China's SCS Strategy Thread

[solarz]

Nope since it's not disputed, ask anyone out side of mainland china and Taiwan or look into a map published by the UN or better yet a map published by CPC before the 70's, they all say it's Japan sovereign territory.
Get you head out of the sand and smell the coffee no nation beside PRC and Taiwan acknowledges your claim that it is.

Yeah, the guy who's covering his ears and yelling "there is no dispute" as loudly as he can is suggesting others to take their head out of the sand.

lol, they liked the idea. But together with Taiwan, not PRC. When PRC smelled money (resources) on the bottom of the sea they started claiming it was theirs out of the blue in 1972...

Seriously, you should at least get a bare education of the subject before spouting off here. The PRC inherited all of the ROC's territorial claims when they succeeded them as the legitimate government of China. What the ROC claims, the PRC claims as well.

 

[Brumby]

The Senkaku/Diaoyu issue and whether it is in dispute is not just a rhetorical argument. It is actually a very important technical point pertaining to a question of law and the reason why China has been pushing it as in dispute and the Japanese not acknowledging it.

It is a fundamental requirement of international law that there must be a real dispute between the parties before it can proceed to international arbitral proceedings (Larsen v Hawaiian Kingdom 2001). In the Mavrommatis case, a dispute is ‘a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons’. A mere assertion is insufficient and neither is a mere denial of the existence of the dispute. It is subject to ‘objective determination’ by the Tribunal. This requires an examination of facts. It must be shown that the claim of one party is ‘positively opposed by the other’, or, in other words, that ‘the two sides hold clearly opposite views’ concerning the application or interpretation of UNCLOS. I am not familiar with the legal background with this case, but given that the Chinese had tried but unsuccessfully present it as a case in dispute would suggest to me that its legal position is somehow weak or else it would have made headway. My 2 cents.

 

[joshuatree]

Actually it does since they have not ask Japan to relinquish it the same way as Taiwan and counted it as connection to the Okinawa island chains.

San Francisco Peace Treaty

All Article 3 has shown is that those features south of 29deg north latitude were completely placed under the US to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction. It does not say these features continue to belong to Japan and it doesn't even explicitly list Diaoyu. When it came time for the US to change how these features were to be handled post-US, the US clearly separated Okinawa apart from Diaoyu. Again, there's no need for the nuance of simply tasking Japan to administer Diaoyu unlike Okinawa if sovereignty was being acknowledged.

Furthermore, neither China(s) were signatories to this specific treaty. Japan abrogated its separate treaty with Taipei so the Treaty of Friendship with PRC would be the most recent active instrument when it comes to matters between China and Japan.

If you believe only the SFP is the instrument to go by, then Japan should not be even voicing anything regarding the Kurile Islands as Article 2 relinquishes Japan of any claims to the Kurile Islands.

 

[tidalwave]

Just as Japan start to mess around in SCS, it got hit by huge earthquake,damages alot of its industries.
Ho ho ho, maybe a message from God for its role of messing around.

 

[Qi_1528]

Just as Japan start to mess around in SCS, it got hit by huge earthquake,damages alot of its industries.
Ho ho ho, maybe a message from God for its role of messing around.

I've seen this kind of comment coming up on the Chinese internet. I don't like what the Japanese government has been up to, but taking delight in an event which hurts innocent Japanese people isn't acceptable in my view. I get that you're angry and have good reason to be, but I suggest directing it at the people responsible.

 

[tidalwave]

Chill out.
You have taken it way too serious of a random short sentence.
Ain't the end of world.

 

[LesAdieux]

the San Francisco Treaty is illegitimate. two of the three victors didnot sign, america self appointed itself as the sole victor, and the treaty was simply dictated by it.

at the time of the signing, the Soviet and the US was in the cold war, China and the US was at war in Korea. japan the country supposed to be punished by the treaty had turned from an ennemy into an ally, japan not only got away with most of its crimes, but was also allowed to keep large territories it annexed such as Okinawa and Hokkaido.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

All Article 3 has shown is that those features south of 29deg north latitude were completely placed under the US to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction. It does not say these features continue to belong to Japan and it doesn't even explicitly list Diaoyu. When it came time for the US to change how these features were to be handled post-US, the US clearly separated Okinawa apart from Diaoyu. Again, there's no need for the nuance of simply tasking Japan to administer Diaoyu unlike Okinawa if sovereignty was being acknowledged.

Furthermore, neither China(s) were signatories to this specific treaty. Japan abrogated its separate treaty with Taipei so the Treaty of Friendship with PRC would be the most recent active instrument when it comes to matters between China and Japan.

If you believe only the SFP is the instrument to go by, then Japan should not be even voicing anything regarding the Kurile Islands as Article 2 relinquishes Japan of any claims to the Kurile Islands.

Do you see the names like Miyakojima, Iejima, Iriomotejima,etc within the article?
It's all grouped together within as the Ryukyu Islands.
You also do not see it specified within Article 2 in which Japan was required to RENOUNCE sovereignty.

Article 2

(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.

(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.

(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.

(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.

(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.

(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.

Senkaku is not in the above article so Japan did not renounce sovereignty over the island. Administration of the islands were momentarily transferred to the US but was returned in the 70's so yes the Senkaku isles are included within the SFpeace treaty and the signatories of the treated reaffirmed Japan's sovereignty.
Of course PRC and ROC were not signatories of the treaty and there is no statue of limitation so PRC and ROC CAN make it an argument by making claim to ICJ but neither nation had done so, so all 40 signatory nations and the UN remains affirmed that Senkaku is part of Japan's sovereign territory.

 

[solarz]

Chill out.
You have taken it way too serious of a random short sentence.
Ain't the end of world.

That was a very poor joke. Every nation experiences disasters. China has had plenty of disasters itself.

 

[joshuatree]

Do you see the names like Miyakojima, Iejima, Iriomotejima,etc within the article?
It's all grouped together within as the Ryukyu Islands.
You also do not see it specified within Article 2 in which Japan was required to RENOUNCE sovereignty.



Senkaku is not in the above article so Japan did not renounce sovereignty over the island. Administration of the islands were momentarily transferred to the US but was returned in the 70's so yes the Senkaku isles are included within the SF peace treaty and the signatories of the treated reaffirmed Japan's sovereignty.
Of course PRC and ROC were not signatories of the treaty and there is no statue of limitation so PRC and ROC CAN make it an argument by making claim to ICJ but neither nation had done so, so all 40 signatory nations and the UN remains affirmed that Senkaku is part of Japan's sovereign territory.

Pertaining to just the SFP, even if one is to focus on Article 2 not listing Diaoyu as being renounced, the Article 3 you initially listed supercedes it relating to Diaoyu as Art3 gave all authority to the US on features (outside of Art2) south of 29deg north latitude.

Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system

People seem to want to dance around the fact that the US did not outright return Diaoyu to Japan, it merely tasked Japan to administer. This is clearly contrasted by how it reverted Okinawa back to Japan. There is not some paper admin error. Nuances in international relations have specific purposes. This nuance is even recently affirmed as supported by Blackstone's reference to Obama's statement that the US does not take a position on the dispute. Your opinion of his statement is one thing, but he is still the POTUS and decisions by POTUS is part of the US's overall official stance.

We don’t take a position on final sovereignty on the Senkakus but historically they’ve been administered by Japan and should not be subject to change unilaterally.

My hope is that Chinese will continue to engage with the US and other countries. We don’t take a position on this piece of land or this piece of rock but we do take a position on the peaceful resolution of these disputes.