中日钓鱼岛主权之争的条约依据评析

Comment on the Treaty Evidence of the Dispute about Sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan

日本政府关于钓鱼岛列岛与《马关条约》无关的说法不符合事实。《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》作为国际协定,虽未出现"钓鱼岛"的字样,实际上确定了钓鱼岛的地位和主权归属。《旧金山和约》对中国没有拘束力。《归还冲绳协定》的基础文件乃至归还主体、方式和范围均违背国际法,应归于无效。美国向日本移交钓鱼岛的行政管理权违反了国际条约,是非法无效的行为,日本并不因此享有钓鱼岛的主权。日本将钓鱼岛"国有化"公然违反国际法,凸显出钓鱼岛主权之争法律解决方法的紧迫性。美国擅自处置琉球群岛之归属,违反了《联合国宪章》,在国际法上难以成立。

Japanese Government＇statement that Diaoyu Islands are irrelevant to Ma Guan Pact is unmatched with the fact. As international agreement, Cairo＇s Declaration and Potsdam Declaration dont mention Diaoyu Islands, but they have confirmed the position and sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands. Treaty of San Francisco doesnt impose constraints on China. The Basic files of The return of Okinawa agreement, returning subject, and the ways and scope violate the international law. The United States＂ transfer of the administration of Diaoyu Islands to Japan violates the international treaty, so it is illegal and invalid, and Japan is not entitled to the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands. Japan violates the international law openly by ＂ nationalizing＂ Diaoyu Islands. Urgency of legal settlement of the dispute about sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands is prominent. The United States＇disposition of sovereignty of Ryukyu Islands violates 9 Charter of＂ the United Nations.