The Study On The International Legal Status Of The Ryukyu Islands

In recent years, the sovereignty disputes over the Diaoyu Islands between China and Japan, the East China Sea oil and gas resources, the problems of the fishery resources have attracted wide attention around the world. The issues regarding the Ryukyu Islands once again entered the view of people, and has received renewed attention, hence triggered a lot of discussions. The Ryukyu Islands issue is also directly related to the settlement of the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Islands and the East China Sea.The Ryukyu Islands issue, from the Satsuma clan invasion in1609up until to now, has been bewildering and has experienced turnover several times. One of the most striking issues is the legal status of the Ryukyu Islands. Historically, since the establishment of the Suzerain-vassal State Relationships between the Ming-Qing Dynasties and Ryukyu in the early years of the Ming Dynasty, it was survival up to500years. During that period, the Ming-Qing Dynasties and Ryukyu gradually established and developed a close relationship. In1609, the Satsuma clan invaded the Ryukyu Kingdom. The Ryukyu Kingdom was occupied and seized by Japan in1879, and withal, the successive central governments of China have not acknowledged Japan’s usurpation of the Ryukyu Kingdom. As early as the late Qing Dynasty, intense negotiations with Japan was carried out by the Qing Government over the Ryukyu issue. Until1894, the first Sino-Japanese war, the two countries agreed on formal treaty effectively. Due to the nearer geographical position, the exchanges between the Ryukyu islands and Japan have a long history, but the Ryukyu Kingdom has always been an independent country, is by no mean Japanese territory long ago as some Japanese scholars declared that.International legal documents including "The Cairo Declaration","The Potsdam Proclamation" and so on constitutes the fundamental basis of international law concerning Japan’s wartime responsibility and territorial issues. In accordance with these international legal documents, Japan should give up any rights over the Ryukyu Islands. The adscription of the Ryukyu Islands should be, in accordance with the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam Declaration, jointly determined among the allies through consultation. But based on the San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan in1951and Agreement between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Agreement) in1971, Japan regained the Ryukyu Islands. However, both instruments mentioned above are illegal and invalid. Because the San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan is manipulated by the United States alone, it is inconsistent with The Cairo Declaration and The Potsdam Proclamation. In the San Francisco Peace Conference, China is excluded from it, The Soviet Union and a number of other countries refused to sign, therefore, the disposal of The Ryukyu is invalid. The Okinawa Reversion Agreement is also unfounded in international law. The doctrine of "residual sovereignty" from the United States is not set up, because the Ryukyu is neither the American territory nor Japan. The United States has no right to transfer the Ryukyu to Japan. Furthermore, The United States unilaterally handing the Ryukyu over to Japan is in violation of the provisions of the UN Charter about the duty of the trusteeship authority.Therefore, in terms of international law, the conduction of the United States "returning" the Ryukyu to the Japan is also invalid; Japan’s sovereignty claim over the Ryukyu is unfounded. As a result, the international legal status of the Ryukyu is unsolved.