of this wave in the recent years is the trade action of the Japan Gov't on the dispute islets even after geting warned by China for many times. And before that the relationship between Japan and China is not so bad.

I think it is difficult to say upper two are not the facts.

SecularBeast: "While Japan has recognized administrative control over the islands any friction being generated over them is all down to China."

And yet you point out the EXACT same thing in regards to South Korea and Dokdo (plus add that they actually inhabit the islands!) and people like yourself suddenly say "It's different".

I agree, though, that there's no point in talking. It'll just be another example of Japan saying, "Very regrettable. We expect your cooperation".

In fact there is no point in discussing this issue at the G20. CCP will not let go of their claims unless their adversary gives in to their demands and hands the Islets over fully and unconditionally. China leaves no room for negotiation while Japan does. There is no surprise in CCP showing the bigotry and arrogance everyone is already used to.

Haven't each side talked enough? Forget the talks, let's see some action. What's the point of talking with neither are going to budge? Japan wouldn't even recognize there is an dispute and China wouldn't talk unless Japan acknowledge that there is a dispute. Its like chicken or the egg, which comes first?

Somebody should just up the ante and inhabit those islands and call the other side's bluff. Action people, action.

@IRobin - 'Dignity of the nation' is a two way street. The CCPs actions over the Senkakus are hardly dignified, and it isn't treating Japan with dignity. Good grief, it was Japanese investment of trillions of Yen in China over decades that allowed it to build much of the infrastructure necessary to fuel it's economic boom. It's the CCP that obstructing bi-lateral discussions because they can't get their own way over the Senkakus, not Japan.

@smithinjapan - I never mentioned Dokdo, nor does it have anything to do with the article under discussion. Apples and oranges my friend.

SecularBeastAug. 29, 2013 - 12:43PM JST

@smithinjapan - I never mentioned Dokdo, nor does it have anything to do with the article under discussion. Apples and oranges my friend.

But it has everything to do with your argument to justify why you think the Senkakus are Japanese and not Chinese.

By your reasoning there is no territorial dispute over the Dokdo islands or the Southern Kuriles. Korea and Russia have recognized administrative control over these islands and any friction being generated over them is all down to Japan.

If you can't see the reasoning by what has been pointed out by SmithinJapan, then you, like the Japanese political, need to take a crash course in basic logic.

Japan does not decide the international narrative and until it wakes up to that fact, it is not worth China wasting her time discussing anything with an ageing Asian has-been.

“If Japan wants to arrange a meeting to resolve these problems, they should stop the empty talk and doing stuff for show,” the Global Times, which is close to the ruling Communist party, quoted him as saying.

Japan just wants China to stop acting like a burglar. China can try to convince Japan about territorial issue through a diplomatic channel and she can sue Japan if she wants. It's up to China. Not Japan.

zomafumiAug. 29, 2013 - 01:28PM JST

China can try to convince Japan about territorial issue through a diplomatic channel and she can sue Japan if she wants. It's up to China. Not Japan.

Are you for real?

Japan has adopted the stance that there is no territorial issue with China. Because Japan insists that there is "no dispute," it is not seeking to file a complaint with the ICJ. Without both disputing parties bringing the issue to the ICJ, the ICJ will not rule on a dispute.

Japan really needs to do something about the relationship with China, need to make up for the past crimes against humanity in Asia. China has been in harmony with the rest of the world for a long time and they had been beaten up for that, now they are building up, we need to work together for a common solution that benefits both Japan and China.

Dog Aug. 29, 2013 - 01:40PM JST

Japan has adopted the stance that there is no territorial issue with China. Because Japan insists that there is "no dispute," it is not seeking to file a complaint with the ICJ. Without both disputing parties bringing the issue to the ICJ, the ICJ will not rule on a dispute.

Abe has clearly stated that Japan regards Senkaku(Diaoyu) problem as diplomatic issue. It means China can use its diplomatic channel to Japan. And if China makes optional clause declarations of the ICJ and sue Japan, then Japan will have obligation to accept the trial. It's up to China.

This comment by the Chinese official sounds just as stupid as Koreas comment that the emperor won't be allowed or welcome there if he wanted to visit. Shutting the door on diplomacy without an invitation.

DogAug.　 29, 2013 - 03:53PM JST

Abe does not regard the Senkaku problem as a diplomatic problem

I just read the statement of Suga that denied media report of Kyodo News that I had read before. You are right about it.

There is no optional clause declaration in the ICJ

It's not correct. Please read the article 36(2) of statute of the ICJ. China can obligate Japan to appear before a judge. It's up to China.

zomafumiAug. 29, 2013 - 04:28PM JST

It's not correct. Please read the article 36(2) of statute of the ICJ. China can obligate Japan to appear before a judge. It's up to China.

I think you had better re-read articles 36 of the ICJ

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

Both parties have to agree to arbitration except on issues to do with

*a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. *

Senkaku is a territorial dispute and does not fall under a. b. c. or d, therefore one party of the dispute cannot unitarily bring it before the ICJ.

Dog Aug. 29, 2013 - 05:09PM JST

I think you had better re-read articles 36 of the ICJ

You omitted to quote 36(2) properly. Again, please read it.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

China can obligate Japan to appear before a judge by making declaration which is optional. It's up to China.

Dog Aug. 29, 2013 - 05:09PM JST

You omitted to quote 36(2) properly. Again, please read it.

The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

I don't think English is your first language

This is known as the Optional Clause which allows states to make a unilateral declaration recognizing "as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement in reference to ICJ Statutes that apply to (1) any international conventions and treaties; (2) international custom; (3) general principles recognized as law by civilized nations; and (4) judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations.

Once again, the Senkaku dispute is neither 1, 2, 3 or 4, it's a territorial dispute, and therefore the Optional Clause does not apply to this Senkaku/Daiyo dispute

This is the reason that Japan, so far, has failed to bring the Dokdo dipute to the ICJ. South Korea considers Dokdo a domestic issue, like Japan with the Senkakus, and therefore unless both parties willingly come before the ICJ and agree to accept the ICJ's ruling, the ICJ will not hear territorial disputes.

The same hinderance is placed before Spain and Argentina, concerning Gibraltor and the Malvinas. Britain has invoked the so called self-judging reservation, or Connally Reservation. This reservation allows states to avoid the court's jurisdiction, if they decide not to respond to a particular suit.

South Korea- Takeshima/Dokdo is not the same as the Senkakus. Japan has owned the Senkakus from 1885. China made a claim in 1970. That's 85 years with Chinese maps from the 50s and 60s showing them to be Japanese. To date China has not requested to settle at the ICJ. In contrast, when South Korea unilaterally claimed Takeshima against the U.S. position and drew the Syngman Rhee Line in 1952, Japan immediately filed a claim. Japan has requested settlement of the dispute at the ICJ 3 times which South Korea has and still continues to refuse. If one wants to argue that there is a similarity it is only to the extent that both South Korea and China are taking advantage of a pacifist Japan, acting against the U.S. position, and acting illegally with no intent to settle any argument through legal means.

Well, politicians fume about this and that, but meanwhile, business gets done. Let the politicians fume, just don't let them get in the way.

The problem is that if clashes erupt over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands, China may find itself in a position where it cannot compromise without severe damage to its domestic legitimacy. In these disputes, Chinese nationalism collides with other nationalisms, especially that of Japan, which embodies strong historical resentments. It means that most of China’s neighbors want the U.S. to remain militarily present in the region. Even if the U.S. were to withdraw, it is highly unlikely that these countries like Japan, Vietnam, and Philippines would submit meekly to Chinese hegemony. But if the U.S. were to commit itself to a military alliance with these countries against China, U.S. would risk embroiling America in their territorial disputes. In the event of a military clash between Japan and China, U.S. would be faced with the choice of either holding aloof and seeing its credibility as an ally destroyed, or fighting China.

Neither the U.S. nor China would “win” the resulting war outright, but they would certainly inflict catastrophic damage on each other and on the world economy. If the conflict escalated into a nuclear exchange, modern civilization would be wrecked. Even a prolonged period of military and strategic rivalry with an economically mighty China will gravely weaken America’s global position.

DogAug. 29, 2013 - 08:39PM JST

Once again, the Senkaku dispute is neither 1, 2, 3 or 4, it's a territorial dispute, and therefore the Optional Clause does not apply to this Senkaku/Daiyo dispute

Why don't you just admit it was wrong that you said There is no optional clause declaration in the ICJ?

Well, you think that territorial dispute has nothing to do with international conventions and treaties + general principles recognized as law by civilized nations + judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations(1,3 and 4). It is the negation of rule of law.

zomafumiAug. 29, 2013 - 03:21PM JST It means China can use its diplomatic channel to Japan. And if China makes optional clause declarations of the ICJ and sue Japan, then Japan will have obligation to accept the trial. It's up to China.

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 Senkaku/Diaoyu. So your back to square one.

sfjp330Aug. 30, 2013 - 08:28AM JST

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.

There is no guarantee, that's true. The ICJ of UN might be powerless for China that have a veto. However the ICJ is the only judicial branch that treats territorial issue. To avoid a war, it should be utilized to try to resolve a problem when diplomatic negotiation doesn't work. There is no guarantee that judgement will be followed and there is no guarantee that the negotiation will reach to agreement. I think it's waste of time to worry about nonexistence of a guarantee.

So many historical documents which are related to territorial disputes between Japan and China exist. No one knows which country has a right to control Senkaku island, but in the real, Japan has been controlling that island by arranging police men and Japan coast guards on the sea. It is just like as same as current condition of Takeshima even history and process of Senkaku island is totally different to compare to Takehsima island. Finding a point of compromise over territorial dispute could be one of the way to solve it, but it is not the best way for Japan because international society will trust Japan more than China which has been having many of territorial conflicts with many countries in Asian region. NO negotiation, NO compromise, NO agreement. Just keep this current situation.

You should not overestimate the "Chinese hatred of Japan". I've been there many times on vacation and business, and the average Chinese seems about as interested in nationalism as the average Japanese. That is, NONE. NO interest. And the average Chinese does not care about the islands etc. etc. etc. And they keep coming to Japan. Don't form your impression from a small group of extremely noisy Chinese Japan haters.

Well, you think that territorial dispute has nothing to do with international conventions and treaties + general principles recognized as law by civilized nations + judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations(1,3 and 4). It is the negation of rule of law.

The ICJ is concerned with civil law. Criminal law cases are referred to the ICC (International Criminal court). Civil law is about specifics and has a core of principles which are codified into a referable system. By a strict interpretation of those codes, ciivil law remains functional. Thus the still controversial issue of whether the principle of negligence really does exist in civil law, nearly 100 years after Donoghue v Stevenson.

The rule of law is a vague notion of all people/countries are subject to the law. It has very little to with civil law and nothing to do with international law.

The ICJ is concerned with international torts (any international conventions and treaties) and equitable international wrongs (international customs and general principles recognized as law by 'civilized' nations). It is not concerned with who owns what in this world, unless all parties to the dispute agree to attend an ICJ hearing and abide by the ICJ ruling.

I'm not here to lesson you in jurisprudence, but just on a practical level, why do you think Japan has been unsuccessful in bringing the Dokdo dispute before the ICJ? The answer is that both parties to the dispute (specificly South Korea) refuse to attend an ICJ hearing or agree to abide by any future ruling.

I've tried to make the above as simple as possible and have sacrificied detail as a result, but if you cannot understand why it would be futile for China to attempt to bring the Senkau dispute before the ICJ, then I can do no more.

Once again, concerning the ICJ, optional clause declarations only apply to disputes over international torts and equitable international wrongs: The senkaku dispute is neither.

Is that really that hard to understand?

DogAug. 30, 2013 - 08:32PM JST

It is not concerned with who owns what in this world, unless all parties to the dispute agree to attend an ICJ hearing and abide by the ICJ ruling.

Senkaku issue is about the validity of sovereignty based on the national laws of China and Japan, and the interpretation of international treaties. It is related the condition of 36(2) of statute of the ICJ. Thus compulsory jurisdiction is valid for that issue. You seem to forget that the ICJ has judged many territorial disputes. I don't understand the reason why you think Senkaku issue is different from those cases.

why do you think Japan has been unsuccessful in bringing the Dokdo dispute before the ICJ?

It's off topic. One thing I can say is that South Korea is not obligated to accept it because she has not made declaration of compulsory jurisdiction.

Once again, concerning the ICJ, optional clause declarations only apply to disputes over international torts and equitable international wrongs: The senkaku dispute is neither.

Once again, why don't you just admit it was wrong that you said There is no optional clause declaration in the ICJ?

I give up trying to explain the basics.

. You seem to forget that the ICJ has judged many territorial disputes. I don't understand the reason why you think Senkaku issue is different from those cases.

Because both parties to the disputes agreed to take it to the ICJ and agreed to abide by the ICJ's rulings.

It's off topic.

Are you for real? The Dokdo dispute is an exact mirror of the Senkaku dispute, except that South Korea has control of the disputed landmass and South Korea refuses to bring the dispute before the ICJ.

Bye.

DogSep. 01, 2013 - 09:38AM JST

I give up trying to explain the basics.

You can't explain the basic that you don't understand. The nation that has made a declaration of compulsory jurisdiction can sue other nations that has made the same declaration without agreement. It's written on 36(2) of statute of the ICJ. If the claim of China has nothing to do with the conditions of 36(2), it means that the claim of China has no legal basis. Great.

The Dokdo dispute is an exact mirror of the Senkaku dispute,

The situations are completely different. Japan can't obligate Korea to accept the trial since Korea has not made the declaration of optional clause. On the other hand, China has a way to obligate Japan to appear before a judge, and China doesn't have to make a declaration to try to sue Japan. China has been avoiding the peaceful resolution while she keeps sending ships around the EEZ of Japan. On the other hand Japan has never conducted that kind of provocation on the area around Liancourt Rocks. Please don't confuse two different cases.

Reasoning with the PRC is worse than trying to have a discussion with their supporters here.

Reason and logic to brainwashed zombies means nothing.

Ahh they say is ,"AHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh braaaaaains"