Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you agree with Japan's decision to release the captain of a Chinese fishing boat that collided with a Japanese patrol boat that was pursuing it near the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea?

21 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

21 Comments
Login to comment

nigelboy at 06:31 AM JST - 30th September. IN principal, both parties must agree to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ. As of today, Japan has by declaraing herself under "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court(ICJ) as Compulsory" while China has not.

All Japan has to do now to retaliate against China is threaten to go to the International Court of Justice. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? However, is highly unlikely to take this route. The Japanese don’t like the concept of lawsuits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops. I misread the question above. I thought the question was "Do you agree that Japan's decision to release the captain of Chinese vessel was based on their concern with a dispute over the Senkaku Island?" 35 words in a single sentence! Geez, it's quite confusing.

Regarding the question above, my answer is 'yes,' as far as the collision did not lead to a fatal accident or significant injuries upon the coast guards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Part of the Chinese all-encompassing warfare. Force public opinion by flooding websites with votes and posts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I see the yes bars raised a lot. Must be many Chinese visiting this site now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if he had just entered the disputed waters, he should have not been held. but, as he rammed 2 japanese vessels, he should have been arrested & detained

Who rammed who is not clear yet! I don,t think you will drive the compact car to ram the Hummer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It sounds weird that the prosecutors made the decision on the basis of consideration of the two countries relations, not of laws, in a country ruled by law. I welcome the release of the captain though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does Japan have to wait for China to make a move ? Can't it put a case before the ICJ itself, asking for a final definitive ruling on the matter ? China would then have to argue its case, what little of it there may be, or just forefit any future claims.

In principal, both parties must agree to recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ. As of today, Japan has by declaraing herself under "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court(ICJ) as Compulsory" while China has not.

This is why Australia was able to file their "whaling" suit to ICJ and Japan had to comply since both countries have declared the above.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If China wants to dispute Japan's ownership of these islands they should take matter to the ICJ. That would be the civilized way of disputing it. Of course I do not believe China has sufficient a case to win which would explain why they don't do it.

Does Japan have to wait for China to make a move ? Can't it put a case before the ICJ itself, asking for a final definitive ruling on the matter ? China would then have to argue its case, what little of it there may be, or just forefit any future claims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A prosecutor's job is to prosecute a criminal person, if he thinks there is sufficient evidence of the crime. Diplomatic issues cannot be the reason for his not prosecuting a criminal person. It is only the Minister of Justice who can stop the prosecution for diplomatic reasons. The prosecutor in Okinawa who did not prosecute the violent trespasser should be punished, and in the process of the investigation for punishing him, he should disclose what pressure he had had in making the decision not to punish the criminal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

glycol57 at 01:02 AM JST - 29th September And, it also has to be noted that the islands and surrounding waters >ARE "in dispute". Ownership is NOT perfectly clear. Something should be >done about this before the NEXT "incident". Is some kind of co-ownership >or "internationalization" of the islands politically possible ?

If China wants to dispute Japan's ownership of these islands they should take matter to the ICJ. That would be the civilized way of disputing it. Of course I do not believe China has sufficient a case to win which would explain why they don't do it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could have say yes if China had acted or was acting like a civilized place but seeing that it made no difference and China is still acting like a bully and a big baby at the same time well I say they should have kept him and prosecuted him because it doesn't seem it would make any difference to China it just wants to fight!

And the Islands are not and have never been disputed until the idea of possible gas and oil was mentioned in 1970 only then did China and Taiwan who until then had always said they were not theirs and even had maps showing that suddenly changed their minds.

So to heck with the whole thing tell China it can keep is junk revoke patent rights and move the factories to some place more civilized as it is now Japan buts more from China then China buys from Japan so they need Japan more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever the legal status of these islands, I think it's important to choose one's battles, and this one isn't important enough to risk the possible economic and political fallout, much less an actual confrontation.

Exactly.

Pressing the issue would have caused far more harm than the minor, percieved, "insult" to Japanese pride was worth by anyones measure. The government did the right thing, even if it maybe wasn't the most popular thing.

And, it also has to be noted that the islands and surrounding waters ARE "in dispute". Ownership is NOT perfectly clear. Something should be done about this before the NEXT "incident". Is some kind of co-ownership or "internationalization" of the islands politically possible ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jonswan at 09:44 AM JST - 27th September The only way these disputed islands can be less disputed is having a >grown up dialogue with the Chinese and Taiwanese because war over this >would be insane. Sharing the islands and the mineral wealth beneath >would make most sense.

The Senkakus were recognized as being Japanese by China as late as 1969. China only changed it's tune in the 1970s to grab natural resouces.Sharing with Taiwan may be feasible, whereas with China is most likely an impossibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

jonswan at 09:44 AM JST - 27th September Japan's behaviour was rather arrogant over the whole incident.

Japan's behavior was exactly what any NORMAL country on the planet wouold do under the circumstances. The only uncivilized belligerent bahavior we saw and are still seeing is from China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people said: "just release the captain and end the conflict". After days of release the captain, do it look like the conflict ended? Do it look like things are improving after doing it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun:

The news said that the Japanese coast guard admitted that no ramming happened intentionally - you going out and intentionally ramming a coast guard vessel would be different, no?

And the area is disputed among China, Japan and Taiwan, and is directly in the middle of all three. Guilt in this case is more difficult to ascertain that going out ramming.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you agree with Japan's decision

Japan's decision? It was the Okinawa prosecutors who made the decision.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan's behaviour was rather arrogant over the whole incident

Next time I take my boat out fishing, I'll ram a Coast Guard vessel and let's see what happens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Should have been? But he was arrested and detained. And he should've been released earlier to stop antagonising Japan's biggest trading partner. Japan's behaviour was rather arrogant over the whole incident. Besides, the Japanese announced that he hadn't intentionally rammed their patrol boats. He was there fishing. The only way these disputed islands can be less disputed is having a grown up dialogue with the Chinese and Taiwanese because war over this would be insane. Sharing the islands and the mineral wealth beneath would make most sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if he had just entered the disputed waters, he should have not been held. but, as he rammed 2 japanese vessels, he should have been arrested & detained.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever the legal status of these islands, I think it's important to choose one's battles, and this one isn't important enough to risk the possible economic and political fallout, much less an actual confrontation.

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