The Problem On Status Of Ryukyu Islands On International Law Documents

All along,whether in the theoretical or media reports,the focus on the Diaoyu Islands issue can be described as never stopped,but in September 2012,Japan,director of the island after making a farce,the Diaoyu Islands issue again triggered a hot debate.In fact,from the international law to discuss to this dispute,there is a prerequisite that the debate on the Diaoyu Islands,that is,the Ryukyu Islands sovereignty issues,if this key problem is resolved,the Diaoyu Islands dispute will be solved.Japan on this issue only focus on the Diaoyu Islands dispute,to avoid the issue of Ryukyu,in essence,is to avoid raising the sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands controversy,because Japan is also clear that the Ryukyu Islands sovereignty status is not determined,this is his In the claim is its fatal point on the issue of the Diaoyu Islands,therefore,from the perspective of international law to analyze the status of Ryukyu to determine the point of curbing Japan to curb Japan's illegal point of focus,Japan and China in the Diaoyu Islands issue will be solved.This article consists of seven parts:The first part briefly describes the basic situation of the Ryukyu problem and the status of Ryukyu become the origin of the problem.The second part is the analysis of the "Beijing special",from the historical facts,the traditional theory of international law and treaty interpretation and other aspects of its discussion,that "the Japanese state" is not equal to "Ryukyu refugees",then Japan Can not proposal sovereignty be based on the "Beijing special".The third part is the analysis of the "sub-island renewal",through the elaboration of the provisions of the Vienna Treaty Law on the entry into force of the treaty and the basic theory of the territory of international law,to discuss the nature and effectiveness of the sub-island renewal,Island does not conform to the entry into force of the treaty and does not constitute a binding force on third countries,so Japan can not rely on a treaty that has not yet signed into force to claim sovereignty over Ryukyu.The fourth part is an analysis of the Cairo Declaration,the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese surrender.The Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation are the most important and most effective documents for determining the post-war territory of Japan.Therefore,from the treaty elements and substantive elements to explore the Cairo Declaration and Potsdam notice of the legal nature and effectiveness of Cairo Declaration and Potsdam notice with complete treaty elements,the parties are binding,through the "Japanese surrender" Analysis of the Japanese defeat unconditional surrender and fully accept the "Boztan notice" to complete the ex post facto and third country agreed to "legal proceedings,leaving the" Cairo Declaration "and" Potsdam Announcement "on the date of entry into force,the two treaties Japan must abide by all the obligations stipulated in Japan,and the "Japanese surrender" is the most important international document for the implementation of the Cairo Declaration and the "Potsdam Announcement" treaty obligations of the four countries after the war.Conclusion The Cairo Declaration,The Treaty of Potsdam and the Japanese surrender form a complete treaty system."The treaty must be observed",and that Japan must fulfill its treaty obligations under this treaty system by renouncing the territory of another country occupied by it and assuming war responsibility.Based on the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation to claim sovereignty over RyukyuThe fifth part is an analysis of the San Francisco contract by analyzing the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties concerning the settlement of treaty conflicts,the fact that the treaty does not create a jurisprudence of a third State and the rules of treaty interpretation to conclude that the San Francisco Convention In violation of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Joint Treaty of the United Nations,which is not a separate contract with the enemy,and violates the Treaty's failure to create a third party,which is not binding on China because it is not signed by China,and that the United States does not comply with the " The basic spirit established by the Charter of the United Nations and the basic principles of the international custody system,the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty can not directly lead to a change in the status of Ryukyu.The sixth part is the analysis of the Agreement between the Ryukyu and the Great East Islands,and the analysis of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the international custody of the "Ryukyu and the Great Eastern Islands Agreement" violation of the provisions of the United Nations Trusteeship System,illegal "Ryukyu and Dadong Archipelago agreement " is invalid,so it does not involve the Ryukyu sovereignty status changes in the conclusion.The seventh part is a summary,through the above analysis of the various legal documents finally concluded that Ryukyu is since ancient times is a country with independent sovereignty,based on this,any other country forced interference in the development process of Ryukyu is a kind of aggression against Ryukyu sovereignty,According to the "Charter of the United Nations and the" Convention on Civil and Political Rights,"and many other recognized international documents in the national self-determination of the right to know Ryukyu has the right,but the status of Ryukyu is undetermined Through the referendum to determine its political status.