Scott Woo Shin

A Look into Modern Territorial Disputes:

A focus on the Senkaku-Diaoyu Island Dispute

Introduction
At the turning point of this new year, the administration of Prime Minister Abe Shinzo declared that they
will prepare the mobilization of the Maritime Self-Defense Force given the scenario where foreign warships
enter territorial waters under the jurisdiction of Japan and if it is in clear violation of innocent passage under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.1 This declaration by the Abe administration was in
response to the gradually growing tensions between Japan and the Peoples Republic of China in regards to the
undisputed claim over the Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands. The Senkaku Islands, as the Japanese call it, are the small
chain of islands that are geographically placed in between these two nations maritime borders. In opposition to
the Japanese claim, Diaoyu, the Chinese name for the set of islands, is stated as being an essential part of China
and always has. This particular case study is interesting in that it has brought up the issue of legal
documentation to support the claim of a piece of territory over a traditionally historical argument, thus gaining
recent international attention. For those that are not informed of the regions politics in detail however, this
raises the question, why are the Japanese and Chinese so invested into this small patch of offshore territory and
willing to risk war over it? Why is this issue so difficult to resolve? In order to understand the significant impact
this small regional conflict has on the global scale, this thesis will go over the historical background of this
conflict, each individual claims, legal issues, the role of the United States, and of course a conclusion where the
author will present his own personal views using the evidence brought forward.
Clarifying points
Before going deeper into this issue, there are a few key issues to make clear. For the first issue, due to
there being two names for this disputed set of islands, the proper names will be used in accordance to the
country; when talking in the context of Japan, the island chain will be referred to as the Senkaku Islands,
whereas in the case of a Chinese context, it will be referred to as the Diaoyu Islands, or simply Senkaku and
Diaoyu respectively. As for the second issue, it must be well understood that this issue and the views that are
presented are solely the views of the author and do not seek to create anti sentiment of any kind. Instead, the
purpose of this work is to take a look into this specific case study and try to understand, as previously stated,
what factors make this issue unique and what its current status can offer for the rest of the world. With these
points clarified, we will continue on to explore deeper into this specific territorial dispute.
Territorial Disputes
1 Japan Times, MSDF ready to police incursions near Senkaku Islands, Suga says, Yoshida Reiji

To begin, we have to ask ourselves, what exactly is a territorial dispute? Speaking in terms of an
international definition, it is defined as a conflicting claim that involves at least two states (can involve more) in
regards to the ownership and legal jurisdiction of the disputed patch of territory. Territorial disputes has led to
80-90% of all the wars that have occurred in our history, thus making it the most common reason that a dispute
has been forced into an escalation into violent conflict.2 By this statistic alone, we are able to come to the
conclusion that a territorial dispute between countries with strong military backing can potentially turn into a
deadly war if not dealt with proper precautions. So how does this apply to the Senkaku-Diaoyu Island dispute?
To put this into perspective, the Peoples Republic of Chinas territorial disputes since the end of World War II
have some valuable insight to provide many onlookers of modern territorial dispute. At the moment, China has
three active land disputes with India, Bhutan, and Taiwan, four offshore island disputes that includes the
highlighted Diaoyu Island dispute with Japan, and five maritime borders over overlapping claims to Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZ) with a number of countries in both East Asia and South East Asia.3 Of these claims,
China has shown past leniency on nearly all of its land disputes with neighboring countries, hence there being
less land-based territorial conflicts compared to offshore issues. The problem however is that China is
unwavering in its attempt to have a direct and legal possession of the Diaoyu Island and is willing to utilize its
immensely powerful military for resolving this issue. While Japan has the Self Defense Force and a mutual
cooperation with the United States and her military, the Chinese military is without a doubt not only the largest,
but the fiercest and most powerful military entity in all of Asia, being potentially second only to the Russian
Federation. Now with this in mind, we must ask ourselves a second question, what is Chinas record of
territorial disputes in terms of violence being used? Looking at its history since the end of World War II, China
has participated in 36 militarized conflicts over 23 disputed territories, which is more than any other state in
regards to territorial dispute.4 With this piece of information, we can understand that at the very least, the
Chinese regime has taken a number of rather aggressive stances in the defense of their national interests. As
China has shown incredibly lax relations with neighboring nations over land border disputes, it has been acting
rather aggressively in recent years over the offshore island disputes across Asia, which is without a doubt a
major issue and potentially hostile conflict that simply cannot be overlooked by the international community. In
comparison, Japan currently has relatively few disputes outside of the Senkaku-Diaoyu issue and has not relied
on military aggression, which would further add to the notion that China may perhaps implement military force
to overwhelm Japan in the case that the situation is not resolved or if violent conflict is to erupt. We will begin

2 Territorial and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Asia, Taylor Fravel, page 525
3 Fravel, page 533-536
4 Fravel, page 531

to look at the depth of this specific case study using both historical and legal claims to support each nations
views.
Chinas history and claims over Diaoyu
If we were to use history as the only form of argument in this conflict, then the island chain without a
doubt belongs to China. To further assess this claim, we must look at the historical ownership of the islands
prior to the First Sino-Japanese War from between 1894-1895, where the islands were under the jurisdiction of
the Ming dynasty from the 14th century when it was first discovered by the Chinese. In terms of population or
any form of human habitation on the islands, the Chinese did not exactly have any of its citizens officially living
in the region, however the islands purpose was to act as a middle ground between the Chinese courts and
Ryukyu courts of modern day Okinawa.5 Until the Qing dynastys loss to the Empire of Japan in 1895 and the
eventual writing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, the ownership of the island was undeniably Chinese. From this
point on until the end of World War II according to the Chinese argument, Diaoyu was illegally owned by the
Japanese Empire and had to be given back to the Chinese. What made sure of this final transfer of ownership of
Chinese territory including Diaoyu was the Potsdam Declaration of 1945, which declared that Japan not only
give back its territorial gains since the takeover of Taiwan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki that ended the First
Sino-Japanese War, but to limit its territory to the four main islands of Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu
alongside a small grouping of minor islands.6 To the Chinese, this was and should have been the indisputable
piece of legal work that gave back China all of its lost territory including Diaoyu as the declaration made it that
Japan had to give up its imperial territories it gained including those acquired under the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
For this reason, the Chinese government views that Japans current ownership over the island chain is illegal
and has no legal basis. However, as we see in the Japanese claim, there is more to the story than just what was
presented.
Japans history and claims over Senkaku
Japans history with Senkaku is relatively new when compared to the relationship the island had with the
Chinese, dating back to a few years prior to the First Sino-Japanese War in the 1890s. When surveyed by the
Japanese, it was declared that there was no clear ownership of any kind nor a relationship with the Qing Empire.
With this finding, the island was declared terra nullius, or no mans land, and has been a part of Japan ever
since.7 In response to the Chinese claim in regards to a dispute in ownership using the Potsdam Declaration of
1945 to further assert their claims, the official stance of the Japanese government is simply that there is no
5 Unryu Sugunama, Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations, page 49
6 The Potsdam Declaration, clause 8
7 The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs

dispute. The first piece of evidence to support the Japanese claim is that the Chinese government has a
misunderstanding to the points made in the Potsdam Declaration. Basically, the Potsdam Declaration made it
clear that Japan had to give up all of the territory that it gained in the name of imperialism; in other words,
territories that were gained through war, to be precise. The reason why the Potsdam Declaration has no
jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands is that the chain of islands was not taken, but rather legally acquired under
the law of terra nullius as there was no clear owner. The same applies for the standards made by the Treaty of
San Francisco in 1951, where the treaty reiterates and specifies the conditions made in the Potsdam Declaration
under Article 2 that Japan must renounce all of its rights to its former colonies.8 To the Japanese government, it
is this technicality that makes it so that Japan has no further claim over former colonies and territories as there is
no legal basis. This however does not apply to Senkaku, which legally makes it Japanese territory.
Japan also has a number of other legal and key case studies that further supports Japans legal ownership of the
Senkaku Islands. The first of these points refers to how China did not have any protest or clear enough
argument to Japan having legal jurisdiction over the islands following World War II. Referring back to the
Treaty of San Francisco, Article 3 states that Japan had to give administrative rights over a number of its islands
under the Nansei Shoto Islands that included Okinawa and Senkaku.9 The argument continues to add that the
Allied powers that wrote the treaty, including the Republic of China, had no intentions of having Senkaku be
recognized as Chinese territory, thus there were no disputes until the early 1970s. For nearly 30 years, China
made no serious claim over Senkaku until the United Nations conducted a survey in the region and discovered
oil and other natural resources in the region.10 With this one point, Japan actually has the upper hand as it shows
that the first major sign of China declaring ownership of Senkaku appeared to the rest of the world as an act of
economic interest following the United Nations survey that was conducted a few years prior. Because of this
fact, the use of historical ownership as an argument in this dispute is null and void knowing that there is a high
chance that the claim by the PRC is entirely economic. It is rather suspicious knowing that China officially
claimed the Diaoyu Islands to be a part of their sphere of influence merely a few years after the United Nations
discovered natural resources in the region. It is only after the 1970s where we see a heightened sense of
demand for the ownership to be legalistically and legitimately transferred over to the Chinese people rather than
the immediate aftermaths of either World War II or the Chinese Civil War. The high levels of nationalism that
we see in contemporary times over the island dispute could be said to have risen in direct response to the PRC
central governments fears of its people from revolting or having a lack of support for the system in the
8 The Treaty of San Francisco, Article 2, 1951
9 The Treaty of San Francisco, Article 3, 1951
10 Lee Seokwoo, Territorial Disputes among Japan, China, and Taiwan Concerning the Senkaku
Islands, pages 10-12, 2002

aftermaths of the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989. This moment in modern Chinese history was the catalyst
for the government to realize that the best way to control and maintain its citizens is to implement the use of
nationalism to bolster their national agenda, hence the near inseparable connection between the claim over
Diaoyu and this issue being a part of the Chinese national identity. With this in mind, as stated previously, it is
clear that the use of nationalistic history in this argument has no say in this conflict as the intentions are both
economic and used as a potential scapegoat by the central government to help foster internal support for the
regime via the use of nationalism.
The role of the United States
While the island dispute directly involves China on one side and Japan on the other, the role of the
worlds only superpower in this conflict has further complicated the issue. Following Japans surrender in 1945,
the United States placed heavy amounts of investment in Japans political and legal infrastructure that allowed
for the rise of a revised Japanese constitution that is still used to this very day and the still lasting Treaty of
Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan. Under Articles 5 and 6 of this treaty, the
United States is responsible for defending Japan in the moment that its national security is to be compromised
by a hostile force.11 Now tying this bit of information with the ongoing island dispute between China and Japan,
it is clear that in the moment that armed conflict is inevitable, the United States will side with Japan and defend
her interests by waging war with China. Due to their allied pact, the United States has offered support to Japan
via its military drills in the region and a public declaration by President Barack Obama himself stating that
Japans sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands are indisputable, adding further hostilities between the PRC and
the United States.12 The reality of this issue is that despite the involvement outside sovereign states such as the
United States, arguably the most powerful military entity on this planet, China appears to have taken a far more
aggressive stance, which may hint that this issue will not be resolved anytime soon, let alone peacefully. At the
rate that the conflict is escalating, it may be inevitable that military conflict may take place as long as both
parties remain adamant about giving up their claim to Senkaku-Diaoyu.
Verdict for this essay and conclusion
While trying to maintain a sense of neutrality and fairness in trying to understand this dispute, it was
discovered that much of the legal documents actually appear to support Japan as having the stronger case over
the direct ownership of this disputed island chain. While referring to the main Ministry of Foreign Affairs
11 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Articles V
and VI
12 The Guardian, Obama says US will defend Japan in island dispute with China. We dont take a
position on final sovereignty on the Senkakus but historically theyve been administered by Japan
and should not be subject to change unilaterally.

website, there are a number of legal documents and case studies that provided to support Japans claims to this
issue. Unfortunately for the Chinese government, although there were attempts to create an official webpage to
show that Diaoyu belongs to China, all of the legal documents provided were mostly comprised of documents
that were issued by the Peoples Republic of China and Chinese interpretations of the Treaty of Shimonoseki
and lists of declarations and treaties included the previously mentioned Treaty of San Francisco and the
Potsdam Declaration. As for historical evidence, the claim began to take a skewered direction as much of the
documentation were maps created by the Ming and Qing dynasties. The problem with this from a historical
context is that it is incredibly biased. Not only that, if we are to take into consideration the high probability that
the current claim over Diaoyu by the Chinese government is solely based on an economic reason, it makes
historical evidence all the more unnecessary and useless.
With this indirect verdict set aside, we have to remember that the Senkaku-Diaoyu dispute is not case
specific to one region in particular; this can happen anywhere in the world as most nations are directly involved
with their own form of territorial dispute. Using this issue in particular as an example, we can learn for our
futures sake and try to prevent further disputes across the world from escalating into a scenario such as this
where potential war may break out given the right circumstances. Looking at this issue from a global
perspective, the main focus is not in regards to whoever gains undisputed legitimacy to rule over this island, but
rather if rising tensions will lead to a violent consequence because the reality is that territories and borders
change throughout time. It is an inevitable consequence as each nation strives to further the agenda and benefit
of its own citizens and at times risk conflict for the sake of sufficing economically in this vastly expanding
global society. From this Senkaku-Diaoyu Island dispute, we would hope for future generations that legislation
needs to be specific as possible in determining who gets sole ownership of a piece of land. This current problem
has risen in response to technical issues that were overlooked in the final days of World War II. We need to learn
from this potentially deadly mistake in the hopes that violent tension in all spheres would be prevented so that
we as an international society may strive for greatness that would benefit us all.

Bibliography
Diaoyu Dao: The Inherent Territory of China. Accessed January 10, 2016
http://www.diaoyudao.org.cn/en/node_7219354.htm
Fravel, M. Taylor. Territorial and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Asia. In Saadia M. Pekkanen, John Ravenhill,
and Rosemary Foot (Eds.). Oxford handbook of the International Relations in Asia (chapter 27). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press,
Lee, Seokwoo. "Territorial Disputes among Japan, China, and Taiwan Concerning the Senkaku Islands." Edited
by Clive Schofield and Shelagh Furness. Boundary and Territory Briefing 3, no. 7 (2002): 10-12.
McCurry, Justin, and Tania Branigan. "Obama Says US Will Defend Japan in Island Dispute with China." April
24, 2014, World sec. Accessed January 10, 2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/24/obama-in-japan-backs-status-quo-in-island-disputewith-china.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Senkaku Islands Q&A. Accessed January 10, 2016.
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html#q11
Potsdam Declaration. July 26, 1945. Accessed January 10, 2016.
http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html
Sugunuma, Unryu. Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the
Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands. Honolulu, Hawaii: Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawaii
Press, 2000. 49.
"Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America. 1960. Accessed
January 11, 2016. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html
Treaty of San Francisco. Articles 2 and 3, 1951. Accessed January 11, 2016.
https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20136/volume-136-I-1832-English.pdf

Yoshida, Reiji. "MSDF Ready to police Incursions near Senkaku Islands, Suga Says." January 12, 2016,
National/Politics sec. Accessed January 13, 2016.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/01/12/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-ready-mobilize-msdfsenkakus-standoff-suga-says/#.VpYjqRV97IX.