tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714063.post2673979543068434446..comments2023-10-09T00:45:55.603+09:00Comments on Shisaku: Will the Japans Harken to the Qing Entreaty?MTChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04626942240117432624noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714063.post-49554412278175671592007-10-14T14:58:00.000+09:002007-10-14T14:58:00.000+09:00The key impasse is the definition of the maritime ...<I>The key impasse is the definition of the maritime border. Japan sees the delineation of the border as a precondition to any arrangement.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think so. My understanding of the respective positions on joint development is that China would be willing to make a deal on the disputed area only while Japan seeks an area that overlaps into undisputed waters. It seems to me that the Japanese position would allow Japan to maintain its full claim (but not confirm it) while both positions imply that China is conceding that Japan has a legitimate claim to at least some parts of the disputed area. But neither position requires the definition of a demarcating line for the respective areas over which they claim a certain measure of sovereignty. (I did see Nobutaka Machimura, as Foreign Minister, reserve the right to make the same claim as the Chinese side, but I remember it as very much a hypothetical, rhetorical comment.)<BR/><BR/>My understanding of the legal situation is that recent precedents have been shifting in favor of the archipelagic (EEZ?) state and against the previously favored continental (continental shelf?) states. However, there is no way to test it in this particular case since China does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. And UNCLOS Part XV is optional. On a more practical level, I've seen a map that shows a Japan-China joint fishing area overlapping the median line. However, I believe that the line did not stretch into the disputed waters and the matter does not seem to have been brought up by the Japanese side as a practical precedent to build on, so I might have misunderstood the map in the first place.<BR/> <BR/>In any case, I think that neither side is willing to settle any time soon because the economic stakes are so small and the political stakes so high. So, the Chinese side putters away quietly on their side (from our legal point of view of course), and the Japanese side is not forcing the issue by allowing (forcing?) private companies to actually do any exploratory digging on our side (ditto).<BR/><BR/>It looks like the status quo will continue to prevail, as in the case of the Senkaku Islands.Jun Okumurahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00291478225274759649noreply@blogger.com