The dispute over sovereignty over Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan originated from Japan's external expansion at the end of the 19th century, which is a problem left over by history. How to resolve the Diaoyu island dispute is an important issue facing the two governments.

1、 Diaoyu Island is an inherent territory of China

The Diaoyu Island is actually an archipelago. It is located in the East China Sea just east of Fujian, China and northeast of Taiwan. It is composed of Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Island, Chiwei Island, South Island, North Island and several rocky reefs, with a total area of about 6.5 square kilometers. Among them, Diaoyu Island has the largest area, about 4.3 square kilometers. The islands are named after Diaoyu Island. The Diaoyu Islands are uninhabited for a long time.

Diaoyu Island is an inherent territory of China in history. Administratively, it was subordinate to Fujian Province during the Ming Dynasty and Taiwan since the early Qing Dynasty. Diaoyu Island was first mentioned in the book "send off with the wind" completed in the first year of Yongle in the Ming Dynasty (1403). In 1534, Chen Kan, the 11th conferring envoy of the Ming Dynasty, wrote a complete record of the voyage of conferring Ryukyu in the Ming Dynasty, leaving another proof that the Chinese first discovered the Diaoyu Islands. As early as 1561, the map of China in the Ming Dynasty included the Diaoyu Islands in the coastal defense area of Fujian, China. In 1562, the newly compiled records of envoys to Ryukyu written by guorulin, the canonized envoy of the Ming Dynasty, more clearly confirmed that at that time, China had taken the Chiyu Island, which is the closest to Ryukyu among the Diaoyu Islands, that is, the current Chiwei Island, as the mark of the boundary with Ryukyu.

By the Qing Dynasty, the boundary between China and Ryukyu was in the trough south of Diaoyu Island, which had become the common sense of Chinese navigators. In 1719, the Emperor Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty who went to Ryukyu was canonized, and Xu Baoguang's "biography of Zhongshan" more clearly pointed out his sea route to Ryukyu: starting from Fujian, passing through the north side of Vasa, Pengjia and Diaoyu Islands, and reaching Gumi mountain (Kumi Island) from Chiwei Island. The book also cites the viewpoint of Ryukyu authoritative scholars: Kumi mountain in Ryukyu is "the Zhenshan on the southwest boundary of Ryukyu", that is, the mountain guarding the Ryukyu border. The above historical records fully prove that the governments of the Ming and Qing dynasties have always regarded the Diaoyu Islands as Chinese territory and included them in China's maritime defense zones.

Diaoyu Island is an inherent territory of China, which can also be proved from Japanese historical documents. In 1785, the attached drawing of the "Three Kingdoms Overview" written by Lin Ziping, a Japanese Confucian family, "the three provinces of Ryukyu and thirty-six islands". The picture is based on the records of Zhongshan biography, using China's "Diaoyutai" as the name of the island, and marking the Diaoyu Island with the same light red color as Fujian and Zhejiang in China, while the Kumi island is the same yellow brown color as Ryukyu. In fact, before the Meiji Restoration in 1868, Japan could not find any independent literature about Diaoyu Island. The names of "Diaoyu Island" or "yudiao island" in Japanese maps and historical materials were borrowed from relevant Chinese literature. Moreover, the Chinese island names have been officially used in Japanese maps and official documents. According to incomplete statistics, since 1935? Among the 21 kinds of maps and encyclopedia published in Japan in 1970, 2/3 did not record the so-called "Senkaku Islands", while some were called "yudiao islands".

Based on the above-mentioned historical facts, in december1971, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a solemn statement: Diaoyu Island, Huangwei Island, Chiwei Island, Nanxiao Island, Beixiao island and other islands are affiliated to Taiwan. Like Taiwan, they have been an inalienable part of Chinese territory since ancient times.

2、 Japan illegally steals Diaoyu Islands

The real discovery of the Diaoyu Islands by the Japanese was after Japan annexed Ryukyu in 1879 and changed Ryukyu into "Okinawa Prefecture". In 1884, in order to obtain albatross seabird feathers on Diaoyu Island, chensiro Guhe, a man from Fukuoka Prefecture, Japan, applied to the Japanese government for the development of the island. This is the earliest record of the discovery of Diaoyu Island by the Japanese. According to this, the Japanese government called the Diaoyu Islands "ownerless land", which was occupied by the Japanese, not captured from China in the Sino Japanese War of 1894-1895. However, Volume 18 of the Japanese diplomatic documents, the official archives of Japan, shows that this is not the case. According to the file, after annexing Ryukyu, Japan conducted three secret investigations in 1885 in order to establish a national ownership mark on the Diaoyu Islands. However, it was concluded that these islands "belong to the same island as Diaoyutai, Huangwei island and Chiwei Island recorded in the Zhongshan biography of letters". This matter "involved negotiations on the ownership of islands with the Qing state". This shows that the Japanese government had determined that the Diaoyu Islands were not ownerless, at least they were areas that might have territorial disputes with China.

In January 1895, taking advantage of the defeat of the Qing government in the Sino Japanese War of 1895, Japan officially incorporated the Diaoyu Island into its territory through a "cabinet resolution" and secretly established stakes on the island. In April of the same year, Japan forced the Qing government to sign the Treaty of Shimonoseki, seizing Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands and other affiliated islands. In 1900, Japan gave the Diaoyu Islands the Japanese name "Senkaku Archipelago", but the name came from English paraphrase.

After Japan's defeat and surrender in 1945, according to the previous Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Proclamation, the Diaoyu Islands should have been returned to China as an affiliated island of Taiwan. However, after World War II, the United States managed Okinawa and included the Diaoyu Islands in Okinawa according to the so-called San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1951. In response, the Chinese government issued a statement at that time: the San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan did not have the participation of the people's Republic of China, so it was illegal and invalid.

In 1971, when the United States and Japan signed the "agreement on the return of Okinawa", they privately gave and received each other, and included Diaoyu Islands and other islands in the "return area". After this transaction was strongly protested by the Chinese government, the US government said that the return of Okinawa "Shi regime" would have no impact on the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to see that the United States, out of its own strategic interests, is willing to bury the root cause of the Diaoyu Islands issue between China and Japan.

3、 On the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands from the perspective of international law

China has legitimate sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands in accordance with the principle of "preemption" that "discovery" means possession in international law. As mentioned earlier, China was the first to discover and name the Diaoyu Islands in the 15th century at the latest, which has been a historical fact recognized by the official and academic circles of China and Japan. Therefore, the Diaoyu islands became Chinese territory in the 15th century. In the following hundreds of years, the Diaoyu Islands were included in the territory of the Ming and Qing Dynasties to rule. Before being forcibly occupied by Japan, China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands had been in effect, and China was its only legitimate owner. It should also be pointed out that the "preemption" in international law must first take the "ownerless land" as the object. In fact, the Diaoyu Islands belonged to the Qing Dynasty before they were stolen by Japan in the Sino Japanese War of 1894-1895. Although they were not settled at that time, they were by no means "ownerless". Therefore, the claim of "preemption of ownerless land" put forward by Japan is not tenable at all, and Japan does not have the legal premise to obtain sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.

In addition, the reason why Japan obtained sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands based on the principle of "prescription acquisition" cannot be established. According to the provisions of international law on the acquisition of territory by means of "prescription", a country can acquire sovereignty over a certain territory if it continues to occupy and control it for a certain period of time or more without any protest or opposition from any country. However, Japan never exercised any "effective rule" over the Diaoyu Islands before the Sino Japanese War of 1894-1895. However, after the Sino Japanese War of 1894-1895, the whole Taiwan and its affiliated islands were seized by Japan, and it was not necessary for Japan to "exercise effective rule through the people" to reflect its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. In particular, if Japan wants to acquire sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands in a time limited manner, it can only be achieved with China's long-term acquiescence and no objection. But in fact, both the central government of China and the local authorities in Taiwan have been very firm, clear and consistent in their statements on the sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands for a long time. China's protest has interrupted Japan's so-called time limit for acquiring territory on the grounds of "long-term and continuous effective governance". Therefore, China has indisputable sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands in accordance with history and international law.

Today, the Diaoyu island dispute has become one of the important factors affecting the development of Sino Japanese relations. In dealing with the Diaoyu Islands issue, the Chinese government has always focused on the overall situation and has always advocated peaceful consultation, shelving disputes and joint development. If this proposition can also get a real response from the Japanese side, it will be conducive to the further development of China Japan relations. Both China and Japan are big Asian countries. Peace benefits both sides, and confrontation hurts both. Only by joining hands with Japan can we create a bright future for Asia. (source: Qiushi magazine Author: huangdahui, Professor of Renmin University of China and director of East Asia Research Center)