The Historical and Legal Status of Pre-modern Ryukyu and the Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands
【中文摘要】：中日钓鱼岛争端中，日方极力撇开《马关条约》和其取得钓鱼岛所谓“主权”之间的关联，并认为钓鱼岛列屿的行政编制隶属琉球、琉球是日本的领土，所以钓鱼岛的主权应归日本，即日方主张包含着“钓鱼岛属于琉球、琉球属于日本，所以钓鱼岛属于日本”的荒谬逻辑。本文着重对琉球地位问题“去伪”，即通过探究近世琉球（1609-1879）在历史和国际法上的地位、中琉历史上的海上自然疆界，从而进一步印证钓鱼岛属于中国，为我国钓鱼岛主权主张提供有力论据。 【Abstract】In the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, Japan, on the one hand, strives to evade the relations of its acquisition of “sovereignty” over these islands with the Treaty of Shimonoseki; on the other hand, it assumes that the Diaoyu Islands is a part of Ryukyu under its administrative system, and Ryukyu constitutes a part of Japanese territory, therefore, Japan has the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. In this regard, Japan's absurd logic lies in that “the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Ryukyu, and the latter belongs to Japan, hence the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Japan”. This paper attempts to eliminate the misstatements about the status of Ryukyu, by examining the status of pre-modern Ryukyu (1609-1879) in history and international law, and the marine boundaries between China and Ryukyu in history. In doing so, the paper further demonstrates that the Diaoyu Islands is an inherent part of China, thereby providing compelling evidences to support China's claim to the sovereignty of these islands.