Support NeoGAF

[genjiZERO]

Both Taiwan and China rely on the argument that Japan took the islands from the Qing, Japan agreed to return the islands after WWII, Japan should return the islands to us, as the successors of the Qing dynasty. To say that Taiwan might have a claim but China does not is not logical, unless you think that the PRC is not the proper successor to the Qing dynasty (and you'd be objecting to the handovers of Macau and Hong Kong to the PRC).

China thinks they have more than a Ming dynasty map, including Japanese maps that claimed them to be Chinese territory, as well as a letter from the Japanese foreign minister in 1884 indicating that the islands had Chinese names, and that China and its newspapers were protesting Japanese activity on the islands, and believing that China will protest if they annex the islands in 1885. Requests to formally annex the islands were denied until they had beaten China in 1895. China believes these facts indicate that they falsely claim that the islands were considered unclaimed lands in 1895.

The Ihlen declaration by the Norwegian foreign ministry was found to be binding in a dispute between Norway and Denmark over the sovereignty of Eastern Greenland, so statements by foreign ministers can be used as evidence in sovereignty disputes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihlen_Declaration

I think China has an easier case of proving that the land was not terra nullius compared to Japan's case in proving that they were terra nullius in 1895, especially if we have the Japanese foreign minister saying China will protest if we take the islands in 1884 and 1885, with them taking the islands only after they had beaten China in 1895, and subsequently signing a treaty that says China will give them Taiwan and its surrounding islands.

The Eastern Greenland case shows how difficult it is to prove that land becomes terra nullius after it has been previously claimed, even without any exercise of power:
http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1933.04.05_greenland.htm

I'm not objecting to either the PRC and/or the RoC being the successor of the Qing only that it's not clear that in relation to islands that are most proximate to the RoC (and who were the legitimate government when islands were ceded back to China after WW2) that control should go to the PRC (assuming that Japan is illegitimately controlling the islands). Because again, while both countries may say otherwise, and while the international community turns a blind eye to it, the PRC has no legal authority within Taiwan and its possessions. Am I wrong? Can the Mainland create law that has binding effect within Taiwan?

Thanks for the information! These are the types of arguments I wish people would make more often.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The us need to step in and disarm Japan again.

What, and why?

 

[Rebel Leader]

You did not just burn down a Nissan dealership, no... Toyota I can understand, motherfuckers deserve it. BUT NOT NISSAN!

Unbelievable, Japan Defense Force, go defend your enterprises!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pr9WY2Xyj0

No they don't =(

 

[Quadrangulum]

I think China has an easier case of proving that the land was not terra nullius compared to Japan's case in proving that they were terra nullius in 1895, especially if we have the Japanese foreign minister saying China will protest if we take the islands in 1884 and 1885, with them taking the islands only after they had beaten China in 1895, and subsequently signing a treaty that says China will give them Taiwan and its surrounding islands.

I'm sorely undereducated about this issue but I'd like to have a go at making a counter argument because it's kind of fun. I apologize in advance for using Wikipedia and inferences!

I don't think Japan needs to prove terra nullius to win a case for sovereignty. Until the recent discovery of oil, the ROC and the PRC both acknowledged Japanese ownership. That suggests to me that all parties were content with the outcome of the most recent treaties from the legalistic standpoint; to me, that trumps anything anyone can dredge up from two centuries (or far more) ago.

But setting that aside, I'd argue that

1. Naming a land (on a map that is) doesn't constitute legal ownership or authority.
2. The language of the foreign minister can be explained as excessive caution as China was still the undisputed hegemon of the region in the 1880s. Moreover, it doesn't mean approval of the view by the higher Japanese authorities.

I would contend that the Ihlen Declaration is not suitably analogous as I don't believe China has a clear claim from an authority with the powers of annexation even close to being equivalent to the statement by the King of Denmark.

 

[numble]

I'm sorely undereducated about this issue but I'd like to have a go at making a counter argument because it's kind of fun. I apologize in advance for using Wikipedia and inferences!

I don't think Japan needs to prove terra nullius to win a case for sovereignty. Until the recent discovery of oil, the ROC and the PRC both acknowledged Japanese ownership. That suggests to me that all parties were content with the outcome of the most recent treaties from the legalistic standpoint; to me, that trumps anything anyone can dredge up from two centuries (or far more) ago.

But setting that aside, I'd argue that

1. Naming a land doesn't constitute ownership or authority.
2. The language of the foreign minister can be explained as excessive caution as China was still the undisputed hegemon of the region in the 1880s. Moreover, it doesn't mean approval of the view by the higher Japanese authorities.

I would contend that the Ihlen Declaration is not suitably analogous as I don't believe China has a clear claim from an authority with the powers of annexation even close to being equivalent to the statement by the King of Denmark.

China would claim that they formally protested the Treaty of San Francisco (Japan relinquished Taiwan, but handed over Diaoyu/Senkaku to the US under the treaty). Neither Taiwan or China were part of the treaty, even though it had implications for the contours of their land.

Taiwan and China would claim that it wasn't the announcement of oil, but the announced US handover of the islands to Japan in 1971 as the reason for the protests, which began in 1971.

Norway argued that Ihlen's statements didn't represent the Norwegian parliament's views. The approval by the Norwegian parliament was found to not be a requirement to make the Ihlen declaration binding.

I don't know what you're talking about regarding "powers of annexation."

Japan would have to prove that the islands were terra nullius and unclaimed.

 

[YoungHav]

How the hell did China lose a war to a lil ads island like Japan in 1895?

 

[lupinko]

How the hell did China lose a war to a lil ads island like Japan in 1895?

Qing Dynasty was a mess, hence their eventual collapse, and Japan unlike China was very willing to modernize/westernize. That is the super cliff notes version.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

How the hell did China lose a war to a lil ads island like Japan in 1895?

How did a little-ass country like England colonize half of the world?

Read some history instead of asking loaded questions that illustrate your bias.

 

[Quadrangulum]

China would claim that they formally protested the Treaty of San Francisco (Japan relinquished Taiwan, but handed over Diaoyu/Senkaku to the US under the treaty).

Did they object to the treaty on the grounds of Senkaku? I can't find this information. I'd like to see what they said.

Neither Taiwan or China were part of the treaty, even though it had implications for the contours of their land.

You can say this about the Treaty of Versailles. Besides, the PRC and the ROC, embroiled in their civil war, were not excluded maliciously.

Taiwan and China would claim that it wasn't the announcement of oil, but the announced US handover of the islands to Japan in 1971 as the reason for the protests, which began in 1971.

That doesn't explain their acquiescence and acknowledgement of these borders (there's a welter of evidence documenting this standpoint it seems) in the preceding 20 years.

Norway argued that Ihlen's statements didn't represent the Norwegian parliament's views. The approval by the Norwegian parliament was found to not be a requirement to make the Ihlen declaration binding.

For what reason? I'm guessing this is because no one contested Denmark's very old claim? Either way, saying the islands have "Chinese names" and that they are "near to the Qing's (China's) border" is not even close to being the same as "...the plans of the Royal [Danish] Government respecting Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland...would be met with no difficulties on the part of Norway."

I don't know what you're talking about regarding "powers of annexation."

Japan would have to prove that the islands were terra nullius and unclaimed.

I made this mistake in my haste. I meant whenever the King of Denmark asserted power over Greenland (which wouldn't be the Ihlen Declaration, sorry). I don't think there is clear evidence for such a Chinese claim, not from a body power that can legally assert dominion over a land.

 

[numble]

Did they object to the treaty on the grounds of Senkaku? I can't find this information. I'd like to see what they said.

They didn't participate because of the Chinese Civil War, they protested generally since China should probably be part of the treaty that declared which lands would be returned to China. They declared that it was "illegal, invalid and absolutely unacceptable without the participation" of China.

That doesn't explain their acquiescence and acknowledgement of these borders (there's a welter of evidence documenting this standpoint it seems) in the preceding 20 years.

There isn't very much evidence besides a newspaper, which isn't the government. The only possible evidence may be acquiescence to US control of the islands, not Japanese sovereignty (which was even in doubt, as some thought the US might control Okinawa perpetually, Okinawa might become independent, etc.). The San Francisco Treaty did not establish sovereignty of Okinawa or the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, only that they would be handed to the US (possibly for perpetuity).

There's a statement from PRC Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai in the 1950s protesting the handing of land to the US.

Anyway, I think China protested generally everything that resulted from the San Francisco Treaty, but Japan and the US didn't even recognize China until 1972 and 1978, well after the islands had been traded two times and landed back in Japan's hands.

For what reason? I'm guessing this is because no one contested Denmark's very old claim? Either way, saying the islands have "Chinese names" is not the same as "...the plans of the Royal [Danish] Government respecting Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland...would be met with no difficulties on the part of Norway."

The Japanese minister not only said that the islands had Chinese names, he also said that the Chinese government will protest.

Norway's minister says, "Norway will not protest Denmark's claims." Japan says "China will protest Japan's claims." It's analogous.

Saying that the "Chinese will protest if we annex" is different than saying "the islands are unclaimed and nobody will protest."

I made this mistake in my haste. I meant whenever the King of Denmark asserted power over Greenland (which wouldn't be the Ihlen Declaration, sorry). I don't think there is clear evidence for such a Chinese claim, not from a body power that can legally assert dominion over a land.

The islands were included as part of China's coastal defense plans in a book compiled by a Zhejiang governor, who can probably assert power over land.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

The us need to step in and disarm Japan again.

Why?

Also i just saw this online, seems like they are going after every Japanese business/factory they can get their hands on and then setting fire to them.

 

[AnathemicOne]

The us need to step in and disarm Japan again.

What kind of half-assed ignorant comment is this?

Back on the topic I do think this needs more news coverage. Sino-Japanese relations is a strenuous one, the recent pics of Chinese burning down Japanese industry buildings (Toyota, Nissan, etc.) just shows the exponential escalation of this issue.

 

[SMT]

Yeah, China bullies were just activated again. You do know that the people raging aren't raging because of Japan, but really the Chinese government itself? They are just redirecting their anger at Japanese industries because they need an outlet to decompress because of their situation.

Like who is the government fooling? Nobody drives a fricken lambo there, quit yanking my chain, those were flown-in and driven by military officers. xD

 

[numble]

Yeah, China bullies were just activated again. You do know that the people raging aren't raging because of Japan, but really the Chinese government itself? They are just redirecting their anger at Japanese industries because they need an outlet to decompress because of their situation.

Like who is the government fooling? Nobody drives a fricken lambo there, quit yanking my chain, those were flown-in and driven by military officers. xD

Well, the car was in Xi'an, the capital of a province with a lot of coal mines (which mean coal mine bosses and their spoiled children). Look at this wedding of a coal mine boss's daughter:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures/shanxi-coal-boss-spends-70-million-on-daughters-wedding.html

 

[Trevelyon]

Japan should deploy the Super-X down there COMPLETE with kickass fanfare.

 

[genjiZERO]

The islands were included as part of China's coastal defense plans in a book compiled by a Zhejiang governor, who can probably assert power over land.

What year is this from? I ask because it doesn't seem China had clear control over Taiwan and it's greater geographical area until the late Qing. China may have started to colonise the area in the late 17th century, but it's not clearly in control until the nineteenth century. If that's the case then I think it'd be hard to claim that the islands had traditionally been considered part of China.

Also, I'm not sure I find the "the islands were originally named in Chinese" argument very convincing. The Ryukyu islands also receive their name from Chinese (Liuqiu), but no one in a contemporary context could reasonably argue that China has a legitimate claim to them (although when Japan did annex them in the 17th century China did claim them because the kingdom was a tributary - a claim that lasted until 1895...).

Also, just to be clear (cause it's a message board!) don't take me as argumentative, but as discussing and fleshing out the issue.

 

[Quadrangulum]

They didn't participate because of the Chinese Civil War, they protested generally since China should probably be part of the treaty that declared which lands would be returned to China. They declared that it was "illegal, invalid and absolutely unacceptable without the participation" of China.

But once more, I think this treaty still stands despite their non-involvement; there are many historical precedents for such a situation. They can vacate or alter the treaty at the ICJ, or through some other means, but I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that.

There isn't very much evidence besides a newspaper, which isn't the government. The only possible evidence may be acquiescence to US control of the islands, not Japanese sovereignty (which was even in doubt, as some thought the US might control Okinawa perpetually, Okinawa might become independent, etc.). The San Francisco Treaty did not establish sovereignty of Okinawa or the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands, only that they would be handed to the US (possibly for perpetuity).

There's a statement from PRC Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai in the 1950s protesting the handing of land to the US.

From the Wikipedia page:

The People's Daily, a daily newspaper, which is the organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), had written in 1953 that Senkaku Islands was a part of Japanese territory.

The Washington Times stated that they obtained a classified map made by the PRC's map authority in 1969 apparently listing the "Senkaku Islands" as Japanese territory.

A World Atlas published in October 1965 by the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan records the Diaoyu Islands with Japanese names: Gyochojima (Diaoyu Islands), Taishojima (Chiwei Island), and Senkaku Gunto. In the late 1970s, the government of ROC began to recall these books, but it was too late.

A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory. A state-prescribed textbook published in 1970 in Taiwan treated the islands as Japanese territories.

If I were Japan, I'd argue that these do constitute a tacit approval, even a tacit official approval depending on the relation between these publishing houses and the Chinese state authorities.

The Japanese minister not only said that the islands had Chinese names, he also said that the Chinese government will protest.

Norway's minister says, "Norway will not protest Denmark's claims." Japan says "China will protest Japan's claims." It's analogous.

Saying that the "Chinese will protest if we annex" is different than saying "the islands are unclaimed and nobody will protest."

I admit I'm having trouble digesting this point. The words of the Norwegian minister are tantamount to an acknowledgement of Danish sovereignty over Greenland. The Japanese minister doesn't do this and leaves open the possibility for a dispute. And it seems in the following decade before Shimonoseki, Japan did contest ownership, but only fell short of annexation before the war. The ICJ's reasoning is that Denmark's claim remained uncontested; that isn't the situation here.

Moreover, I'd hesitate to deem the Japanese FM's statement as a pivotal argument for the Chinese side. It seems that in the Eastern Greenland Case, the FM's statement was just one piece of evidence among many of Norway's acquiescence to Denmark's claim on Greenland.

The islands were included as part of China's coastal defense plans in a book compiled by a Zhejiang governor, who can probably assert power over land.

I think it's important to determine the extent of this governor's authority. Further, in this case, I'd wonder if a defense plan means these islands were formally annexed and I'd question the transference of power between the dynasties.

Anyways, I think we're rapidly approaching the limit of my ability to discuss this issue in an informed and intelligent manner, though I'll still try if need be. Thanks for entertaining my inquiry. It's been very educational and I see it's not as cut and dry as I had thought before we had this conversation.

 

[SMT]

Well, the car was in Xi'an, the capital of a province with a lot of coal mines (which mean coal mine bosses and their spoiled children). Look at this wedding of a coal mine boss's daughter:
http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/pictures/shanxi-coal-boss-spends-70-million-on-daughters-wedding.html

Woah, is this a wedding or the Oscars, VMAs, Grammy's, and Juno's all in one?

He must love his spoiled children.

 

[numble]

But once more, I think this treaty still stands despite their non-involvement; there are many historical precedents for such a situation. They can vacate or alter the treaty at the ICJ, or through some other means, but I'm not sure how they'd go about doing that.



From the Wikipedia page:



If I were Japan, I'd argue that these do constitute a tacit approval, even a tacit official approval depending on the relation between these publishing houses and the Chinese state authorities.



I admit I'm having trouble digesting this point. The words of the Norwegian minister are tantamount to an acknowledgement of Danish sovereignty over Greenland. The Japanese minister doesn't do this and leaves open the possibility for a dispute. And it seems in the following decade before Shimonoseki, Japan did contest ownership, but only fell short of annexation before the war. The ICJ's reasoning is that Denmark's claim remained uncontested; that isn't the situation here.

Moreover, I'd hesitate to deem the Japanese FM's statement as a pivotal argument for the Chinese side. It seems that in the Eastern Greenland Case, the FM's statement was just one piece of evidence among many of Norway's acquiescence to Denmark's claim on Greenland.



I think it's important to determine the extent of this governor's authority. Further, in this case, I'd wonder if a defense plan means these islands were formally annexed and I'd question the transference of power between the dynasties.

Anyways, I think we're rapidly approaching the limit of my ability to discuss this issue in an informed and intelligent manner, though I'll still try if need be. Thanks for entertaining my inquiry. It's been very educational and I see it's not as cut and dry as I had thought before we had this conversation.

The treaty is probably in violation of the Potsdam declaration, which said that the UK, China, and US were to together determine the islands that Japan would retain after the war.

Besides the Washington Times being a non-credible source, there are tons of newspapers and publishing houses all connected to the government in China, but newspapers don't reflect opinio juris of states. You could find a paper or publishing house saying lots of things. They've always referred to statements of government officials charged with foreign affairs.

The history of international cases illustrate that a weak claim for sovereignty (such as a king declaring land to be his after a landing, even if there is no actual control of connection) is better than a weak claim for terra nullius (a protest, or prior pretensions to sovereignty, defeat your claim that the land is unclaimed). The East Greenland case and other cases establish that protest is enough to defeat a claim of terra nullius--you only can claim land is terra nullius if you really believe its unclaimed land and won't be protested. The foreign minister saying that China will protest is not going to help show that you believed the land is unclaimed and that nobody will protest. Nor is not taking the land until you're on the verge of signing a treaty with China saying they will cede Taiwan and its surrounding islands to Japan.

What year is this from? I ask because it doesn't seem China had clear control over Taiwan and it's greater geographical area until the late Qing. China may have started to colonise the area in the late 17th century, but it's not clearly in control until the nineteenth century. If that's the case then I think it'd be hard to claim that the islands had traditionally been considered part of China.

Also, I'm not sure I find the "the islands were originally named in Chinese" argument very convincing. The Ryukyu islands also receive their name from Chinese (Liuqiu), but no one in a contemporary context could reasonably argue that China has a legitimate claim to them (although when Japan did annex them in the 17th century China did claim them because the kingdom was a tributary - a claim that lasted until 1895...).

Also, just to be clear (cause it's a message board!) don't take me as argumentative, but as discussing and fleshing out the issue.

I think the bigger issue is believing that China will protest, so lets only claim the land when we're about to sign a treaty with China that already requires them to cede Taiwan and the surrounding islands.

I point to the East Greenland case to re-emphasize how little activity is actually necessary for a claim of sovereignty to be made.

 

[Quadrangulum]

...the Potsdam declaration...

Why would this have any legal weight?

Besides the Washington Times being a non-credible source, there are tons of newspapers and publishing houses all connected to the government in China, but newspapers don't reflect opinio juris of states. You could find a paper or publishing house saying lots of things. They've always referred to statements of government officials charged with foreign affairs.

Sure, but this evidence is no sketchier than a bureaucrat's defense plans from centuries ago. Combined with the general silence of both the PRC and the ROC, I do think there is an argument to be made here.

The history of international cases illustrate that a weak claim for sovereignty (such as a king declaring land to be his after a landing, even if there is no actual control of connection) is better than a weak claim for terra nullius (a protest, or prior pretensions to sovereignty, defeat your claim that the land is unclaimed).

I'll gladly concede this but my argument is that the Chinese claim is even more ephemeral. I'm questioning whether or not they even have an old declaration of sovereignty. I don't think you'd advance this position if the only claim in the past was made by some Chinese fishermen. There must a way to evaluate what constitutes sovereignty, or even a claim of sovereignty, especially since this argument is made for the ICJ framework. I'm sure we can all agree that the King of Denmark represents a legitimate Danish claim on ownership.

The East Greenland case and other cases establish that protest is enough to defeat a claim of terra nullius--you only can claim land is terra nullius if you really believe its unclaimed land and won't be protested. The foreign minister saying that China will protest is not going to help show that you believed the land is unclaimed and that nobody will protest. Nor is not taking the land until you're on the verge of signing a treaty with China saying they will cede Taiwan and its surrounding islands to Japan.

Why is the part in bold true? There are a billion reasons why a nation would protest a land claim, concerning far more than terra nullius status.

Moreover, this argument is null if the Chinese claim on sovereignty is vacated.

 

[numble]

Why would this have any legal weight?



Sure, but this evidence is no sketchier than a bureaucrat's defense plans from centuries ago. Combined with the general silence of both the PRC and the ROC, I do think there is an argument to be made here.



I'll gladly concede this but my argument is that the Chinese claim is even more ephemeral. I'm questioning whether or not they even have an old declaration of sovereignty. I don't think you'd advance this position if the only claim in the past was made by some Chinese fishermen. There must a way to evaluate what constitutes sovereignty, or even a claim of sovereignty, especially since this argument is framed for the ICJ(?). I'm sure we can all agree that the King of Denmark represents a legitimate Danish claim on ownership.



Why is the part in bold true? There are a billion reasons why a nation would protest a land claim, concerning far more than terra nullius status.

Moreover, this argument is null if the Chinese claim on sovereignty is vacated.

What? The Potsdam declaration definitely would hold legal weight. Read your cases. If you're depending on newspapers and map companies, you think multiparty government declarations by heads of states have no legal weight as to opinio juris?

Government statements hold more weight than newspapers. And they do go back centuries (just look at the East Greenland case). I don't even know if there's a ICJ case that cites newspapers at all.

If a land is annexed and claimed to be terra nullius, the only protest against it would be that it isn't terra nullius. Can you cite a real example of land claimed as terra nullius but was protested by another government with an argument besides an anti-terra nullius argument?

Japan has to prove its basis for ownership. From 1885 to 1895, if it really thought it was terra nullius, it was available to any government, including China, to take, giving it impetus to claim it as soon as possible. But they believed China would protest and waited until they were going to sign a treaty where China ceded Taiwan and its surrounding islands. It has a weak claim of terra nullius, weaker than China's weak claim of sovereignty.

 

[Quadrangulum]

What? The Potsdam declaration definitely would hold legal weight. Read your cases. If you're depending on newspapers and map companies, you think multiparty government declarations by heads of states have no legal weight as to opinio juris?

Government statements hold more weight than newspapers. And they do go back centuries (just look at the East Greenland case). I don't even know if there's a ICJ case that cites newspapers at all.

I don't mean to question its legitimacy as a legal document, but as something that can overturn the Treaty of San Francisco (a multiparty government treaty) when the ROC and PRC were excluded from the deliberations by their own internal affairs.

If a land is annexed and claimed to be terra nullius, the only protest against it would be that it isn't terra nullius. Can you cite a real example of land claimed as terra nullius but was protested by another government with an argument besides an anti-terra nullius argument?

Okinotorishima? The entire age of colonialism? But I'm not sure why this matters. If China's ancient claim on sovereignty does not exist, then both states begin disputing the territory simultaneously. You can't be anti-terra nullius in this case.

Japan has to prove its basis for ownership. From 1885 to 1895, if it really thought it was terra nullius, it was available to any government, including China, to take, giving it impetus to claim it as soon as possible. But they believed China would protest and waited until they were going to sign a treaty where China ceded Taiwan and its surrounding islands. It has a weak claim of terra nullius, weaker than China's weak claim of sovereignty.

At the same time, yours isn't an affirmative argument for Chinese ownership. The decision to refrain from annexation arises not from an acknowledgment of Chinese sovereignty but from the fear of drawing the ire of a much more powerful neighbor, hence the language about these islands as resting on the Qing border.

Solidifying these arrangements after a war doesn't weaken the argument of the Japanese side if the original Chinese claim is waifish to a point where it isn't even a sovereignty claim.

 

[Delusibeta]

IMO the Chinese are reacting like the Argentinians react to the Falklands. Although, from what I can tell the Taiwanese might have a claim. Although if it's true that the islands were uninhabited, and never claimed by any government until the Japanese got there - they're clearly Japanese.

Aye, I'd argue that the Falklands are probably the closest analogue to this situation that I can think of. The difference between this and the whining Argentina over it earlier on the year is that we (i.e. the UK) have built houses and got people living in them, so we can use the "let the people on the island decide" argument, knowing it will inevitably go our way. That doesn't apply here, since it's literally a pair of rocks.

 

[genjiZERO]

Aye, I'd argue that the Falklands are probably the closest analogue to this situation that I can think of. The difference between this and the whining Argentina over it earlier on the year is that we (i.e. the UK) have built houses and got people living in them, so we can use the "let the people on the island decide" argument, knowing it will inevitably go our way. That doesn't apply here, since it's literally a pair of rocks.

Learning a bit more about it this seem so much more grey than the Falklands. Argentina has no legitimate claim over the Falklands whatsoever. I may disagree with some of the information here, but at least it's reasonable. Argentina's only claim is that a French private citizen hired some Argentinian (while Argentina was still a colony) mercenaries to act as a garrison for French private interests for a few years. Britons have been living there for generations now, and it was a Crown possession even before Argentina was a sovereign entity. The thread earlier on about it I thought was pretty good.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Some pictures of the destruction:

 

[_Xenon_]

Wars usually start with dick waving, when no one wants to back down war erupts.

Wars ALWAYS start with economic conflict, and TRIGGERED by all kinds of stupid things such as assassination or some island dispute.

China is the biggest trade partner of Japan (bigger than Japan - US). In 2012 China has increased its Japan bond holding by 75% something. In 2012 China has increased its export with Japan by 7% something.

You don't throw some 160B trade or 220B bond down the toilet just because of "pride" or "dis feels good". For fucks sake these 2 countries have just signed a pretty huge currency deal 3 months ago. It's pretty obvious there's something serious wrong in the economic relationship rather than some island dispute.

In another news, the newly appointed ambassador, who fainted days ago, just died.

 

[magenta]

So a state owned media operation writes; “Why waste energy? Skip to the main course and drop an atomic bomb. Simple.”

 

[shanshan310]

You know that they have the Japan Self-Defense Forces has noted already, right?

I am aware of this. They still rely heavily on the US, and they shouldn't have to.

And I thought Koreans hated Japan.

Its NE Asia. Everyone hates everyone.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Wars ALWAYS start with economic conflict, and TRIGGERED by all kinds of stupid things such as assassination or some island dispute.

China is the biggest trade partner of Japan (bigger than Japan - US). In 2012 China has increased its Japan bond holding by 75% something. In 2012 China has increased its export with Japan by 7% something.

You don't throw some 160B trade or 220B bond down the toilet just because of "pride" or "dis feels good". For fucks sake these 2 countries have just signed a pretty huge currency deal 3 months ago. It's pretty obvious there's something serious wrong in the economic relationship rather than some island dispute.

In another news, the newly appointed ambassador, who fainted days ago, just died.

I understand that these two countries have deep economic ties, and Japan is almost completely at China's mercy (economically) if a war was to break out. However the crop of guys that have been linen up behind Noda waiting to take office are not as rational as Noda has been, and while you and i might think it's an impossibility for two nations who have such deep economic ties to go to war it just might happen (hopefully it doesn't).
And RIP to the ambassador, been in the job for only 2? days and then dies. Thats sad.

So a state owned media operation writes; “Why waste energy? Skip to the main course and drop an atomic bomb. Simple.”

Truly sad.

I am aware of this. They still rely heavily on the US, and they shouldn't have to.




Its NE Asia. Everyone hates everyone.

The JMSDF does NOT rely HEAVILY on the US 7th fleet, however the US being there is an assurance to them. Japan can hold their ground and even pull out a win in a naval war against China, the 7th fleet is just added bonus. And yes everyone is east Asia hates each other, has been like that for centuries. Every now and then one of them invades another.

 

[numble]

I don't mean to question its legitimacy as a legal document, but as something that can overturn the Treaty of San Francisco (a multiparty government treaty) when the ROC and PRC were excluded from the deliberations by their own internal affairs.



Okinotorishima? The entire age of colonialism? But I'm not sure why this matters. If China's ancient claim on sovereignty does not exist, then both states begin disputing the territory simultaneously. You can't be anti-terra nullius in this case.



At the same time, yours isn't an affirmative argument for Chinese ownership. The decision to refrain from annexation arises not from an acknowledgment of Chinese sovereignty but from the fear of drawing the ire of a much more powerful neighbor, hence the language about these islands as resting on the Qing border.

Solidifying these arrangements after a war doesn't weaken the argument of the Japanese side if the original Chinese claim is waifish to a point where it isn't even a sovereignty claim.

Colonialism either always included fake treaties with natives, or an argument that natives were too savage and uncivilized to be a Westphalian state to object. This still did not nullify claims that other Westphalian states could have over the territory. Thus, natives complaining wasn't considered a state complaining, but France could protest to Britain that they had landed on an island first (even if it had "savages"). Neither of these cases apply to China, which all regarded as a Westphalian state in 1895.

The Okinotorishima dispute is over whether its claimable land in the first place, it is a protest over the claim that the area can be considered terra nullius and not just a part of the sea.

You don't draw ire from claiming land is terra nullius, unless the ire is because the other country believes they own the land. If it is considered terra nullius, nobody will object to the first to claim it, and the incentive is to claim it as so as possible, not wait over a decade until you're going to sign a treaty that requires that country to surrender surrounding islands to you.

A weak sovereignty defeats a weak claim of terra nullius. There is a stronger argument that the land was considered claimed by China compared to the Japanese claim that the lands were considered unclaimed.

 

[jbueno]

Some pictures of the destruction:

That looks like the beginning of Shin Megami Tensei Strange Journey. What´s next, fucking Schwartzwelt?

 

[shanshan310]

The JMSDF does NOT rely HEAVILY on the US 7th fleet, however the US being there is an assurance to them. Japan can hold their ground and even pull out a win in a naval war against China, the 7th fleet is just added bonus.

hm.. I guess I just find the American military presence in Asia (esp. Japan) kind of invasive. There was a big push to have the US military bases moved or removed from Okinawa. Yes the American presence is reassuring to the Japanese and having them in the region is handy should shit hit the fan, but there are plenty of reasons why less US military involvement in the region would be a positive.

And yes everyone is east Asia hates each other, has been like that for centuries. Every now and then one of them invades another.

Um... yeah. Not sure why you are repeating my point.

 

[_Xenon_]

I understand that these two countries have deep economic ties, and Japan is almost completely at China's mercy (economically) if a war was to break out. However the crop of guys that have been linen up behind Noda waiting to take office are not as rational as Noda has been, and while you and i might think it's an impossibility for two nations who have such deep economic ties to go to war it just might happen (hopefully it doesn't).
And RIP to the ambassador, been in the job for only 2? days and then dies. Thats sad.



Truly sad.



The JMSDF does NOT rely HEAVILY on the US 7th fleet, however the US being there is an assurance to them. Japan can hold their ground and even pull out a win in a naval war against China, the 7th fleet is just added bonus. And yes everyone is east Asia hates each other, has been like that for centuries. Every now and then one of them invades another.

You are misunderstanding me. What I'm saying is there indeed *is* something wrong in the economic side of the 2 and a regional conflict is not "might" but highly likely.

So what went wrong when the trade was good for the most part of the year? And who's gonna benefit from it?

Just look at the timeline:
June: Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi said Tuesday that Tokyo and Beijing will start direct trading of the yuan and the yen on June 1 as part of a broad deal agreed last year to reinforce bilateral financial ties.

This means less dependent on US dollar for the 2nd and 3rd economies in the world.

Sept 7th: The European Central Bank agreed on Thursday to launch a new and potentially unlimited bond-buying program to lower struggling euro zone countries' borrowing costs and draw a line under the debt crisis.

This means EURO is down the toilet. Remember, weeks before this Merkel was visiting China and Wen has promised to buy more EU bonds.

Sept 13rd:Fed Undertakes QE3 With $40 Billion Monthly MBS Purchases

This means whoever holding US dollars / heavily dependent on US dollars are fucked.


So who's benefiting from China abandoning its peaceful rising plan? Who's benefiting from 2 of the biggest economies throwing their currency deal out of the window and going back the dolloar? Right wing Japanese nutjobs who can't even get their budget or campaign finance right? Or somebody else?

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

hm.. I guess I just find the American military presence in Asia (esp. Japan) kind of invasive. There was a big push to have the US military bases moved or removed from Okinawa. Yes the American presence is reassuring to the Japanese and having them in the region is handy should shit hit the fan, but there are plenty of reasons why less US military involvement in the region would be a positive.



Um... yeah. Not sure why you are repeating my point.

The Treaty America has with Japan pretty much guarantees that the 7th fleet will still be in Okinawa for the foreseeable future, the US can't really effectively honor the treaty if they are not close to the action.

Bolded: I just thought it was funny, i had the same exact thought and as i was about to type it i noticed you edited your comment so i decided to add it into my reply.

 

[Quadrangulum]

Colonialism either always included fake treaties with natives, or an argument that natives were too savage and uncivilized to be a Westphalian state to object. This still did not nullify claims that other Westphalian states could have over the territory. Thus, natives complaining wasn't considered a state complaining, but France could protest to Britain that they had landed on an island first (even if it had "savages"). Neither of these cases apply to China, which all regarded as a Westphalian state in 1895.

The Okinotorishima dispute is over whether its claimable land in the first place, it is a protest over the claim that the area can be considered terra nullius and not just a part of the sea.

What about the Treaty of Tordesillas? Anyways, thanks for giving me your input. But as I said earlier, none of this matters to my position.

You don't draw ire from claiming land is terra nullius, unless the ire is because the other country believes they own the land. If it is considered terra nullius, nobody will object to the first to claim it, and the incentive is to claim it as so as possible, not wait over a decade until you're going to sign a treaty that requires that country to surrender surrounding islands to you.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. To me, thinking that another owns the islands is clearly not the same as thinking that another would say they own the islands even if one considers their reasoning bogus. Perhaps for diplomatic or strategic considerations, it isn't advisable to annex that territory straight away and instead, leave it as a decision to be settled when the situation changes.

Once more, I want to resurrect the notion that the Japanese FM's -- terribly weak -- words do not represent the position of his government. Even if they did, they are obviously not an

The International Court at the Hague awarded the disputed territory to Denmark. The Court declared that the Ihlen declaration constituted an unconditional and definitive promise. The decision was accepted by both countries.

I'm aware that you're also using this to show that an FM's words count as evidence but the snippet you quoted from the Eastern Greenland case suggests that this was used to prove the longstanding undisputed state of the Danish claim. I don't think a similar situation applies here because of my next argument.

A weak sovereignty defeats a weak claim of terra nullius. There is a stronger argument that the land was considered claimed by China compared to the Japanese claim that the lands were considered unclaimed.

I'll try to summarize what I have been saying as cleanly as possible as I know I'm not concise.

I think there are varying degrees of a sovereignty claim. For example, a Chinese castaway can claim the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands but that wouldn't qualify in the eyes of the ICJ. However, Christopher Columbus can claim the New World because the Spanish monarchy has given him a legal charter. The King of Denmark can claim Greenland because in a feudal monarchy, he has the power to do so.

Sovereignty doesn't just arise naturally (on the periphery at least). One precondition is that it needs to be asserted through a formal process. For the Senkaku case, we can make a determination by asking questions like the following. Did the Chinese provincial governor who formulated the defense plans have the authority to claim land for the throne? Did the throne acknowledge and codify this claim? Does a defense plan (after all, defense plans can involve foreign or neutral territory) constitute annexation? What was the status of the islands after the Ming collapse?

Along this continuum, there has to be a point where a sovereignty claim doesn't even count as a sovereignty claim through the lens of the ICJ. If we use the procedures of the state in question as the test (fair I think), this alleged claim fails, at least based on the evidence I'm aware of. In other words, it's not just a weak claim, it's, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I am aware of this. They still rely heavily on the US, and they shouldn't have to.

I wouldn't say they rely heavily on it, considering USFJ is only about three division strength. I mean, legally the US is responsible for Japanese defense, but if they were suddenly attacked right now, JSDF would be doing the heavy lifting, given that it's 20 times larger than USFJ is.

 

[Dram]

Newly appointed Japanese ambassador to China dies

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-09/16/content_15760874.htm

Newly-appointed Japanese Ambassador to China Shinichi Nishimiya died Sunday morning in a hospital in Tokyo, Kyodo reported.

Nishimiya, 60, fell unconscious on a street in Tokyo three days ago on Thursday morning. Police said the sudden faint was caused by illness.

The cause of his death has yet to be known, according to Kyodo news.

Nishimiya's appointment had just been approved by the government on Tuesday to replace current Japanese Ambassador to China Uichiro Niwa, at a time when the two countries are embroiled in a dispute over the Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea, local media reported.

 

[numble]

What about the Treaty of Tordesillas? Anyways, thanks for giving me your input. But as I said earlier, none of this matters to my position.



I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. To me, thinking that another owns the islands is clearly not the same as thinking that another would say they own the islands even if one considers their reasoning bogus. Perhaps for diplomatic or strategic considerations, it isn't advisable to annex that territory straight away and instead, leave it as a decision to be settled when the situation changes.

Once more, I want to resurrect the notion that the Japanese FM's -- terribly weak -- words do not represent the position of his government. Even if they did, they are obviously not an



I'm aware that you're also using this to show that an FM's words count as evidence but the snippet you quoted from the Eastern Greenland case suggests that this was used to prove the longstanding undisputed state of the Danish claim. I don't think a similar situation applies here because of my next argument.



I'll try to summarize what I have been saying as cleanly as possible as I know I'm not concise.

I think there are varying degrees of a sovereignty claim. For example, a Chinese castaway can claim the Senkaku/Diaoyutai islands but that wouldn't qualify in the eyes of the ICJ. However, Christopher Columbus can claim the New World because the Spanish monarchy has given him a legal charter. The King of Denmark can claim Greenland because in a feudal monarchy, he has the power to do so.

Sovereignty doesn't just arise naturally (on the periphery at least). One precondition is that it needs to be asserted through a formal process. For the Senkaku case, we can make a determination by asking questions like the following. Did the Chinese provincial governor who formulated the defense plans have the authority to claim land for the throne? Did the throne acknowledge and codify this claim? Does a defense plan (after all, defense plans can involve foreign or neutral territory) constitute annexation? What was the status of the islands after the Ming collapse?

Along this continuum, there has to be a point where a sovereignty claim doesn't even count as a sovereignty claim through the lens of the ICJ. If we use the procedures of the state in question as the test (fair I think), this alleged claim fails, at least based on the evidence I'm aware of. In other words, it's not just a weak claim, it's, for all intents and purposes, nonexistent.

Your claims as to arguments over sovereignty aren't correct. If the Dutch East India Company is considered an agent of the state in the Island of Palmas dispute, and you believe that even newspapers and publishing houses to be agents of the state, it does not follow that a provincial governor is not an agent of the state. The Ming and Qing emperors also sent title-conferring envoy's to the Ryukyu's with maps that demarcated the boundaries between China and Ryukyu, which are agents of the state.

There are lots of records that China refers to, some of which are weak:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-09/14/content_26520374.htm

But the fact is that Japan would need to overcome these claims to prove terra nullius. It's argument is also damaged by facts that show they believed China would protest in 1884-1895, and that they annexed the islands only when they were going to sign a treaty that required China to hand over Taiwan and its surrounding islands.

If Japan is willing to submit the Dokdo/Takeshima case to the ICJ, why aren't they willing to submit the Diaoyu/Senkaku case to the ICJ?

 

[Quadrangulum]

Your claims as to arguments over sovereignty aren't correct. If the Dutch East India Company is considered an agent of the state in the Island of Palmas dispute, and you believe that even newspapers and publishing houses to be agents of the state, it does not follow that a provincial governor is not an agent of the state. The Ming and Qing emperors also sent title-conferring envoy's to the Ryukyu's with maps that demarcated the boundaries between China and Ryukyu, which are agents of the state.

There are lots of records that China refers to, some of which are weak:
http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2012-09/14/content_26520374.htm

I'm not sure where I said newspapers and publishing houses are state agents. All I have claimed is that one can form a circumstantial argument that paints an official Chinese view of acquiescence using those pieces of evidence along with the general Chinese silence for those two decades (even your news article doesn't discuss this period!).

The legality of a land claim depends on the type of government and the type of agency. The Dutch East India Company has the Queen's charter for overseas expansionism but what about the Duke of Edinburgh? What about the Baron of Newcastle? Can the Lieutenant Governor of Utah incorporate a new territory?

Moreover, if you're going to call the Washington Times non-credible, I'm sure you can imagine what I'll say about a loaded, completely citation-less editorial from the People's Daily. Even if I accept everything in there at face value, there isn't enough to make an evaluation by the terms of my framework which remains perfectly fair and sound.

Finally, sketchy documentation from the 1960s > sketchy documentation from the 1460s.

But the fact is that Japan would need to overcome these claims to prove terra nullius. It's argument is also damaged by facts that show they believed China would protest in 1884-1895, and that they annexed the islands only when they were going to sign a treaty that required China to hand over Taiwan and its surrounding islands.

Once more, I refer you back to my argument that there are plausible ways of interpreting those actions other than the Japanese kowtowing to Chinese sovereignty. But, however lowly my regard, I concede this is an argument for the Chinese side. Anyways, I entered this quagmire to highly a few inconsistencies in the analogy with the Ihlen Declaration and I think I have done this successfully.

If Japan is willing to submit the Dokdo/Takeshima case to the ICJ, why aren't they willing to submit the Diaoyu/Senkaku case to the ICJ?

The same reason Korea won't go before the ICJ. This is a matter of practicality since Japan already controls the Senkaku/Diaoyutai chain. However minuscule, one always has a chance of wresting control in court versus the zero possibility of waiting for the other party to relent.

 

[SolarPowered]

After 10,000 years, we're still thinking about going to war over rocks.

It never changes. Ten thousand years from now we'll probably be doing the same thing over space rocks.

 

[numble]

I'm not sure where I said newspapers and publishing houses are state agents. All I have claimed is that one can form a circumstantial argument that paints an official Chinese view of acquiescence using those pieces of evidence along with the general Chinese silence for those two decades (even your news article doesn't discuss this period!).

The legality of a land claim depends on the type of government and the type of agency. The Dutch East India Company has the Queen's charter for overseas expansionism but what about the Duke of Edinburgh? What about the Baron of Newcastle? Can the Lieutenant Governor of Utah incorporate a new territory?

Moreover, if you're going to call the Washington Times non-credible, I'm sure you can imagine what I'll say about a loaded, completely citation-less editorial from the People's Daily. Even if I accept everything in there at face value, there isn't enough to make an evaluation by the terms of my framework which remains perfectly fair and sound.

Finally, sketchy documentation from the 1960s > sketchy documentation from the 1460s.



Once more, I refer you back to my argument that there are plausible ways of interpreting those actions other than the Japanese kowtowing to Chinese sovereignty. But, however lowly my regard, I concede this is an argument for the Chinese side. Anyways, I entered this quagmire to highly a few inconsistencies in the analogy with the Ihlen Declaration and I think I have done this successfully.



The same reason Korea won't go before the ICJ. This is a matter of practicality since Japan already controls the Senkaku/Diaoyutai chain. However minuscule, one always has a chance of wresting control in court versus the zero possibility of waiting for the other party to relent.

No, it doesn't work that way. Don't analyze things using your own framework. Look at the way the ICJ, ICA, etc. have analyzed things, its not based on the most recent evidence, in fact, in the Las Palmas case, they looked at documentation dating over 300 years prior to the dispute, and discounted more recent documentation.

First off, it's China Daily, not People's Daily. I'm simply pointing to the online article as a list of claims, not as a source of claims. The same as your constant pointing to Wikipedia as a list of claims. Pointing to something solely attributed to the Washington Times is non-credible--its the Washington Times.

The documentation from the past contain many government sources, and the documentation from 1950-1970 is based on newspapers and publishing houses, regarding a period when even the sovereignty of Okinawa (let alone other US controlled islands in the East China Sea) were in doubt.

The Chinese claim is not a claim of land considered terra nullius, it is not a claim of incorporation. it is a claim of land already belonging to China, so it does not require one with the "power to claim land" to confer legitimacy on the claim. A Utah governor's claim of land always having been part of Utah would definitely confer legitimacy on that claim.

 

[Reuenthal]

Are the islands currently uninhabitable little rocks?

Just blow them up. Nobody takes them everyone is happy since the dispute is not about the islands itself but about wanting them and not wanting the other to have it. If nobody has them everyone wins.

Not serious of course but it seems like such unnecessary crisis of relationships.

 

[Quadrangulum]

No, it doesn't work that way. Don't analyze things using your own framework. Look at the way the ICJ, ICA, etc. have analyzed things, its not based on the most recent evidence, in fact, in the Las Palmas case, they looked at documentation dating over 300 years prior to the dispute, and discounted more recent documentation.

You're conflating two non-related arguments. I didn't say the most recent evidence is a part of my framework. My framework for a sovereignty determination involves the power to claim land. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, I developed this based off of the ICJ's ruling in the Eastern Greenland case. The same would apply to the Las Palmas case as it involves the Dutch East India Company.

First off, it's China Daily, not People's Daily.

"Editor's note: On Tuesday, the People's Daily ran an article explaining the historical background of the Diaoyu Islands. A translation of the article is printed below:"

I'm simply pointing to the online article as a list of claims, not as a source of claims. The same as your constant pointing to Wikipedia as a list of claims. Pointing to something solely attributed to the Washington Times is non-credible--its the Washington Times.

Well, you said Japan would need to overcome the laundry list in the article but fair enough, I'm sorry. Anyways, I'm sure we aren't able to resolve these claims here and now as we're just a couple of netizens with too much time on our hands. Like I said at the start, I consider this only a thought exercise.

The documentation from the past contain many government sources, and the documentation from 1950-1970 is based on newspapers and publishing houses, regarding a period when even the sovereignty of Okinawa (let alone other US controlled islands in the East China Sea) were in doubt.

I'll just speak a bit on the advantages of modern evidence. First, I'd argue that newspapers and publishers in a totalitarian 20th century state count just as much as the map of a farflung administrator of a premodern decentralized empire. Second, the historical record going that far back is naturally far more spotty and incomplete. Third, it's an anachronism to apply the events of the age of discovery to modern international law; obviously you have to look at this stuff in the absence of anything else but here, we do have other records. Moreover, it's not as if the old Chinese records show these islands as a Chinese dominion consistently (another Wikipedia argument but if we're not testing veracity, this is something the Chinese side would need to overcome).

The Chinese claim is not a claim of land considered terra nullius, it is not a claim of incorporation. it is a claim of land already belonging to China, so it does not require one with the "power to claim land" to confer legitimacy on the claim. A Utah governor's claim of land always having been part of Utah would definitely confer legitimacy on that claim.

That's not possible because China goes back much further than the 1400s. If there is a starting point, then someone had to have claimed the islands. By the way, here is another place where the Senkaku/Diaoyutai would differ from the Eastern Greenland case.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Are the islands currently uninhabitable little rocks?

Just blow them up. Nobody takes them everyone is happy since the dispute is not about the islands itself but about wanting them and not wanting the other to have it. If nobody has them everyone wins.

Not serious of course but it seems like such unnecessary crisis of relationships.

Or we cut the islands in half my making a river

 

[AkimbO_Arcana]

The us need to step in and disarm Japan again.

Kentpaul
When keepin it real goes wrong. Very, very wrong.
Yesterday, 09:24 PM, Post #99

 

[SpectreFire]

Just give the islands to Canada.

Problem solved.

We'll take good care of them.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Smash and grab rioting has spread to over 80 cities in China apparently.

Saw a funny tweet from a Chinese guy who ripped off a Benz emblem thinking it was from a Mitsubishi car.

Lots of even non-Japanese stores are getting hit, too. Seems like a lot of the rioters are just angry and want to destroy and loot. What a despicable lot.

 

[numble]

You're conflating two non-related arguments. I didn't say the most recent evidence is a part of my framework. My framework for a sovereignty determination involves the power to claim land. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, I developed this based off of the ICJ's ruling in the Eastern Greenland case. The same would apply to the Las Palmas case as it involves the Dutch East India Company.



"Editor's note: On Tuesday, the People's Daily ran an article explaining the historical background of the Diaoyu Islands. A translation of the article is printed below:"



Well, you said Japan would need to overcome the laundry list in the article but fair enough, I'm sorry. Anyways, I'm sure we aren't able to resolve these claims here and now as we're just a couple of netizens with too much time on our hands. Like I said at the start, I consider this only a thought exercise.



I'll just speak a bit on the advantages of modern evidence. First, I'd argue that newspapers and publishers in a totalitarian 20th century state count just as much as the map of a farflung administrator of a premodern decentralized empire. Second, the historical record going that far back is naturally far more spotty and incomplete. Third, it's an anachronism to apply the events of the age of discovery to modern international law; obviously you have to look at this stuff in the absence of anything else but here, we do have other records. Moreover, it's not as if the old Chinese records show these islands as a Chinese dominion consistently (another Wikipedia argument but if we're not testing veracity, this is something the Chinese side would need to overcome).



That's not possible because China goes back much further than the 1400s. If there is a starting point, then someone had to have claimed the islands. By the way, here is another place where the Senkaku/Diaoyutai would differ from the Eastern Greenland case.

The Eastern Greenland case is based on 2 competing claims of terra nullius. This case is about China claiming that it has been a part of China from before Japan claimed it as terra nullius. China only needs to prove color of title prior to 1895, not the original source of the title. Japan is claiming terra nullius. If another country were to challenge China's claim, they would need to prove that there was never a point before their discovery or assertion to title where China also asserted title.

Inchoate title and pretensions of title defeat a claim of terra nullius. China does not need to prove its ownership. That's the problem for Japan. Imagine Hong Kong was uninhabited, and Japan claimed it today on the basis of terra nullius, that nobody claimed it. China does not need to prove the original date that they had claimed it, only that it was believed by China to belong to China before and when Japan was arguing that it belonged to nobody.

The appeals to modern evidence and totalitarian states have no relation to acceptable arguments before International Tribunals. Look at the Las Palmas case again.

Wikipedia doesn't show anything that supports a claim of a spotty record in Chinese government records.

 

[numble]

Reuters: Protests and Riots Spread to 72 Chinese cities

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/japan-s-purchase-disputed-islands-sparks-chinese-riots-5086548

Chinese police used pepper spray, tear gas and water cannon to break up an anti-Japan protest in southern China on Sunday as demonstrators took to the streets in scores of cities across the country in a long-running row over a group of disputed islands.

The protests erupted in Beijing and many other cities yesterday, when demonstrators besieged the Japanese embassy, hurling rocks, eggs and bottles and testing police cordons, prompting the Japanese prime minister to call on Beijing to ensure protection of his country's people and property.

In the biggest flare-up this morning, police fired about 20 rounds of tear gas and used water cannon and pepper spray to repel thousands occupying a street in the southern city of Shenzhen, near Hong Kong.

Protesters attacked a Japanese department store, grabbed police shields and knocked off their helmets. One protester was seen with blood on his face. At least one policeman was hit with a flowerpot.

Demonstrators have looted shops and attacked Japanese cars and restaurants in at least five Chinese cities.

Protesters also broke into a dozen Japanese-run factories in eastern Qingdao yesterday, according to the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

It added that the protests had spread to at least 72 cities.

"Regrettably, this is a problem concerning the safety of Japanese nationals and Japan-affiliated companies," Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda told a talk show on NHK. "I would like to urge the Chinese government to protect their safety."

The protests, the latest setback in long-troubled relations between Beijing and Tokyo, followed Japan's decision on Tuesday to buy the disputed islands, which Tokyo calls the Senkaku and Beijing calls the Diaoyu and which could contain valuable gas reserves, from a private Japanese owner.

Beijing called that decision a provocative violation of its sovereignty.

China may have unleashed the protests to put pressure on Japan, but the government also risks a backlash from that same public anger ahead of a delicate leadership succession.

Many demonstrators in Beijing held aloft portraits of Mao Zedong, the late revolutionary leader who is still a patriotic icon - but one who can also serve as an implicit rebuke to present-day leaders.

"We think that the government has been too soft and we want to show it what we think," said one 25-year-old protester, salesman Zhang Xin. "I feel disappointed in the government and it doesn't heed our voice."

Calls for war

A six-deep cordon of anti-riot police guarded the Japanese embassy in Beijing as demonstrators resumed their protest on Sunday, screaming slogans and insults as they passed by and throwing plastic bottles full of water.

"If Japan does not back down we must go to war. The Chinese people are not afraid," said 19-year-old-student Shao Jingru.

Dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who walked by Sunday's protest in Beijing, told Reuters he believed the demonstrations were sanctioned by the government and the police.

"Chinese citizens need to thank the Japanese government because for the first time, they can mount a large protest on their own land," Ai said. "In China, there are no protests organised by the people."

Police used loud speakers to tell protesters - many of whom were shouting "declare war" - they should respect the law.

In Shanghai, about 1,500 people marched towards the Japanese consulate, where they were allowed to enter cordoned-off areas in small groups.

Police headed off a crowd of at least 2,000 protesters who were trying to charge the U.S. consulate in the southwestern city of Chengdu. Protesters said they wanted the United States "to listen to their voices".

"Do you realise what the Japanese are doing? Why are you beating your fellow Chinese?" Chengdu protesters shouted at the police after some of their number were roughed up.

The Nikkei business newspaper said on Sunday demonstrators had earlier attacked two Panasonic electronic parts plants in the eastern cities of Qingdao and Suzhou. The company will decide whether to continue operations after checking the damage.

Toyota vehicle dealerships were also set on fire and many vehicles were damaged, it said, citing Toyota's China unit.

The flare-up has come while Asia's two biggest economies focus on domestic political pressures, narrowing the room for diplomatic give-and-take. Noda's government faces an election in months, adding pressure on him not to look weak on China.

China's ruling Communist Party is preoccupied with a leadership turnover, with President Hu Jintao due to step down as party leader at a congress that could open as soon as next month.

Chinese state media has praised "rational" expressions of anger but warned that violence could backfire against Beijing.

The official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary that the protests were a "reasonable move and natural reaction" to what it called Japan's provocations.

Despite their deepening economic ties, China and Japan have long been at odds over bitter memories of Japan's military aggression in the 1930s and 1940s. Relations chilled in 2010 after Japan arrested a Chinese trawler captain whose boat collided with Japanese coastguard vessels near the islands.

The protests could continue for days yet. On Tuesday, China marks its official September 18 memorial day for Japan's war-time occupation of parts of China.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Reuters: Protests and Riots Spread to 72 Chinese cities

http://tvnz.co.nz/business-news/japan-s-purchase-disputed-islands-sparks-chinese-riots-5086548

IDIOTS!