用户名： 密码： 验证码：
论近世琉球的历史和法律地位——兼议钓鱼岛主权归属
详细信息    查看官网全文
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。
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.
引文
1我国称钓鱼岛为“钓鱼岛列屿”、“钓鱼台”等,日本称“尖阁列岛”。如无特殊说明,本文用“钓鱼岛”或“钓鱼岛列屿”指代钓鱼岛及其附属岛屿。
    2近年来,我国民间对琉球主权的关切越来越高,网络上还出现了“还我琉球”的声音,学术界如徐勇、唐淳风等人也发表了“琉球地位未定”的观点。其实“琉球地位未定论”早期见于台湾,2012年左右才开始在大陆舆论中凸显,进而引发日本和冲绳舆论界的关注。日本政府“国有化”钓鱼岛并导致中日关系紧张化后,2012年5月8日,《人民日报》刊登学者张海鹏、李国强署名文章《论马关条约与钓鱼岛问题》,文末提出“历史上悬而未决的琉球问题也到了可以再议的时候”。就中国政府对琉球的立场,我国外交部发言人作出回应:“中国政府在有关问题上的立场没有变化。冲绳和琉球的历史是学术界长期关注的一个问题。该问题近来再度突出,背景是日方在钓鱼岛问题上不断采取挑衅行动,侵犯中国领土主权。学者的署名文章反映了中国民众和学术界对钓鱼岛及相关历史问题的关注和研究”。
    3日本外务省:《关于“尖阁诸岛”所有权问题的基本见解(中译本)》,下载于http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html,2016年10月8日;日本外务省:《“尖阁诸岛”问答(中译本)》,下载于http://www.cn.emb-japan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/question-and-answer.html,2016年10月8日。
    4萨摩藩:日本明治政府“废藩置县”前统治九州岛南部的地方政权,其势力范围涉及古代日本的律令制国家萨摩国(现鹿儿岛县西部)、大隅国(现鹿儿岛县东部和大隅诸岛)和日向国诸县郡(现宫崎县西南部)等地区。江户时代(1603-1868)的“幕藩体制”建立后,该政权遂成为萨摩藩,明治维新后正式命名为鹿儿岛藩。参见藤井贞文、林陆郎:《藩史事典》,东京:秋田书店1976年版,第342页,转引自袁家冬:《日本萨摩藩入侵琉球与东亚地缘政治格局变迁》,载于《中国社会科学》2013年第8期,第189页。
    5何慈毅:《明清时期琉球日本关系史》,南京:江苏古籍出版社2002年版,第3~5页。
    6对于清代册封琉球的次数,中日学者不存在争议,一般认为清册封琉球8次,册封使16名。但是对于明清两代中国册封琉球的总次数,历史学界的看法各异,一般认为是24次,但也有23次的说法,主要原因是对明朝册封次数,学界有不同看法。谢必震、武尚清和赤岭诚纪一致认为明朝册封琉球15次,册使27人;方宝川则认为明朝册封琉球14次,册封使26人。有的学者以中央政府是否在琉球本地为琉球国王进行册封仪式作为标准,没有把杨载出使琉球统计在列,从该角度看,明清两代共为琉球国王举行的册封典礼是23次而不是24次。参见谢必震、胡新:《中琉关系史料与研究》,北京:海洋出版社2010年版,第125~126页;徐斌:《明清士大夫与琉球》,北京:海洋出版社2011年,第83页。
    7《明太祖实录》卷七十一记载,当年明太祖洪武帝遣杨载携带诏谕中山王的诏书中写到:“惟尔琉球,在中国东南,远处海外,未及报知,兹特遣使往谕,尔其知之。”参见《明太祖实录》卷七十一,洪武五年春正月甲子条。
    8徐斌:《明清士大夫与琉球》,北京:海洋出版社2011年版,第36页。
    9郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究(增订本)》,香港:明报出版社有限公司2011年版,第124页。
    10徐斌:《明清士大夫与琉球》,北京:海洋出版社2011年版,第4页。
    11米庆余:《琉球历史研究》,天津:天津人民出版社1998年版,第112~114页。
    12杨仲揆:《琉球古今谈--兼论钓鱼台问题》,台北:台湾商务印书馆1990年版,第64~65页。
    13杨仲揆:《琉球古今谈--兼论钓鱼台问题》,台北:台湾商务印书馆1990年版,第64~65页。
    14琉球漂流事件:明代中琉交往后,琉球船只或贡船失事飘到中国沿海的有12起。明清两朝对包括琉球漂民在内的漂风难民均有救助、安置和抚恤遣返的做法,形成以中国为中心,参与国包括朝贡国和非朝贡国(如日本)在内的海难救助机制。由于导致船舶漂流的主要原因是搞错了季风期,在“两属”时期,首里王府下达了严格遵守出港、归港期的命令,但即使这样,也不免有漂流事件的发生。参见赖正维:《清代中琉关系研究》,北京:海洋出版社2011年版,第56~60页;[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第52页。
    15[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第52~53页。
    16杨仲揆:《琉球古今谈--兼论钓鱼台问题》,台北:台湾商务印书馆1990年版,第64~65页。
    17费正清提出了晚清时期与朝贡体制并存的“条约体系”一词。参见J.K.Fairbank,The Early Treaty System in the Chinese World Order,in J.K.Fairbank ed.,The Chinese World Order:Traditional China’s Foreign Relations,Cambridge,MA/London:Harvard University Press,1969,pp.257~275.
    18《万国公法》一书,译自美国国际法学家亨利·惠顿(1785-1848)于1836年出版的《国际法原理》(Elements of International Law)一书,翻译者是美国传教士丁韪良(1827-1916),于1864年(同治三年)冬由北京崇实馆刊印发行。参见林学忠:《从万国公法到公法外交:晚清国际法的传入、诠释与应用》,上海:上海古籍出版社2009年版,第113页。
    19邹振环:《丁韪良译述〈万国公法〉在中日韩传播的比较研究》,载于复旦大学韩国研究中心编:《韩国学研究第七辑》,北京:中国社会科学出版社2000年版,第258~278页。
    20茅海建:《天朝的崩溃--鸦片战争再研究》,北京:三联书店1995年版,第104~112页。
    21 1839年7月,九龙尖沙嘴村发生中国村民林维喜被英国水手所杀的案件。对该案的研究,参见林启彦、林锦源:《论中英两国政府处理林维喜事件的手法和态度》,载于《历史研究》2000年第2期,第97~113页。
    22 1864年4月,普鲁士公使李福斯乘坐“羚羊号”军舰来华,在天津大沽口海面上无端拿获了3艘丹麦商船。总理各国事务衙门当即提出抗议,指出公使拿获丹麦商船的水域是中国的“内洋”(领水),按照国际法的原则,应属中国政府管辖,并以如普鲁士公使不释放丹麦商船清廷将不予以接待相威胁。在这种情况下,普鲁士释放了2艘丹麦商船,并对第3艘商船赔偿1500元,事件最终和平解决。关于此案及清政府援引《万国公法》的经过,参见王维俭:《普丹大沽口船舶事件和西方国际法传入中国》,载于《学术研究》1985年第5期,第84~90页。
    23[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第17页。
    24汪晖:《中国现代思想的兴起(上卷)》,北京:三联书店2004年版,第680页。
    25林学忠:《从万国公法到公法外交:晚清国际法的传入、诠释与应用》,上海:上海古籍出版社2009年版,第243页。
    26 James Lorimer,The Institutes of the Law of Nations:A Treaties on the Jural Relations of Separate Political Communities,Vol.1,Edinburgh/London:W.Blackwood&Sons,1883-1884,pp.102~103.
    27《奥本海国际法》可谓是在20世纪对《万国公法》起到承前启后作用的巨著。该书的雏形是国际法学者奥本海(1858-1919)在1905-1906年出版的《国际法》两卷集,奥本海因此当选剑桥大学惠威尔国际法讲座教授。之后第二版由奥本海本人修订。此后《奥本海国际法》经过罗纳德·罗克斯伯勒、阿诺德·麦克奈尔,以及赫希·劳特派特等多位国际法知名学者多次修订并出版,被称为“剑桥书”。参见[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第III~V页。
    28[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法(第一卷,第一分册)》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第90页。
    29应注意的是,《万国公法》(北京:中国政法大学出版社2003版)的点校人何勤华教授指出,丁韪良在翻译时,不仅对原书的结构、体系、章节有过调整,也对其中的内容作了大量删节。如第一卷第二章第二十三节“日耳曼系众邦会盟”,原文有近90%的内容被丁韪良所删,翻译出来的只是几点摘要。此外,由于受历史条件和译者中文水平的局限,还存在较多不成功的翻译之处(参见[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,“点校者前言”第51页)。鉴于此,笔者在写作本文时,特别注意对比《万国公法》中英文版本的差异,尤其关注英文版本中有论述,而中文版本中存在删节或省略的部分。
    30中国国家图书馆外文馆藏有Elements of International Law的多个版本,该书自1836年第一版问世后就多次再版,主体内容并无大的改动,而是由不同的编辑者加以注释,或添加国际公约作为附录。笔者参阅的是1866年在波士顿出版的第八版,该版本由Richard Henry Dana编辑并注释。参见Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,p.viii.
    31丁韪良翻译的《万国公法》由北京崇实馆1864年出版,该中文版译自Elements of International Law:With a Sketch of the History of the Science的第六版,即由William Beach Lawrence(1800-1881)编辑的注释版(Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1855)。参见林学忠:《从万国公法到公法外交:晚清国际法的传入、诠释与应用》,上海:上海古籍出版社2009年版,第113页。
    32[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第25~26页。
    33 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,p.22.
    34[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第37页。
    35 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,pp.45~46.
    36[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第35~36页。
    37惠顿的《万国公法》第二章第37节题目就是“Tributary States”,参见Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,pp.48~49.
    38[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第41页。
    39[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第41~42页。
    40 Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,p.49.
    41黄松筠:《中国藩属制度研究的理论问题》,载于《社会科学战线》2004年第6期,第121页。
    42费正清对朝贡体制的理论基础--华夏中心主义意识,以及朝贡关系融政治、贸易、外交于一体的特征,都有开创性研究。他还以“冲击-反应”模式为框架,来研究近代中国的走势。此后许多学者分别提出“华夷秩序”、“天朝礼治体系”、“中国的世界秩序”、“东亚的国际秩序”等,被视为古代中国的中外关系、外交制度、外交观念等,但都与朝贡体制有关。费正清的上述观点虽可概括朝贡体制的结构,但仍应注意,亚洲内陆游牧部落与华夏文化圈内的“朝贡国”虽然同处在“朝贡体系”之中,但仍存在很大的差异;暹罗、缅甸等“朝贡国”与欧洲国家也存在差异,因为这些“朝贡国”与中国保持着正式的“封贡关系”,所以不能和欧洲国家划归一类。参见王培培:《“朝贡体系”与“条约体系”》,载于《社科纵横》2011年第8期,第115~117页。
    43 John King Fairbank ed.,The Chinese World Order,Traditional China’s Foreign Relations,Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1968,p.2.
    44李云泉:《朝贡制度史论--中国古代对外关系体制研究》,北京:新华出版社2004年版,第134~148页。
    45李云泉:《朝贡制度史论--中国古代对外关系体制研究》,北京:新华出版社2004年版,第137页。
    46林学忠:《从万国公法到公法外交:晚清国际法的传入、诠释与应用》,上海:上海古籍出版社2009年版,第276~278页。
    47马大正主编:《中国边疆通史丛书·中国边疆经略史》,郑州:中州古籍出版社2000年版,第398页。
    48郭廷以等编:《中法越南交涉档(二)》,台北:“中央研究院”近代史研究所1962年版,第927页。
    49例如1883年6月,李鸿章收到法国来函称:“法越现已交兵,按照公法,局外之国不得从旁扰与,似须法越战事稍定乃可就议”。参见郭廷以等编:《中法越南交涉档(二)》,台北:“中央研究院”近代史研究所1962年版,第910页。
    50张登桂等编:《大南实录(正编第五纪,卷4)》,东京:庆应义塾大学1961-1981年版,第4页。转引自李云泉:《中法战争前的中法越南问题交涉与中越关系的变化》,载于《社会科学辑刊》2010年第5期,第155页。
    51李云泉:《中法战争前的中法越南问题交涉与中越关系的变化》,载于《社会科学辑刊》2010年第5期,第151页。
    52电文内容为:“缅王印,乾隆五十五年颁给,系清汉文尚方大篆,银质饰金驼纽,平台方三寸五分,厚一寸,其文曰‘阿瓦缅甸国王之印’。特电。”参见何新华:《试析清代缅甸的藩属国地位问题》,载于《历史档案》2006年第1期,第75页。
    53王彦威:《清季外交史料(卷61)》,北京:故宫博物院1932年刊本,第29页。
    54何新华:《试析清代缅甸的藩属国地位问题》,《历史档案》2006年第1期,第75页。
    55缅甸的暧昧态度表现在缅甸国王对待1790年乾隆赐给的封印态度上。当“使臣携归华文大印,其状如驼,缅王恐受制于清,初不愿接受,顾又不愿舍此重达三缅斤(十磅)之真金,乃决意接受而使史官免志其事。”参见[英]哈维著,姚梓良译:《缅甸史(下册)》,北京:商务印书馆1973年版,第453页。
    56何新华:《试析清代缅甸的藩属国地位问题》,载于《历史档案》2006年第1期,第72页。
    57路凤石:《德宗实录》(卷232,光绪十二年九月),北京:中华书局1987年版。
    58生番事件:同治10年(1871年)11月,琉球国太平山岛一艘海船69人遇到飓风,船只倾覆。幸存的66人凫水登山,11月7日,误入台湾高山族牡丹社生番乡内,和当地居民发生武装冲突,54人被杀死,幸存的12人在当地汉人杨友旺等帮助下,从台湾护送到福建。同治11年(1872年)2月25日,福州将军兼署闽浙总督文煜等人将此事向北京奏报,京城邸报对此作了转载。参见米庆余:《琉球漂民事件与日军入侵台湾(1871-1874)》,载于《历史研究》1999年第1期,第21~36页。
    59米庆余:《琉球漂民事件与日军入侵台湾(1871-1874)》,载于《历史研究》1999年第1期,第21~36页。
    60鞠德源:《评析30年前日本政府〈关于尖阁诸岛所有权问题的基本见解〉》,载于《抗日战争研究》2002年第4期,第147~166页。
    61[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第312页。
    62《琉球處分條約案に關する件(琉球処分条約案に関する件)》,载于日本外务省编:《日本外交年表并主要文书1840-1945(上巻)》,东京:原书房1965年版,第81~85页;鞠德源:《评析30年前日本政府〈关于尖阁诸岛所有权问题的基本见解〉》,载于《抗日战争研究》2002年第4期,第147~166页。
    63[日]植田捷雄:《琉球の归属を绕る日清交涉》,载于东京大学东洋文化研究所编:《东洋文化研究所纪要(二)》,1951年。
    64米庆余:《琉球历史研究》,天津:天津人民出版社1998年版,第226页。
    65[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上册)》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第35页。
    66《马关条约》又称《下关条约》,甲午战争清朝战败后,清政府和日本政府于1895年4月17日(光绪二十一年三月二十三日)在日本马关(今下关市)签署的条约,原名《马关新约》,日本称为《下关条约》或《日清讲和条约》。清朝代表为李鸿章和李经芳,日方代表为伊藤博文和陆奥宗光。
    67东京的琉球陈情使以波兰曾经附属于普鲁士、奥地利和俄罗斯三国为例,指出《万国公法》也同样允许两属国家的存在。参见[日]西里喜行,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第29~32页。
    68时际法,或称过渡法,是指解决法律时间抵触的法律,也就是决定法律时间适用范围的法律。领土争端中,时际法是需要考虑的重要法律因素。国际法上的“时际法”是在国际常设仲裁法院“帕尔马斯岛案”中,由仲裁员胡伯首先提出,并逐步在领土争端解决实践和条约法中得到发展。他所表述的时际国际法是:“一个法律事实应当按照与之同时的法律,而不是按照因该事实发生争端时所实行的法律或解决这个争端时所实行的法律予以判断”。参见The Island of Palmas Case(or Miangas),United States of America v.The Netherlands(1928),Permanent Court of Arbitration,pp.4~6,p.37.
    69何慈毅:《明清时期琉球日本关系史》,南京:江苏古籍出版社2002年版,第55页。
    70[日]黑板胜美:《德川实纪(第1编)》,载于国史大系编修会编:《新订增补国史大系(第38卷)》,东京:吉川弘文馆1929年版。
    71苏义雄:《平时国际法》,台北:三民书局1993年版,第178页。
    72 Suya P.Sharma,Territorial Acquisition,Dispute and International Law,The Hague/Boston/London:Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,1997,p.143.
    73米庆余:《琉球历史研究》,天津:天津人民出版社1998年版,第199页。
    74以寺岛外务卿《说略》为代表的“琉球专属日本”论中,明治政府除了强调1609年萨摩藩入侵琉球王国前日本和琉球在地缘、地理、文化、种族等的相通性外,还提到琉球对日本的进贡早于中国,日本特设太宰府对琉球进行管理。日本还强调1609年后日本幕府已把琉球赐给萨摩藩,萨摩藩对琉球实施了包括军事、税收、法律制定等多方面的政治统治。米庆余:《琉球历史研究》,天津:天津人民出版社1998年版,第199页。
    75日本外务省编:《日本外交文书(第12卷)》,东京:日本国际联合协会1973年版。转引自[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第30页。
    76[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第30页。
    77现有文献中已有用《万国公法》提到的欧罗巴滨海诸国和巴巴里之间关系与琉球的地位进行类比的初步尝试,参见王鑫:《从国际法的角度分析琉球法律地位的历史变迁》,载于《研究生法学》2009年第2期,第112~120页;王鑫:《从琉球法律地位历史变迁的角度透析钓鱼岛争端》(硕士论文),北京:中国政法大学2010年版,第8页;张毅:《琉球法律地位之国际法分析》(博士论文),北京:中国政法大学2013年版,第63~64页。历史上也曾有类似解读,例如,为对抗明治政府提出的琉球“专属日本”主张,东京的琉球陈情使以波兰曾经附属于普鲁士、奥地利和俄罗斯三国为例,指出《万国公法》也同样允许两属国家的存在。参见[日]西里喜行编:《琉球救国请愿书集成》,东京:法政大学冲绳文化研究所1992年版。
    78[美]惠顿著,[美]丁韪良译,何勤华点校:《万国公法》,北京:中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第41页。
    79修斌、姜秉国:《琉球亡国与东亚封贡体制功能的丧失》,载于《日本学刊》2007年第6期。
    80[日]喜舍场朝贤:《琉球见闻录(卷之一二)》,东京:至言社1977年版。转引自[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第31页。
    81李明峻:《从国际法角度看琉球群岛主权归属》,载于《台湾国际研究季刊》2005年第2期,第56页。
    82[日]西里喜行:《琉球救国请愿书集成》,东京:法政大学冲绳文化研究所1992年版。
    83向德宏称,“日本谓敝国国体、国政,皆伊所立,敝国无自主之权。夫国体、国政之大者,莫如膺封爵、赐国号、受姓、奉朔、律令、礼制诸巨典。敝国自洪武五年入贡,册封中山王,改琉求国号曰琉球。永乐年间赐国主尚姓,历奉中朝正朔,遵中朝礼典,用中朝律例,至今无异。至于国中官守之职名,人员之进退,号令之出入,服制之法度,无非敝国主及大臣主之,从无日本干预其间者。且前经与法、美、荷三国互立约言,敝国书中皆用天朝年月,并写敝国官员名。事属自主,各国所深知。敝国非日本附属,岂待辩论而明哉?”参见王芸生:《六十年来中国与日本(第一卷)》,天津:大公报社1932年版,第127~129页。
    84[日]西里喜行著,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文化出版社2010年版,第307页。
    85[日]西里喜行,胡连成等译:《清末中琉日关系史研究(上)》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第154~155页。
    86 1877年4月12日,琉球紫巾官向德宏乘船到闽向清朝求助,面见闽浙总督何璟和福建巡抚丁日昌,呈递琉王陈情书,乞求代纾其国之难。面对驻日公使何如璋对日“阻贡不已,必灭琉球,琉球既灭,行及朝鲜”的警告和应对建议,李鸿章却主张:“(何如璋)所陈上、中、下三策,遣兵舶责问及约琉人以必救,似皆小题大作,转涉张皇。惟言之不听时复言之,日人自知理绌,或不敢遽废藩制改郡县,俾球人得保其土,亦不藉寇以兵。此虽似下策,实为今日一定办法。”参见《李鸿章全集·译署函稿》,卷八,第1页。
    87唐才常:《拟开中西条例馆条例》,载于湖南省哲学社会科学研究所编:《唐才常集》,北京:中华书局1980年版,第27页。
    88日本外务省:《“尖阁诸岛”问答》,下载于http://www.cn.emb-japan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/question-and-answer.html,2016年10月12日;日本外务省:《关于尖阁诸岛的基本见解》,下载于http://www.cn.emb-japan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/basic_view.html,2016年10月12日。
    89在有关钓鱼岛的国际法研究中,具有代表性的日本学者论著包括:[日]入江启四郎:《尖阁列岛海洋开发の基盘》,载于《季刊·冲绳》1971年3月,第56页;[日]入江启四郎:《日清讲和と尖阁列岛の地位》,载于《季刊·冲绳》1972年12月,第63页;[日]奥原敏雄:《尖阁列岛の领有权问题》,载于《季刊·冲绳》1971年3月,第56页;[日]尾崎重义:《关于尖阁列岛的归属》,载于《参考》1972年总第263号;[日]绿间荣:《尖阁列岛》,那霸:ひるぎ社1984年版;Unryu Suganuma,Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations-Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,2000;Shigeyoshi Ozaki,Territorial Issues on the East China Sea:A Japanese Position,Journal of East Asia and International Law,No.3,2010;[日]尾崎重义:《尖阁诸岛与日本的领有权》,载于《外交》2012年第12期;[日]石井望:《尖阁前史(ぜんし)、无主地(むしゅち)の一角に领有史料有り》,载于《八重山日报》2013年8月3日(平成二十五年八月三日)。
    90沙学骏:《钓鱼台属中国不属琉球之史地根据》,载于《学粹杂志》1972年第2期,第16页。
    91沙学骏:《钓鱼台属中国不属琉球之史地根据》,载于《学粹杂志》1972年第2期,第16页。
    92李廷机著:《李文节公文集》,载于陈子龙等编:《明经世文编(卷460)》,北京:中华书局1962年版。
    93龙文彬著:《明会要(卷77,外藩1,琉球)》,北京:中华书局1956年版。
    94沙学骏:《钓鱼岛属中国不属琉球之史地根据》,载于《学粹杂志》1972年第2期,第17页。
    95黑潮是太平洋北赤道洋流遇大陆后的向北分支,自菲律宾经台湾海峡及台湾东部,过八重山、宫古岛、钓鱼岛列屿,再往日本、韩国。黑潮时速平均为四、五海里,经过八重山、宫古岛、琉球诸岛和钓鱼岛列屿时,因风向和海岸冲击,又形成西侧向南洄流现象。参见杨仲揆:《中国·琉球·钓鱼岛》,香港:友联研究所1972年版,第135页。
    96沙学骏:《钓鱼台属中国不属琉球之史地根据》,载于《学粹杂志》1972年第2期,第17页。
    97沙学骏:《钓鱼台属中国不属琉球之史地根据》,载于《学粹杂志》1972年第14卷第2期,第17页。
    98郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,北京:中华书局2007年版,第98页。
    99这幅附图,实际上也成为(中国的册封使)陈侃“见古米山,乃属琉球者”及郭汝霖“赤屿者,界琉球地方山也”的最佳注释。参见郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,北京:中华书局2007年版,第98~99页。
    100林子平所绘《三国通览图说》出版于日本天明五年,即中国乾隆五十年(1785年)秋。《三国通览图说》共有五幅附图,分别是:《三国通览舆地路程全图》、《虾夷国全图》、《朝鲜八道之图》、《无人岛大小之八十余之图》、《琉球三省并三十六岛之图》。参见[日]村田忠禧:《钓鱼岛争议》,载于《百年潮》2004年第6期,第56~62页。
    101据《中山世谱》记载,琉球本岛由“三府五州十五郡”(应为三十五郡)组成。所谓“三府”是中头的中山府五州十一郡,“岛尾”的山南府十五郡,“国头”的山北府九郡,另外有三十六岛。参见[日]村田忠禧:《钓鱼岛争议》,载于《百年潮》2004年第6期,第56~62页。
    102日本外务省:《关于尖阁诸岛所有权问题的基本见解》,下载于http://www.cn.embjapan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/basic_view.html,2016年10月12日。
    103此次调查的结果,体现在石泽兵吾的《鱼钓岛及另外二岛调查概略》和“出云丸号”船长林鹤松的《鱼钓岛、久场、久米赤岛回航报告书》中。二人的报告提交给了代理冲绳县令西村舍三之职的冲绳县大书记官森长义。参见[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第166~169页;李理:《近代日本对钓鱼岛的非法调查及窃取》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第12~14页。
    104《美报文章:日应尊重钓鱼岛相关国际条约》,下载于http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2012-10/22/c_123850855.htm,2016年11月1日。
    105“沖縄県久米赤島、久場島、魚釣島ヘ国標建設ノ件”(JCAHR:B03041152300),载于《日本外交文书(第18卷)》,第572页。
    106 B03041152300の17,《日本外交文书(第18卷)》,第576页。
    107“沖縄県久米赤島、久場島、魚釣島ヘ国標建設ノ件”(JCAHR:B03041152300),载于《日本外交文书(第18卷)》,第572页。
    108 Han-yi Shaw,The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,The New York Times,19 September 2012;台湾“外交部”:《对日本外务省网站有关钓鱼台列屿十六题问与答逐题驳斥全文》,下载于http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,2015年1月30日。
    109“沖縄県久米赤島、久場島、魚釣島ヘ国標建設ノ件”(JCAHR:B03041152300);Han-yi Shaw,The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,The New York Times,19 September 2012;台湾“外交部”:《对日本外务省网站有关钓鱼台列屿十六题问与答逐题驳斥全文》,下载于http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,2015年1月30日。
    110“B03041152300の29”,载于《日本外交文书(第18卷)》。
    111 1885年6-7月,内务省发出密令给冲绳县令西村舍三,指示其调查位于冲绳本岛东部的无人岛大东岛。在西村舍三的命令下,当年8月29日石泽兵吾等人乘“出云丸号”登陆南大东岛,31日登上北大东岛,遵照指令进行实地调查,并建立名为“冲绳县管辖”的国家标志。船长林鹤松建立了题为“奉大日本帝国冲绳县之命东京共同运输公司出云丸创开汽船航路”的航标。“出云丸号”于9月1日返回那霸港。参见[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第150~152页。
    112《鱼钓岛及另外二岛调查概略》记载:“此岛与英国出版之日本台湾间海图相对照,相当于Hoa Pin su……海图上以Tia u su标记,实有所误。久米赤岛相当于Raleigh Rock,唯一礁石尔……海图上以Pinnacle为久场岛,亦有所误。Pinnacle一语为顶点之意……故勘其误,鱼钓岛应为Hoa Pin Su,久场岛应为Tia u su,久米赤岛应为Raleigh Rock。”村田忠禧指出,报告的提交者石泽兵吾实际上是误将钓鱼屿认作花瓶屿。参见[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第169页。
    113郑海麟:《钓鱼岛列屿之历史与法理研究》,北京:中华书局2007年版,第75页。
    114英文“occupation”一词,大陆国际法学家王铁崖领衔翻译的《奥本海国际法》(第9版)中被译为“占领”,台湾国际法学家丘宏达的《现代国际法》(陈纯一修订)在引用《奥本海国际法》同一版本涉及领土争端的部分时,将“occupation”翻译为“先占”。丘宏达认为,“occupation”的翻译在领土取得方面中文译为“先占”,但在战争法上译为“占领”,两者涵义不同。军事占领不能取得主权。本文采用丘宏达的译法。参见丘宏达著,陈纯一修订:《现代国际法(修订第3版)》,台北:三民书局2013年版,第514~515页;[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法(第一卷,第二分册)》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第74~79页。
    115“无主地”的概念一度在18世纪的国际法中流行,被欧洲各国用来为殖民行为辩护。18世纪著名国际法学家瓦特尔的《国家间的法律》中阐述了国际法上的“无主地”。他对英国占有大洋洲,或欧洲各国占有整个北美洲的行为进行合理化,将原住民的土地区别为“已垦殖”与“未垦殖”两类。瓦特尔认为,欧洲主导的国际法应当确认人类对于所栖身、使用的土地负有开发、垦殖的义务。那些居无定所的游牧部落失于开发、垦殖土地的义务本身,即意味着可以视他们从未“真正而合法地”占有这些土地;因为这些部落没有成型昭彰的社会组织者,其与土地二者间不得认作国际法上之占有关系,因而其土地为“无主地”,根据发现与先占原则,无主地向所有殖民者敞开。参见De Vattel,Les droit des Gens,ou Principles de la Loi naturelle,appliqués a la conduit at aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains(1758),translated by Charles Ghequiere Fenwick,Washington:Carnegie institution of Washington,1916,p.194.
    116[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法(第一卷,第二分册)》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第74页。
    117[英]詹宁斯、瓦茨修订,王铁崖等译:《奥本海国际法(第一卷,第二分册)》,北京:中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第75页。
    118 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.I,9th ed.,Harlow:Longmans Group UK Limited,1992,pp.689~690.
    119日本外务省:《关于尖阁诸岛所有权问题的基本见解》,下载于http://www.cn.embjapan.go.jp/territory/senkaku/basic_view.html,2016年10月12日。
    120[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第150~177页。
    121台湾“外交部”:《对日本外务省网站有关钓鱼台列屿十六题问与答逐题驳斥全文》,下载于http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,2015年1月30日。
    122[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第222~223页。
    123[日]村田忠禧著,韦平和译:《日中领土争端的起源--从历史档案看钓鱼岛问题》,北京:社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第201~202页。
    124 Han-yi Shaw,The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,The New York Times,19 September 2012.
    125刘丹:《琉球托管的国际法研究--兼论钓鱼岛的主权归属问题》,载于《太平洋学报》2012年第12期,第82~87页。
    1 Diaoyu Islands is also called“Diaoyu Dao”or“Diaoyutai”in China,or“Senkaku Islands”in Japan.Except as otherwise stated herein,the term Diaoyu Islands is used throughout this paper to refer to Diaoyu Island and its affiliated islets.
    2 In recent years,concerns over the sovereignty of Ryukyu grew quickly in Chinese civil society.Calls for the“restoration of Ryukyu Kingdom”appeared in the internet social media.In Chinese academia,Xu Yong,Tang Chunfeng and other scholars also argue that the status of Ryukyu is uncertain.This argument,first raised by Taiwanese scholars,rose to prominence in Chinese Mainland around 2012,which sparked the attention of media in Japan and Okinawa.Sino-Japanese relations have become strained after Japan’s move to“nationalize”the Diaoyu Islands.On 8 May 2012,People’s Daily,the official newspaper of China,published an article titled“The Treaty of Shimonoseki and the Diaoyu Dao Issue”,by Zhang Haipeng and Li Guoqiang.This article,in its conclusion,says that“it is the high time to reconsider the pending issue of Ryukyu.”As to the position of Chinese government toward Ryukyu,a Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman asserted,“Chinese government has never changed its position to some relevant issues.The history of Okinawa and Ryukyu is a long-time concern in the academia,which stood up again recently,against the backdrop where the territorial sovereignty of China was jeopardized by Japan’s provocative acts concerning the Diaoyu Islands issue.The articles by scholars reflect the concerns and studies on the Diaoyu Islands and the relevant historical issues by Chinese civil society and academia”.
    3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html,8 October2016;Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,Senkaku Islands Q&A,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html,8 October 2016.
    4 Satsuma Domain is the local authority controlling the southern Kyushu Island before the Meiji Government replaced its feudal domain system with prefecture system.It is associated with the provinces of Satsuma in the western modern-day Kagoshima Prefecture,Osumi in the eastern modern-day Kagoshima Prefecture and Osumi Islands,and Hyūga in southwestern modern-day Miyazaki Prefecture.After the creation of the Tokugawa regime in the Edo period(1603-1868),this authority became the Satsuma Domain,which was formally named the Kagoshima Domain following the Meiji Restoration.See Sadafumi Fujii and RokurōHayashi,Hanshi Jiten,Tokyo:Akita Shoten,1976,p.342,quoted from Yuan Jiadong,The Japanese Satsuma Invasion of Ryukyu and the Changes in East Asian Geopolitics,Social Sciences in China,No.8,2013,p.189.(in Chinese)
    5 He Ciyi,The History of the Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in Ming and Qing Dynasties,Nanjing:Jiangsu Ancient Books Publishing House Co.Ltd.,2002,pp.3~5.(in Chinese)
    6 There is little debate,among the Chinese and Japanese scholars,over the times that the Qing Court sent imperial envoys to Ryukyu.It is generally maintained that the Qing Court sent envoys 8 times to perform investiture ceremony for Ryukyuan kings,involving 16envoys in all.However,historians failed to reach a consensus over the total times that China dispatched envoys to Ryukyu in the two dynasties of Ming and Qing.It is generally believed to be 24 times,but some scholars also assert that it is 23 times.The main difference lies in their different views on the times of investiture missions sent in the Ming Dynasty.Xie Bizhen,Wu Shangqing and Akamine Seiki all believe that the Ming Court sent investiture missions 15 times,involving 27 envoys;in contrast,Fang Baochuan asserts that the numbers are 14(times)and 26(envoys)respectively.Some scholars contend that the times of investiture missions should be determined on whether the central government has sent envoys to perform investiture ceremony for Ryukyuan King on the land of the kingdom,therefore,the mission carried out by Yang Zai should not be counted,and the Ming and Qing Courts sent envoys 23 times,rather than 24 times to Ryukyu to perform investiture rituals for its kings.See Xie Bizhen and Hu Xin,Historical Data and Research on the History of Sino-Ryukyuan Relations,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2010,pp.125~126(in Chinese);Xu Bin,Literati and Officialdom in Ming and Qing Dynasties and Ryukyu,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2011,p.83.(in Chinese)
    7 Veritable Records of Emperor Ming Taizu(Vol.71)stated,the imperial edict that Ming Taizu,also known as the Hongwu Emperor,ordered Yang Zai to carry along to confirm King Satto as king of Chūzan said:“only your country Ryukyu,which is located to the southeast of China and far away in the oversea land,was not informed of the news.Therefore,now I send my envoys to tell you the news.”See Veritable Records of Emperor Ming Taizu,Vol.71,16 January 1372(lunar calendar).
    8 Xu Bin,Literati and Officialdom in Ming and Qing Dynasties and Ryukyu,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2011,p.36.(in Chinese)
    9 Zheng Hailin,The History of Diaoyu Islands and the Relevant Jurisprudence(Revised and Enlarged Edition),Hong Kong:Ming Pao Publications Ltd.,2011,p.124.(in Chinese)
    10 Xu Bin,Literati and Officialdom in Ming and Qing Dynasties and Ryukyu,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2011,p.4.(in Chinese)
    11 Mi Qingyu,A Research on Ryukyuan History,Tianjin:Tianjin People’s Publishing House,1998,pp.112~114.(in Chinese)
    12 Yang Chungkui,Ancient and Modern Ryukyu,and the Issue of Diaoyutai,Taipei:The Commercial Press,Ltd.,1990,pp.64~65.(in Chinese)
    13 Yang Chungkui,Ancient and Modern Ryukyu,and the Issue of Diaoyutai,Taipei:The Commercial Press,Ltd.,1990,pp.64~65.(in Chinese)
    14 Ryukyuan castaways incidents:since the establishment of tributary relations between China and Ryukyu in the Ming Dynasty,12 Ryukyuan ships or ships used for tribute missions had been wrecked and wandered into the coastal areas of China.Both the Qing and Ming Courts had the practice of salvaging and resettling the castaways,including those from Ryukyu,granting pensions to them,and sending them back to their home countries.Such practices formed a sino-centric marine salvage mechanism,with participation from its tributary and non-tributary States(such as Japan).Since the shipwrecks were caused mainly by the miscalculation of the monsoon season,in the period of dual subordination,Shuri Royal Government ordered its subjects to strictly follow the right time to leave or return to its ports.Even in that case,shipwreck incidents still happened.See Lai Zhengwei,A Research on the Sino-Ryukyuan Relations in the Qing Dynasty,Beijing:China Ocean Press,2011,pp.56~60(in Chinese);[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,p.52.(in Chinese)
    15[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.52~53.(in Chinese)
    16 Yang Chungkui,Ancient and Modern Ryukyu,and the Issue of Diaoyutai,Taipei:The Commercial Press,Ltd.,1990,pp.64~65.(in Chinese)
    17 The term“treaty system”,which coexisted with the tributary system in late Qing Dynasty,was proposed by Fairbank.See J.K.Fairbank,The Early Treaty System in the Chinese World Order,in J.K.Fairbank ed.,The Chinese World Order:Traditional China’s Foreign Relations,Cambridge,MA/London:Harvard University Press,1969,pp.257~275.
    18 The Chinese version of Elements of International Law(named“万国公法”in Chinese)is translated by William A.P.Martin(1827-1916),an American missionary,from its English version,which was published by the American publicist Henry Wheaton(1785-1848)in 1836.This Chinese version was printed by Beijing Chongshi School in the winter of 1864.See Lin Xuezhong,From Elements of International Law to Diplomacy Based on International Law:the Reception,Interpretation,and Application of International Law in the Late Qing,Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2009,p.113.(in Chinese)
    19 Zou Zhenhuan,A Comparative Study on the Distribution of the Elements of International Law Translated by W.A.P.Martin in China,Japan and Korea,in Center for South Korea Studies of Fudan University ed.,South Korea Studies,Vol.7,Beijing:China Social Sciences Press,2000,pp.258~278.(in Chinese)
    20 Mao Haijian,Collapse of the Celestial Empire:A Re-examination on the Opium Wars,Beijing:Joint Publishing,1995,pp.104~112.(in Chinese)
    21 In July 1839,a local named Lin Weixi in the village of Tsim Sha Tsui was beaten to death by a British sailor.For research on this incident,see Lam Kai-yin and Lam Kam-yuen,On the Approaches and Attitudes of the Chinese and British Governments in Dealing with the Lin Weixi Incident,Historical Research,No.2,2000,pp.97~113.(in Chinese)
    22 In April 1864,when the Prussian minister H.Von Rehfues came to China by the warship Gazelle,he,without causes,captured three Danish commercial ships in the waters of Dagu Port,Tianjin,China.Zongli Yamen(Ministry of Foreign Affairs)of Qing China protested against Prussia’s act immediately,by invoking international legal concepts.The Prussian minister was accused of capturing Danish ships in Chinese“inner ocean”(or“territorial sea”),over which China had jurisdiction.The Prussians were further informed that should the ships not be released then China could refuse a reception to their officials.Ultimately,Prussia released two of the captured ships,and paid a compensation at the amount of$1500.This incident was thus settled peacefully.For the details of this incident and the invocation of international law by Qing Court,see Wang Weijian,Prussian-Danish Incident in Dagu Port and the Introduction of Western International Law into China,Academic Research,No.5,1985,pp.84~90.(in Chinese)
    23[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.17.(in Chinese)
    24 Wang Hui,The Rise of Modern Chinese Thoughts,Beijing:SDX Joint Publishing Company,2004,p.680.(in Chinese)
    25 Lin Xuezhong,From Elements of International Law to Diplomacy Based on International Law:the Reception,Interpretation,and Application of International Law in the Late Qing,Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2009,p.243.(in Chinese)
    27 Oppenheim’s International Law is considered as another internationally renowned book,following the Elements of International Law,in the 20th century.This book finds its early form in the two volumes of International Law:A Treatise initially published in 1905-1906,by the internationalist L.F.L.Oppenheim(1858-1919).This work won him enough prestige to be appointed as the Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge.The second edition of the book was revised by Oppenheim himself.Oppenheim’s International Law was afterwards edited by Ronald Francis Roxburgh,Arnold Duncan Mc Nair,Hersch Lauterpacht and other renowned scholars of international law,and is known as a“Cambridge Monograph”.Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.1,translated by Wang Tieya et al.,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1998,pp.III~V.(in Chinese)
    28 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.1,translated by Wang Tieya et al.,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1998,p.90.(in Chinese)
    29 It is noteworthy that,Prof.He Qinhua,the proofreader of the Chinese version of Elements of International Law(Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003)stated,William A.P.Martin’s translation was abridged and adjusted from the original work,with some contents deleted and its structure,style or chapters adjusted.For example,nearly 90%of original words of Volume 1,Chapter 2,Section 23(titled“Germanic Confederation”)were deleted by William in his translation,only retaining a summary.Additionally,subject to the historical conditions and the translator’s Chinese proficiency,the Chinese version is fraught with translation errors.See Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,Preface by Proofreader,p.51(in Chinese).By virtue of it,the paper pays a special attention to the difference between the Chinese and English versions,particularly those parts deleted or omitted in the Chinese version.
    30 The National Library of China collected several editions of Elements of International Law in its House of Foreign Literature.This book has been reprinted many times since its first publication in 1836.The main contents of this book remained unchanged,but with notes or international conventions added by editors as appendix.The author referred to the 8th edition published in Boston in 1866,edited with notes,by Richard Henry Dana.See Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,p.viii.
    31 William A.P.Martin’s translation of Elements of International Law was published in 1864by Beijing Chongshi School.This Chinese edition is translated from the 6th edition of Elements of International Law:With a Sketch of the History of the Science,which was edited with notes by William Beach Lawrence(1800-1881)(Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1855).See Lin Xuezhong,From Elements of International Law to Diplomacy Based on International Law:the Reception,Interpretation,and Application of International Law in the Late Qing,Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2009,p.113.(in Chinese)
    32 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,pp.25~26.(in Chinese)
    34 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,p.37.(in Chinese)
    36 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,pp.35~36.(in Chinese)
    37 Section 37,Chapter 2 of Wheaton’s Elements of International Law is entitled“Tributary States”,see Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,edited,with notes,by Richard Henry Dana,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1866,pp.48~49.
    38 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,p.41.(in Chinese)
    39 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,pp.41~42.(in Chinese)
    41 Huang Songyun,Theoretic Problems in the Study of Chinese Tributary System,Social Science Front,No.6,2004,p.121.(in Chinese)
    42 John King Fairbank has done some pioneering researches on the Sino-centrist worldview,which is the theoretic basis of Chinese tributary system,as well as on the characteristics of the tributary system which merge politics,trade and diplomacy into its network.Plus,he also studied the trend of modern China with his impact-response model.Many concepts advanced by scholars afterwards,such as“Huayi Order”,“Chinese Confucian system”,“Chinese world order”and“East Asian world order”,are considered as related to ancient China’s foreign relations,diplomatic institutions and thoughts,which,however,are all associated with Chinese tributary system.Fairbank’s views above described the structure of the tributary system.Yet,it should be noted,inner Asian Nomads were greatly different from the tributary States within the Chinese culture circle,albeit in the same tributary system.Siam,Burma and other tributaries also varied from European States,which cannot be put under the same category,because the former States maintained an official tributary relations with China.See Wang Peipei,Tributary and Treaty Systems,Social Sciences Review,Vol.26,No.8,2011,pp.115~117.(in Chinese)
    44 Li Yunquan,The History of Tributary System:A Study on Institutions Related to the Foreign Relations of Ancient China,Beijing:Xinhua Press,2004,pp.134~148.(in Chinese)
    45 Li Yunquan,The History of Tributary System:A Study on Institutions Related to the Foreign Relations of Ancient China,Beijing:Xinhua Press,2004,p.137.(in Chinese)
    46 Lin Xuezhong,From Elements of International Law to Diplomacy Based on International Law:the Reception,Interpretation,and Application of International Law in the Late Qing,Shanghai:Shanghai Ancient Books Publishing House,2009,pp.276~278.(in Chinese)
    47 Ma Dazheng ed.,An Outlined History of Chinese Borders/Book Series on the General History of China’s Borders,Zhengzhou:Zhongzhou Ancient Books Publishing House,2000,p.398.(in Chinese)
    48 Kuo Ting-yee et al.eds.,Archives on Sino-French Negotiations over the Vietnam Issue(II),Taipei:Institute of Modern History,“Academia Sinica”,1962,p.927.(in Chinese)
    49 For example,Li Hongzhang,in June 1883,received a letter from France,which said:“Currently,France and Vietnam are at war,which,in accordance with international law,any third States should not intervene,therefore,we should discuss the matter after a ceasefire between France and Vietnam.”Kuo Ting-yee et al.eds.,Archives on Sino-French Negotiations over the Vietnam Issue(II),Taipei:Institute of Modern History,“Academia Sinica”,1962,p.910.(in Chinese)
    50 Zhang Denggui et al.eds.,??i Nam Th?c L?c,Tokyo:Keio University,1961-1981,p.4,quoted from Li Yunquan,Sino-French Negotiations over the Vietnam Issue before the SinoFrench War and the Change of Sino-Vietnamese Relations,Social Science Journal,No.5,2010,p.155.(in Chinese)
    51 Li Yunquan,Sino-French Negotiations over the Vietnam Issue before the Sino-French War and the Change of Sino-Vietnamese Relations,Social Science Journal,No.5,2010,p.151.(in Chinese)
    52 The text of the telegraph reads:“The Seal of Burma King was presented in 1790.The writing style of the characters on the seal was Shangfang Dazhuan(one type of greater seal scripts in ancient China)in the languages of Han and Manchu.The seal is made of silver and has a camel-shaped golden handle.The base of the seal is 3.5*3.5 Chinese cun(1 cun=31?3 cm)and 1 Chinese cun thick.And the words on the seal reads‘Seal of Burma King in Mandalay’.”See He Xinhua,An Analysis on the Tributary Status of Burma in Qing Dynasty,Historical Archives,No.1,2006,p.75.(in Chinese)
    53 Wang Yanwei,Historical Documents on Qing’s Foreign Relations(Vol.61),Beijing:The Palace Museum,1932,p.29.(in Chinese)
    54 He Xinhua,An Analysis on the Tributary Status of Burma in Qing Dynasty,Historical Archives,No.1,2006,p.75.(in Chinese)
    55 Burma’ambiguous attitude can be detected from Burma King’s attitude towards the seal presented by Qianlong Emperor in 1790.When“Chinese envoys carried the camel-shaped seal signifying Burma’s subordination to China,the Burma King,fearing to be controlled by Qing Court,was initially reluctant to accept the seal.However,he was also unwilling to reject such a piece of gold weighing 3 peittha(10 lb),eventually he decided to accept it,but ordering his court recorder not to recount this matter.”G.E.Harvey,History of Burma(Vol.2),translated by Yao Ziliang,Beijing:The Commercial Press,1973,p.453.(in Chinese)
    56 He Xinhua,An Analysis on the Tributary Status of Burma in Qing Dynasty,Historical Archives,No.1,2006,p.72.(in Chinese)
    57 Lu Fengshi,Veritable Records of Qing Emperor De Zong(Vol.232,September 1886),Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1987.(in Chinese)
    58 The Mudan Incident of 1871:in the November of 1871,a Miyako Island ship encountered a violent storm at sea and was shipwrecked.66 crewmen landed on November 7,at the Mudan Community where Gaoshan people(raw or wild tribes in Taiwan)lived.Unfortunately,an armed conflict erupted between the crewmen and the local aborigines.Of the 66 crewmen,54 were killed,and 12 were rescued by Yang Youwang and other Han Chinese and were transferred to Miyako via Fujian.On 25 February 1872,Wen Yu,the Fuzhou General and Governor of Fujian and Zhejiang Provinces,reported the incident to Beijing.And Dibao,a kind of newspaper distributed in the capital of Qing Empire,also covered this incident.See Mi Qingyu,The Ryukyuan Shipwreck Incidence and Japanese Invasion of Taiwan(1871-1874),Historical Research,No.1,1999,pp.21~36.(in Chinese)
    59 Mi Qingyu,The Ryukyuan Shipwreck Incidence and Japanese Invasion of Taiwan(1871-1874),Historical Research,No.1,1999,pp.21~36.(in Chinese)
    60 Ju Deyuan,A Comment on the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands Issued by the Japanese Government 30 Years Ago,The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan,No.4,2002,pp.147~166.(in Chinese)
    61[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between China,Ryukyu and Japan in Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.312.(in Chinese)Affairs of Japan ed.,An Chronological Table of Japanese Foreign Policy and Important Documents,1840-1945(I),Tokyo:Hara Shobo,1965,pp.81~85(in Japanese);Ju Deyuan,A Comment on the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands Issued by the Japanese Government 30 Years Ago,The Journal of Studies of China’s Resistance War against Japan,No.4,2002,pp.147~166.(in Chinese)
    63 Ueda Toshio,Negotiations between Japan and China over the Sovereignty of Ryukyu,in Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia ed.,The Memoirs of the Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia,No.2,1951.(in Japanese)
    64 Mi Qingyu,A Research on Ryukyuan History,Tianjin:Tianjin People’s Publishing House,1998,p.226.(in Chinese)
    65[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.35.(in Chinese)
    66 The Treaty of Shimonoseki(Japanese:下関条約,“Shimonoseki Jōyaku”)was a treaty signed in Shimonoseki,Japan on April 17,1895,between the Empire of Japan and the Qing Empire,ending the First Sino-Japanese War.It was signed by Li Hongzhang and Li Jingfang on behalf of the Emperor of China and Ito Hirobumi and Mutsu Munemitsu for the Emperor of Japan.
    67 Ryukyuan envoys sent to Tokyo asserted that the existence of a State subordinated to two other States was permitted under the Elements of International Law,since,for example,Poland was once subject to three States:Prussia,Austria and Russia.[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,pp.29~32.(in Chinese)
    68 Intertemporal Law,also known as Transitory Law,deals with the complications caused by the conflict of laws in time,which determines the time when a law is applicable.In territorial disputes,intertemporal law is a critical legal element to be considered.The origins of Intertemporal Law as a legal theoretical concept,are to be found in arbitrator Huber’s discussion in the Palmas Arbitration Case before the Permanent Court of Arbitration,where he stated“a juridical fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it,and not of the law in force at the time when a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled.”This concept has gradually developed in the practice of territorial disputes settlement and treaty laws.See The Island of Palmas Case(or Miangas),United States of America v.The Netherlands(1928),Permanent Court of Arbitration,pp.4~6,p.37.
    69 He Ciyi,The History of the Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in Ming and Qing Dynasties,Nanjing:Jiangsu Ancient Books Publishing House Co.Ltd.,2002,p.55.(in Chinese)
    70[Japan]Kuroita Katsumi,Tokugawa Jikki(Chapter 1),in Shintei Zoho,Kokushi Taikei(Vol.38),Tokyo:Yoshikawa Kobunkan,1929.(in Japanese)
    71 Su Yi-xiong,International Law in Peacetime,Taipei:San Min Book Co.,Ltd.,1993,p.178.(in Chinese)
    73 Mi Qingyu,A Research on Ryukyuan History,Tianjin:Tianjin People’s Publishing House,1998,p.199.(in Chinese)
    74 The claim of Japan’s exclusive sovereignty over Ryukyu was mainly proposed by Japanese foreign minister Terashima in his book A Brief Introduction.With regards to this claim,the Meiji Government stressed the similarity and connection between Ryukyu and Japan,prior to the Satsuma Invasion of Ryukyu in 1609,in terms of geographical relationship and location,as well as culture and ethnics,and also mentioned that Ryukyu paid tributes to Japan earlier than to China,which was subject to the administration of Daizaifu specially set up by Japan.Japan also emphasized,after 1609,Shogunate had already given Ryukyu to Satsuma Domain,which exercised political rule over Ryukyu in many aspects,including military,tax,and law-making.Mi Qingyu,A Research on Ryukyuan History,Tianjin:Tianjin People’s Publishing House,1998,p.199.(in Chinese)
    75 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan ed.,Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy,Vol.12,Tokyo:International Association of Japan,1973,quoted from[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,AStudy on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.30.(in Chinese)
    76[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.30.(in Chinese)
    77 Existing literature has attempted,by invoking the relations between the principal maritime powers of Europe and Barbary States,to draw an analogy between the status of Ryukyu and these powers of Europe.See Wang Xin,Historical Changes of the Legal Status of Ryukyu under International Law,Graduate Law Review.CUPL,Vol.24,No.2,pp.112~120(in Chinese);Wang Xin,An Exploration of the Diaoyu Islands Disputes Seen from the Historical Changes of the Legal Status of Ryukyu(master thesis),Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law,2010,p.8(in Chinese);Zhang Yi,The Study on Legal Status of the Ryukyu Islands on International Law(doctoral thesis),Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law,2013,pp.63~64.(in Chinese)Such practice has appeared in history:in order to protest against the Meiji Government’s claim of exclusive sovereignty over Ryukyu,Ryukyuan envoys sent to Tokyo asserted that the existence of a State subordinated to two other States was permitted under the Elements of International Law,since,for example,Poland was once subject to three States:Prussia,Austria and Russia.[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato ed.,Petitions for Salvation of Ryukyu Kingdom,Tokyo:Hosei University Institute for Okinawan Studies,1992.(in Japanese)
    78 Henry Wheaton,Elements of International Law,translated by William A.P.Martin,proofread by He Qinhua,Beijing:China University of Political Science and Law Press,2003,p.41.(in Chinese)
    79 Xiu Bin and Jiang Bingguo,The Subjugation of Ryukyu and Losing the Function of the Investiture-Tributary System in East Asia,Japanese Studies,No.6,2007.(in Chinese)
    80[Japan]Chōken Kishaba,Ryu?kyu?kenbunroku(Vols.1~2),Tokyo:Perikansha Publishing Inc.,1977(in Japanese),quoted from[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.31.(in Chinese)
    81 Ming Juinn Li,The Sovereignty of the Ryukyu Islands from the Perspective of International Law,Taiwan International Studies Quarterly,Vol.1,No.2,2005,p.56.(in Chinese)
    82[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato ed.,Petitions for Salvation of Ryukyu Kingdom,Tokyo:Hosei University Institute for Okinawan Studies,1992.
    83 ShōTukukōargued,“Japan claims that the government system and political structure of Ryukyu was established by Japan,and Ryukyu is not a sovereign and independent State.However,to determine a State’s government system and political structure,the following rituals or factors are critical:investiture rituals,granting title of a reigning dynasty,giving a royal name,following the calendar,laws and decrees,and rites of a certain dynasty.Ryukyu has paid tribute to China since 1372,when King Satto was conferred as king of Chūzan by China,and the country’s name was changed from“琉求”to“琉球”in Chinese.During the reign of Yongle Emporor,Ryukyu King was given the surname of Shō.Ryukyu follows the calendar,rites and rituals,as well as laws and statutes of China,which has never changed up till now.The post and rank of Ryukyuan officials,the recruitment and resignation of its staff,the issuing and abolishment of imperial orders or decrees,and the clothing system,are all decided by the King and councilors of Ryukyu,without being intervened by Japan.In the treaties signed by Ryukyu with France,the United States,and the Netherlands respectively,Ryukyu signed the date following Chinese calendar and the names of its own officials.Ryukyu is a sovereign State,which is known to all States.That Ryukyu is not subject to Japan is a self-evident fact,which does not need to be proved through debate.”See Wang Yunsheng,China and Japan in the Last Six Decades,Vol.1,Tianjin:Ta Kung Pao,1932,pp.127~129.(in Chinese)
    84[Japan]Kikoh Nishizato,A Study on the History of Relations between Ryukyu and Japan in the Late Qing Dynasty(I),translated by Hu Liancheng et al.,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2010,p.307.(in Chinese)
    86 On 12 April 1877,ShōTukukō,the Grand Master with the Purple-Golden Ribbon(a government official of Ryukyu),sailed to Fujian Province to seek assistance from Qing Court.When meeting He Jing,the Viceroy of Minzhe,and Fujian Provincial Governor Ding Richang,Shōsubmitted the petitions written by the Ryukyu King to them,requesting Qing Government to help Ryukyu settle its problems.He Ruzhang,a Chinese envoy sent to Japan,warned and suggested,“Japan incessantly prevented Ryukyu from paying tribute to China,it would surely annex Ryukyu.When Ryukyu is annexed,Korea would be in peril.”However,Li Hongzhang asserted,“among the best,the second best and the worst plans(presented by He Ruzhang),the best plan is to dispatch forces to call Japan to account,and the second best is to reach an agreement with Ryukyuans to require them to resist the Japanese and China would assist them,when necessary.These two plans seem to make a great fuss about nothing,which might cause panic.However,if we repetitively debate with Japan,Japan would become aware that it is in the wrong,then it might not dare to transform the Ryukyu domain into a prefecture.In that way,Ryukyuans would retain their land,and the invaders would withdraw without violence being used.The last plan seems to be the worst,however,it is actually the one we have to choose today.”See Complete Works of Li Hongzhang-Letters to the Imperial Prince in Charge of Zongli Yamen,Vol.8,p.1.
    87 Tang Caichang,Rules about the Establishment of a School of Chinese and Western Law,in Hunan Provincial Institute of Philosophy and Social Science ed.,Collection of Tang Caichang’s Works,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1980,p.27.(in Chinese)
    88 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,Senkaku Islands Q&A,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html,12 October 2016;Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html,12 October 2016.
    89 In all the researches on the Diaoyu Islands from the perspective of international law,the most representative works or papers by Japanese scholars include:Keishiro Iriye,The Basis for the Development of the Oceans Surrounding Senkaku Islands,Kikan Okinawa[Okinawa Quarterly],March 1971,p.56(in Japanese);Keishiro Iriye,Sino-Japanese Peace Talk and the Status of Senkaku Islands,Kikan Okinawa[Okinawa Quarterly],December 1972,p.63(in Japanese);Okuhara Toshio,The Sovereignty Issue of Senkaku Islands,Kikan Okinawa[Okinawa Quarterly],March 1971,p.56(in Japanese);Ozaki Shigeyoshi,Territorial Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,Reference,No.263,1972(in Japanese);Midorima Sakae,The Senkaku Islands,Naha:Hirugisha,1984(in Japanese);Unryu Suganuma,Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations-Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press,2000;Ozaki Shigeyoshi,Territorial Issues on the East China Sea:A Japanese Position,Journal of East Asia and International Law,No.3,2010;Ozaki Shigeyoshi,Senkaku Islands and Japan’s Territorial Rights,Diplomacy,No.12,2012(in Japanese);Ishii Nozomu,The Available Historical Data and Materials about the Prehistory of Senkaku and Terra Nullius(Land without Owner),Yaeyama Nippo,3 August 2013.(in Japanese)
    90 Sha Xuejun,Historical and Geographical Evidences Supporting China’s,Rather Than Ryukyu’s Ownership of Diaoyutai,Journal of Xuecui,Vol.14,No.2,1972,p.16.(in Chinese)
    91 Sha Xuejun,Historical and Geographical Evidences Supporting China’s,Rather Than Ryukyu’s Ownership of Diaoyutai,Journal of Xuecui,Vol.14,No.2,1972,p.16.(in Chinese)
    92 Li Tingji,Li Wen Jie Gong Wen Ji(Collected Works of H.E.Mr.Li),in Chen Zilong et al.eds.,Ming Jing Shi Wen Bian(The Collection of the Articles on the Management of State Affairs in the Ming Dynasty),Vol.460,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1962.(in Chinese)
    93 Long Wenbin,Ming Hui Yao(Records of Ming Dynasty),Vol.77,Foreign State 1,Ryukyu,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,1956.(in Chinese)
    94 Sha Xuejun,Historical and Geographical Evidences Supporting China’s,Rather than Ryukyu’s Ownership of Diaoyutai,Journal of Xuecui,Vol.14,No.2,1972,p.17.(in Chinese)
    95“Black Tide”is a north-flowing branch of the Pacific North Equatorial Current when it flows along the coast of mainland.It begins off the Philippines,Taiwan Strait,the east coast of Taiwan and flows northeastward past Yaeyama,Miyako and Diaoyu Islands,and then towards Japan and South Korea.It flows at a speed of 4-5 nautical miles per hour on average.When it pasts Yaeyama,Miyako,Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Islands,its western part returns south,owing to the wind direction and impact of coast.See Yang Chungkui,China,Ryukyu and Diaoyu Islands,Hong Kong:Union Research Institute,1972,p.135.(in Chinese)
    96 Sha Xuejun,Historical and Geographical Evidences Supporting China’s,Rather Than Ryukyu’s Ownership of Diaoyutai,Journal of Xuecui,Vol.14,No.2,1972,p.17.(in Chinese)
    97 Sha Xuejun,Historical and Geographical Evidences Supporting China’s,Rather Than Ryukyu’s Ownership of Diaoyutai,Journal of Xuecui,Vol.14,No.2,1972,p.17.(in Chinese)
    98 Zheng Hailin,The History of Diaoyu Islands and the Relevant Jurisprudence,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2007,p.98.(in Chinese)
    99 This map,in practice,best explained the following statements by Chinese envoys Chen Kan and Guo Rulin:“Then Gumi Mountain comes into sight,that is where the land of Ryukyu begins”,and“Chi Yu is the mountain that marks the boundary of Ryukyu”.See Zheng Hailin,The History of Diaoyu Islands and the Relevant Jurisprudence,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2007,pp.98~99.(in Chinese)
    100 Sangoku Tsu?ran Zusetsu(An Illustrated Description of Three Countries)by Hayashi Shihei was published in Japan in the Autumn of 1785.This illustrated book is attached with five maps,namely:Complete Picture of World Distances of the Outline of the Three Countries,Complete Picture of the Country of Ezo,Complete Picture of the Country of Korea,Picture of the Uninhabited Islands,and the Map of the Three Provinces and 36Islands of Ryukyu.See[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Diaoyu Islands Disputes,Hundred Year Tide,No.6,2004,pp.56~62.(in Chinese)
    101 According to Chu?zan Seifu,the Ryukyu Island was composed of three principalities,five provinces and 15 prefectures(35 prefectures in fact).The three principalities were Chūzan,which was constituted of five provinces and 11 prefectures,Nanzan(15prefectures)and Hokuzan(9 prefectures).In addition to that,there were also 36 islands.See[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Diaoyu Islands Disputes,Hundred Year Tide,No.6,2004,pp.56~62.(in Chinese)
    102 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html,12 October,2016.
    103 The results of this survey can be seen in the Summary Report of Inspection of Uotsuri Island and Two Other Islands submitted by Ishizawa Heigo,and the Report of Voyage to Uotsuri Island,Kuba Island,and Kumeakashima Island by Hayashi Tsurumatsu,the captain of the Ship Izumo Maru,to Mori Nagayoshi,the senior executive secretary of Okinawa Prefecture,who was acting on behalf of the Okinawa Governor Nishimura Sutezo.See[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.166~169(in Chinese);Li Li,Japan’s Illegal Investigation and Theft of Diaoyu Islands in Modern Times,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.12~14.(in Chinese)
    104 An American Newspaper Article:Japan Should Respect the International Treaties concerning the Diaoyu Islands,at http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2012-10/22/c_123850855.htm,1 November 2016.(in Chinese)
    105 Construction of National Markers on the Kumeakashima Island,Kuba Island and Uotsuri Island of Okinawa Prefecture(JCAHR:B03041152300),Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy,Vol.18,p.572.(in Japanese)
    106 B03041152300の17,Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy,Vol.18,p.576.
    107 Construction of National Markers on the Kumeakashima Island,Kuba Island and Uotsuri Island of Okinawa Prefecture(JCAHR:B03041152300),Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy,Vol.18,p.572.(in Japanese)
    108 Han-yi Shaw,The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,The New York Times,19 September 2012;“Ministry of Foreign Affairs”of Taiwan,Taiwan Government Response to the Diaoyutai Islands Q&A on the Website of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,at http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,30 January 2015.(in Chinese)
    109 Construction of National Markers on the Kumeakashima Island,Kuba Island and Uotsuri Island of Okinawa Prefecture(JCAHR:B03041152300)(in Japanese);Han-yi Shaw,The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands,The New York Times,19September 2012;“Ministry of Foreign Affairs”of Taiwan,Taiwan Government Response to the Diaoyutai Islands Q&A on the Website of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,at http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,30January 2015.(in Chinese)
    110“B03041152300の29”,Documents on Japanese Foreign Policy,Vol.18.
    111 In June and July,1885,the Home Ministry of Japan sent a secret order to Okinawa Governor Nishimura Sutezo,asking him to survey the Daito Islands located to the east of Okinawa Island.Ordered by Nishimura,on 29 August of the same year,a group led by Ishizawa Heigo landed on Minamidaito Island by the ship Izumo Maru.On 31 August,they came to the Kita-Daito Island,where they conducted field surveys,as ordered,and erected a national marker saying“under the jurisdiction of Okinawa Prefecture”.And Captain Hayashi Tsurumatsu set up a navigation mark,saying“under the order of the Okinawa Prefecture,Empire of Japan,Izumo Maru,a ship owned by Osaka Shosen,created this sea route for steamships”.Izumo Maru returned to the port of Naha on 1 September.See[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.150~152.(in Chinese)
    112 Summary Report of Inspection of Uotsuri Island and Two Other Islands stated,“this island,when compared with the map of the sea areas between Japan and Taiwan published by Great Britain,refers to‘Hoa Pin su’,which is recorded as‘Tia u su’on the map.The use of‘Tia u su’is actually a misnomer.‘Kumeakashima Island’refers to Raleigh Rock,which is merely a rock…The map also mistook‘Pinnacle’for‘Kuba Island’.The word‘Pinnacle’means“a high pointed piece of rock”…Therefore,these mistakes are hereby corrected:‘Uotsuri Island’should be recorded as‘Hoa Pin Su’,‘Kuba Island’as‘Tia u su’,and‘Kumeakashima Island’as‘Raleigh Rock’.”Murata Tadayoshi pointed out that,Ishizawa Heigo,the submitter of the Summary Report,mistook“Hoa Pin Su”for“Uotsuri Island”.See[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,p.169.(in Chinese)
    113 Zheng Hailin,The History of Diaoyu Islands and the Relevant Jurisprudence,Beijing:Zhonghua Book Company,2007,p.75.(in Chinese)
    114 The term“occupation”was translated into“占领”in the Chinese version of Oppenheim’s International Law(9th edition),by scholars led by Wang Tieya,an internationalist from Chinese Mainland.However,this term was translated into“先占”by Taiwanese internationalist Chiu Hungdah in his book Modern International Law(edited by Chan Shun-yee),when he quoted the wording concerning territorial disputes from the same edition of Oppenheim’s International Law.In the view of Chiu,in the context of territorial acquisition,“occupation”should be translated into“先占”in Chinese;however,under law of war,it should be translated into“占领”;they have different connotations.Sovereignty cannot be acquired through military occupation.The Chinese version of this paper adopted Chiu’s translation.See Chiu Hungdah,Modern International Law(3rd edition),edited by Chan Shun-yee,Taipei:San Min Book Co.,Ltd.,2013,pp.514~515(in Chinese);Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,translated by Wang Tieya et al.,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1998,pp.74~79.(in Chinese)
    115 Terra nullius is a prevailing concept of the international law in the 18th century,which was employed by European States to defend their colonial activities.The concept terra nullius in international law was expounded by Emmerich De Vattel,a renowned internationalist in the 18th century,in his book Le Droit des Gens.He justified British occupation of Oceania or European States’occupation of the whole North America.He divided the land of indigenous peoples into two categories:cultivated or uncultivated.Vattel argued,the Europe-led international law should provide that humans were obliged to exploit and cultivate the land they inhabited and used.The failure of unsettled hordes to fulfill such an obligation implied that they had never“actually and legally”occupied these lands.Due to the lack of any recognizable forms of social leaders,these hordes cannot be considered as having occupied the lands under international law,which means that their lands were terra nullius.In that case,according to the principle of discovery and occupation,terrae nullius were open to all colonizers.See De Vattel,Les droit des Gens,ou Principles de la Loi naturelle,appliqués a la conduit at aux affaires des Nations et des Souverains(1758),translated by Charles Ghequiere Fenwick,Washington:Carnegie institution of Washington,1916,p.194.
    116 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,translated by Wang Tieya et al.,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1998,p.74.(in Chinese)
    117 Robert Jennings and Arthur Watts eds.,Oppenheim’s International Law,Vol.1,No.2,translated by Wang Tieya et al.,Beijing:Encyclopedia of China Publishing House,1998,p.75.(in Chinese)
    119 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan,The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands,at http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/basic_view.html,12 October2016.
    120[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.150~177.(in Chinese)
    121“Ministry of Foreign Affairs”of Taiwan,Taiwan Government Response to the Diaoyutai Islands Q&A on the Website of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,at http://www.mofa.gov.tw/cp.aspx?n=FBFB7416EA72736F&s=FAA8620A0EE72A91,30 January 2015.(in Chinese)
    122[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.222~223.(in Chinese)
    123[Japan]Murata Tadayoshi,The Origin of Sino-Japanese Territorial Disputes:the Diaoyu Islands Issue Seen from Historical Archives,translated by Wei Pinghe,Beijing:Social Sciences Academic Press(China),2013,pp.201~202.(in Chinese)
    125 Liu Dan,Ryukyu Trusteeship Viewed from International Law:A Related Analysis of the Sovereignty Problem of Diaoyu Islands,Pacific Journal,Vol.20,No.12,2012,pp.82~97.(in Chinese)

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083

电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700