日本“钓鱼岛列岛国有化”的法律应对

Legal Responses to Japan’s “Nationalization of Diaoyu Islands”

从现代国际法主权的认定依据来看,钓鱼岛列岛自明代中期后已成为我国领土,其间我国曾因《马关条约》割让台湾而于二战结束前丧失对钓鱼岛主权,但是,二战结束后,我国根据《开罗宣言》、《波茨坦公告》之规定又重新享有。1971年日美《琉球归还协定》的范围应当仅限于琉球群岛而不包括钓鱼岛。根据联合国海洋法公约以及国际法院的相关判例,钓鱼岛因其自身特殊的地理条件不适宜拥有专属经济区,在中日海洋划界上过多地考虑钓鱼岛可能会使主权纷争愈演愈烈。作为"中界岛屿"的钓鱼岛在海洋划界时原则上应当被视为"部分效力"或"零效力",忽略钓鱼岛的海洋划界效力,更有利于中日双方解决钓鱼岛的主权归属。

Based on the sovereignty determining protocol as stipulated in modern international law, the Diaoyu Islands had been Chinese territory since the middle of the Ming Dynastry. China lost these islands to Japan due to the illegal Maguan Treaty which also put Taiwan under Japanese illegal colonization before the end of World War II. However, after World War II, in accordance with Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, China regained sovereignty over these islands. The 1971 Japan-U. S. Ryukyu Returning Protocol shall be limited to the scope of the Ryukyu Islands, without cov- eting the Diaoyu Islands. In accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and relevant jurispru- dence by the International Court of Justice, the Diaoyu Islands, due to its special geographical conditions, are unfit to hold exclusive economic zone. Too much discussion on the Diaoyu Islands when demarcating maritime boundary between China and Japan may intensify the sovereignty dispute. The Diaoyu Islands, as intermediate islands, shall he viewed as with ＂partial effect＂ or ＂zero effect＂ in maritime delimitation. Evading the maritime delimitation effect of the Diaoyu Islands can be more conducive to solving territorial dispute between China and Japan.