It is the consequence of the United States "reversion " of the " Ryukyus " occured along with the ceding of control over the Senkaku Islands known as in Japan and Diaoyu in China , in 1972 .
So the U.S. should be responsible for that event. It is a sovereignty issue but is not a property issue .
There is a maxim that , " No Responsibility , No Authority " which should be known for the United States .
How do you think ? Uncle Sam !
God bless with you !
In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryūkyūs occurred along with the ceding of control over the nearby (uninhabited) Senkaku Islands.[16] Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, now commonly known as "Taiwan", argue that this agreement did not determine the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.
By Article 11 Japan accepted the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan and agreed to carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan.
The document further set guidelines for repatriation of prisoners of war and renounces future military aggression under the guidelines set by the UN Charter. The document nullifies prior treaties and lays down the framework for Japan's current status of retaining a military that is purely defensive in nature.
There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Islands dispute and the Senkaku Islands dispute.
The Treaty of Taipei between Japan and the Republic of China acknowledged the terms of the San Francisco Treaty but added that all residents of Taiwan and the Pescadores were deemed as nationals of the Republic of China.
Some supporters of Taiwan independence argue that the language in San Francisco Peace Treaty proves the notion that Taiwan is not a part of China, for it does not explicitly state the sovereignty status of Taiwan after Japanese renunciation. In 1955, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty, affirmed that the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan "merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan".[17] Dulles said that America "cannot, therefore, admit that the disposition of Taiwan is merely an internal problem of China."[17] This legal justification is rejected by both the PRC and ROC governments, both of which base their legal claims on Taiwan on the Instrument of Surrender of Japan which accepts the Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration. In addition, in more recent years supporters of Taiwan independence have more often relied on arguments based on self-determination as implied in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and popular sovereignty.
Please ! enlarge the following Note .
So the U.S. should be responsible for that event. It is a sovereignty issue but is not a property issue .
There is a maxim that , " No Responsibility , No Authority " which should be known for the United States .
How do you think ? Uncle Sam !
God bless with you !
In 1972, the United States "reversion" of the Ryūkyūs occurred along with the ceding of control over the nearby (uninhabited) Senkaku Islands.[16] Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, now commonly known as "Taiwan", argue that this agreement did not determine the ultimate sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands.
By Article 11 Japan accepted the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan and agreed to carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan.
The document further set guidelines for repatriation of prisoners of war and renounces future military aggression under the guidelines set by the UN Charter. The document nullifies prior treaties and lays down the framework for Japan's current status of retaining a military that is purely defensive in nature.
There is also some ambiguity as to over which islands Japan has renounced sovereignty. This has led to both the Kuril Islands dispute and the Senkaku Islands dispute.
The Treaty of Taipei between Japan and the Republic of China acknowledged the terms of the San Francisco Treaty but added that all residents of Taiwan and the Pescadores were deemed as nationals of the Republic of China.
Some supporters of Taiwan independence argue that the language in San Francisco Peace Treaty proves the notion that Taiwan is not a part of China, for it does not explicitly state the sovereignty status of Taiwan after Japanese renunciation. In 1955, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, co-author of San Francisco Peace Treaty, affirmed that the treaty ceded Taiwan to no one; that Japan "merely renounced sovereignty over Taiwan".[17] Dulles said that America "cannot, therefore, admit that the disposition of Taiwan is merely an internal problem of China."[17] This legal justification is rejected by both the PRC and ROC governments, both of which base their legal claims on Taiwan on the Instrument of Surrender of Japan which accepts the Potsdam Declaration and the Cairo Declaration. In addition, in more recent years supporters of Taiwan independence have more often relied on arguments based on self-determination as implied in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and popular sovereignty.
Please ! enlarge the following Note .
No comments:
Post a Comment