历史与主权——驳日本关于钓鱼岛主权的三项依据

History and Sovereignty——Refuting Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyudao Islands

钓鱼岛虽只是弹丸小岛,却是两岸四地、海内外华人以致中、日政府纠缠难解的一个心结。自19世纪中叶,日本觊觎我国钓鱼岛主权以来,其侵吞之心始终未泯。总结日本染指钓鱼岛主权的依据主要有三,一是据先占原则取得;二是据《旧金山合约》以及《冲绳归还协定》重新获得了钓鱼岛主权;三是据时效取得。用现代国际法有关理论对日本以上三项依据予以剖析,一方面可以论证以上三者均背离了现代国际法之精神;另一方面亦可反证钓鱼岛自始至今即为中国之领土。

The Diaoyudao Islands, although covering a small area, remain a complicate issue for the governments of China and Japan, a hang-up for Chinese both at home and abroad. Japan has always wanted to occupy the Islands since the mid-19th century for three reasons： the flint is based on Preoccupancy Principle, the second is that Japan regained the sovereignty over Diaoyudao Islands under The San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan and The Okinawa Reversion Agreement, arid the third is based on Prescription System. On the one hand, the above three reasons deviate from the spirit of modem international law ; on the other hand, these are just counterevidence to support that Diaoyudao Islands have always been Chinese territory since the earliest time.