中國網(wǎng)站品牌欄目（頻道）
四、日本主張釣魚島主權(quán)毫無依據(jù)
IV.Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao Is Totally Unfounded
1972年3月8日，日本外務(wù)省發(fā)表《關(guān)于尖閣列島所有權(quán)問題的基本見解》，闡述日本政府對于釣魚島主權(quán)歸屬問題的主張：一是釣魚島為“無主地”，不包含在《馬關(guān)條約》規(guī)定的由清政府割讓給日本的澎湖列島和臺灣及其附屬島嶼的范圍之內(nèi)。二是釣魚島不包含在“舊金山和約”第二條規(guī)定的日本所放棄的領(lǐng)土之內(nèi)，而是包含在該條約第三條規(guī)定的作為西南諸島的一部分被置于美國施政之下，并根據(jù)“歸還沖繩協(xié)定”將施政權(quán)“歸還”日本的區(qū)域內(nèi)。三是中國沒有將釣魚島視為臺灣的一部分，對“舊金山和約”第三條規(guī)定將釣魚島置于美國施政區(qū)域內(nèi)從未提出過任何異議。
On March 8, 1972, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in an attempt to explain the Japanese government's claims of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. First, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was "terra nullius" and not part of Pescadores, Formosa [Taiwan] or their affiliated islands which were ceded to Japan by the Qing government in accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Second, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, but was placed under the administration of the United States as part of the Nansei Islands in accordance with Article 3 of the said treaty, and was included in the area for which the administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Third, Japan claims that China didn't regard Diaoyu Dao as part of Taiwan and had never challenged the inclusion of the islands in the area over which the United States exercised administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco.
日本的上述主張嚴(yán)重違背事實(shí)，是完全站不住腳的。
Such claims by Japan fly in the face of facts and are totally unfounded.
釣魚島屬于中國，根本不是“無主地”。在日本人“發(fā)現(xiàn)”釣魚島之前，中國已經(jīng)對釣魚島實(shí)施了長達(dá)數(shù)百年有效管轄，是釣魚島無可爭辯的主人。如前所述，日本大量官方文件證明，日本完全清楚釣魚島早已歸屬中國，絕非國際法上的無主地。日本所謂依據(jù)“先占”原則將釣魚島作為“無主地”“編入”其版圖，是侵占中國領(lǐng)土的非法行為，不具有國際法效力。
Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. It is by no means "terra nullius". China is the indisputable owner of Diaoyu Dao as it had exercised valid jurisdiction over the island for several hundred years long before the Japanese people "discovered" it. As stated above, voluminous Japanese official documents prove that Japan was fully aware that according to international law, Diaoyu Dao has long been part of China and was not "terra nullius". Japan's act to include Diaoyu Dao as "terra nullius" into its territory based on the "occupation" principle is in fact an illegal act of occupying Chinese territory and has no legal effect according to international law.
無論從地理上還是從中國歷史管轄實(shí)踐看，釣魚島一直是中國臺灣島的附屬島嶼。日本通過不平等的《馬關(guān)條約》迫使清朝割讓包括釣魚島在內(nèi)的“臺灣全島及所有附屬各島嶼”。《開羅宣言》、《波茨坦公告》等國際法律文件規(guī)定，日本必須無條件歸還其竊取的中國領(lǐng)土。上述文件還對日本領(lǐng)土范圍作了明確界定，其中根本不包括釣魚島。日本試圖侵占釣魚島，實(shí)質(zhì)是對《開羅宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等法律文件所確立的戰(zhàn)后國際秩序的挑戰(zhàn)，嚴(yán)重違背了日本應(yīng)承擔(dān)的國際法義務(wù)。
Diaoyu Dao has always been affiliated to China's Taiwan Island both in geographical terms and in accordance with China's historical jurisdiction practice. Through the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan forced the Qing court to cede to it "the island of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it", including Diaoyu Dao. International legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation provide that Japan must unconditionally return the territories it has stolen from China. These documents also clearly define Japan's territory, which by no means includes Diaoyu Dao. Japan's attempted occupation of Diaoyu Dao, in essence, constitutes a challenge to the post-war international order established by such legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and seriously violates the obligations Japan should undertake according to international law.
美國等國家與日本簽訂的片面媾和條約“舊金山和約”所規(guī)定的托管范圍不涵蓋釣魚島。美國擅自擴(kuò)大托管范圍，非法將中國領(lǐng)土釣魚島納入其中，后將釣魚島“施政權(quán)”“歸還”日本，都沒有任何法律依據(jù)，在國際法上沒有任何效力。對于美日上述非法行徑，中國政府和人民歷來是明確反對的。
Diaoyu Dao was not placed under the trusteeship established by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between the United States and other countries with Japan and is partial in nature. The United States arbitrarily expanded the scope of trusteeship to include Diaoyu Dao, which is China's territory, and later "returned" the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao to Japan. This has no legal basis and is totally invalid according to international law. The government and people of China have always explicitly opposed such illegal acts of the United States and Japan.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
