| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
180309
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article takes a critical look at the current state of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands dispute in light of the recent escalation between China and Japan. The article's central thesis is that the practical significance of the dispute has diminished considerably due to developments in the security and economic spheres. Rather, the dispute continues to exist and escalate because of the domestic political interests of the respective governments. This recognition is important to manage the dispute effectively, to avoid hyperbolic arguments about the dispute's conflict potential, and similarly to avoid undue comparisons with the South China Sea. This article adopts a realist, rational-choice based approach to demonstrate the diminishing nature of the security and economic significance of the islands, which underpins a decreasing rationale for actively seeking an alteration of the status quo. The question of why the dispute continues to escalate is highlighted in the article's examination of how the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan and the Chinese Communist Party use the islands as a political symbol to pursue their own domestic and regional political agenda, in a way only tangentially connected to the actual dispute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
187225
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The article takes a critical look at the sovereignty claims surrounding the Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands. The dispute has long plagued Sino-Japanese relations and is considered one of the key regional security hotspots, with the People's Republic of China mounting an active challenge to Japanese administrative control. This article reviews the case for sovereignty under both the discovery and the prescription principles. However, the article concludes that one cannot find a compelling case for sovereignty under either principle in favour of either claimants. The paper argues that this is due to the traditional insignificance of the islands prior to UNCLOS establishing exclusive economic zones. Rather, the article suggests that to facilitate a resolution to the disputes, the islands should not be classified as islands under UNCLOS as they do not meet the legal threshold for such a classification, either today or historically. If anything, the weakness of claims that contributes to the intractability of the dispute today shows that traditionally neither China nor Japan has considered these territories as islands in a manner that would be in the spirit of UNCLOS. While such a reclassification would not immediately resolve the dispute, it would be a significant step to remove incentives for the further pursuit of conflicting sovereignty over the islands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|