条约视角下钓鱼岛主权归属探究

On the Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands from the Perspective of Treaties

条约是国际法的主要渊源,钓鱼岛主权争端很大程度上源于对相关条约的界定和解释存有争议,因此,研究钓鱼岛主权归属不能离开对其中涉及的条约的研究。虽然没有条约明确规定钓鱼岛的主权归属,但从条约解释的角度可以证明中国对钓鱼岛拥有主权。按照文法解释及系统解释原则,可以证明《马关条约》割让的"台湾及所有附属岛屿"是包括钓鱼岛的。嗣后协议在解释条约中的作用不能忽视,《开罗宣言》、《波茨坦公告》及《中日联合声明》都具有约束力,日本窃取的包括钓鱼岛在内的中国领土应归还中国。《旧金山和约》、《美日安全保障条约》及《美日归还冲绳协定》并未规定钓鱼岛属于日本,且这些协议有违反强行法之处,是无效的。

Treaties are one of the primary building blocks of international law,and to a great extent,it can be argued that the dispute over sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is rooted in the definition and understanding of relevant treaties.In other words,research on the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands is inherently related to research on relevant treaties.While no treaty explicitly governs sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands,analysis of relevant treaties can demonstrate Chinese sovereignty.Both literal and contextual readings of the Treaty of Shimonoseki show that its reference to the concession of 'Taiwan and all its subsidiary islands' includes the Diaoyu Islands.It must also not be overlooked that subsequent agreements such as the Cairo Declaration,the Potsdam Declaration and the Sino-Japanese Joint Communique saw Japan return territories taken from China as referenced in the Treaty of Shimonoseki,including the Diaoyu Islands to China.Lastly,neither the San Francisco Peace Treaty,the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States,nor the U.S.-Japan Okinawa Reversion Agreement specify that the Diaoyu Islands are a possession of Japan.It can be further argued that these later Treaties are rendered invalid as a result of their violation of the principle of Jus Cogens.