zomafumi comments

He has worked hard to portray China as a threat, aiming to sow discord, raising regional tensions and so creating a convenient excuse for the resurrection of Japanese militarism

So, China is not a threat for people of Tibet, Uygur, Philippines and Kashmir anymore? It's a good news.

Tom WebbJan. 22, 2014 - 06:50AM JST

The world should ban tuna exports to Japan.

I would agree to regulate the fishing of endangered tuna, but your opinion is too unfair since 75% of whole consumption is not by Japan.

Japan is not innocent…not when its fishing fleets still illegally hunt whales in the Antarctic under the guise of research, Ariel Guico commented.

without legal rationale.

Just realize that "high intelligence of dolphin" has nothing to do with your anti-dolphin hunting sentiment. You are just facing the cultural difference. That's all.

For many, many years and decades we have worked hard to receive true understanding of the Japanese from the world, she said.

I don't understand what is "true understanding of the Japanese" to her. It should be her personal opinion about ideal image of Japan.

Tradition?? Simple research reveals that they started slashing up dolphins in 70's and 80's*

Where can I see that simple research?

This gonna be a good opportunity for left winger Japanese to wake up

Actually it's better for urushi coated plate to be used sometimes.

I want Madrid to be selected. Tokyo is too crowded.

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.

Idol business is a cancer of Japanese music industry. Many fans spoil their money to buy huge amount of same CD, Oricon chart is filled with rubbish, many girls become unhappy and only the few are on to a good thing. Terrible.

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?

They can apologize. They can hung on their position. They can earn huge amount of money without taking any punishment.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

Excuse for raising defense budget is not necessary when there is a need to raise defense budget.

The headline's misleading, but most posters didn't even read what Aso said.

It often happens on this website.

Why is the finance minister making inflammatory comments about defense issues? I think it's quite natural for finance minister to make a comment concerning to a defense budget. Now Japan has clear intention of defense, and opened diplomatic channel to other countries. I don't think it's a problem.

It seems that he's still been working as a foreign minister of South Korea somehow.

Rocket was not exploded. That's not a bad news.

European cars are well sold in Japan on the other hand.　

Tojo Hideki is an exception. One half of his ashes are at Yasukuni apparently. I googled it but I couldn't find any concrete information about it.

Ongoing protests in the Asian region for Japan to take it's history more serious and more openly and directly atone for it's past actions can not be ignored.

Why don't you simply write "China and Korea" instead of using vague expression like "the Asian region"?

“I expect responsible and sincere steps to be taken to heal the wounds of those who are still suffering,” she said.

Has she meant that Japan should accept all the claims of Korea without any refutation and pay another compensation to Korea?

She uses too many anti-Japan cards even though it's the first year yet.

So many years of discrimination against Koreans who were forced to live in Japan.

I don't deny the existence of discrimination, but Zainichi Koreans are not forced to live in Japan at least.