China places buoys near disputed islands for science

National ( 28 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

28 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    Saketown

    Remove the bouys immediatley and tell China to go "observe the weather" elsewhere...

  • -2

    OssanAmerica

    They are just outside "Japanese waters" means what? Outside Japanese "territorial Waters"? Or inside the Japanese EEZ? Either way it's just too bad if a third party merchant ship accidentally runs over it.

  • 1

    sfjp330

    SaketownFeb. 27, 2013 - 07:27AM JST Remove the bouys immediatley and tell China to go "observe the weather" elsewhere...

    Why? If they are in international waters, this is totally legal. Japan should stop being on the edge of the seat with wet pants.

  • 0

    Surf O'Holic

    Like dogs marking their territory.

  • 0

    flowers

    But I wonder who's yelping the most.

  • 2

    some14some

    ...then Japan should deploy Boys...ASDF !

  • -2

    shinhiyata

    This article quotes someone named Hong, but it doesn't really explain who this person Hong is? Is this person the same as Hua Chunying? Are they the same Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman? Who is Hong?

  • -1

    tokyo-star

    This is China starting their antics. In a month they will build another "new" city around the area, just like down near the Philippines. China needs to be taught a lesson.

  • 1

    Crazedinjapan

    Be a shame if their water displacement sonar detection buoys AKA "weather monitors" got run down by a passing ship ...or sub ! Next they'll try to install something else on or near the islands. They'll keep moving inch by inch on testing how far they can go before they just do a snatch and grab or get their fingers royally slapped by Japan and the USA

  • 1

    megosaa

    you know when dogs mark their own territories by peeing? voila!

  • 3

    AKBfan

    I like the cunning use of the "scientific research" argument.

  • -5

    basroil

    As soon as those things float into continuous waters, Japan can pick up the devices completely legally since they are considered trash that may pollute territorial waters. Then a quick inspection can show them to be the instruments of war they are.

  • -1

    Tony Ew

    I see Japan is way too sensitive!

  • 3

    Bad2Dbone

    China is using he same tactics as japan ,,, on Reaseach!!

    I dont blame china

  • -1

    toannds

    It is not ok because it is in dispute area. This is nothing news anyway: dirty mouth is trying to bite piece by piece, like what they did in South China Sea. At the end, changed the status quo.

  • 0

    WilliB

    It is more Chinese posturing. Expect this to continue. The next buoys will then be dropped inside Japanese waters; I hope the Japanese remove them immediately.

  • -1

    IRobin

    These islands are not belong to Japan, if anyone can answer following questions, I will give up this opinion:

    1.The Treaty of Shimonoseki is too old, If according to that treaty, we should claim the east parts of China mainland and Taiwan also which were also items in it. There is other treaty between now and then, such as Potsdam Proclamation, at least all the counties that involved attended that meeting. Few people in the world agrees to the Treaty of Shimonoseki except Japanese. This would be a stupid thing in the eyes of other nations.

    2.Even the US stated that the reversion is only the right of administration, but not the ownership, as many people believe that these islands are handed over by the US.

    4.Before 1895, for about 500 years, no nation challenge these islands' overship of China. It is Since 1895 that Japan took these islands by force. It is like a robber who took things from others, renamed it and kept it for a while and make the claims that these things are belongt to them with no doubt. What a shameless thing!

    Any advice will be welcome.

  • 0

    SamuraiBlue

    IRobin

    Potsdam Proclamation is not a treaty, the San Fanfrancisco peace treaty is with signatories from 40 different nations. Which affirms Japan's sovereignty over Senkaku Islands since it was not included as land to be relinquished.

  • -1

    IRobin

    Why isn't Potsdam Proclamation a treaty? For San Francisco peace treaty, this is a treaty of cold war, many countries refused to accept it. Such as the Soviet,Mongolia, Vietnam etc, and China. What kind of unjust treaty it is? It doesnt matter how many signatures on it, it is definitely illegal without the owner's signature. If they are belong to Japan, why did the US keep refusing to take the position as the maker of the treaty?

  • 2

    Fadamor

    Why isn't Potsdam Proclamation a treaty?

    Because it doesn't meet the definition of a treaty. Rather than an agreement between two opposing countries on how they will interact with each other, the Proclamation was a unilateral demand by the Allies for an unconditional surrender along with statements on what would and would not happen if Japan surrendered. The key word there is "unilateral". Japan had no say in the Proclamation's creation and they didn't sign it.

    Also, it's not a treaty because treaties with the United States have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress to be valid. The Potsdam Proclamation was never submitted for ratification (again, because it didn't meet the definition of a treaty in the first place).

  • 2

    Fadamor

    I'm sure the buoys are marking the location of hydrophones placed prior to detonating an underwater charge. They'll detonate the charge and the delay in receiving the bottom echoes of the detonation can give China an idea about whether there is a large oil reserve under the seabed near the Senkakus. If there is, I think you'll find China much more aggressive in their claims to the islands. If there isn't, China will likely back off.

  • -2

    25psot

    This buoys are like planes black boxes they only record what's going on around.

  • 3

    nigelboy

    2.Even the US stated that the reversion is only the right of administration, but not the ownership, as many people believe that these islands are handed over by the US. - See more at:

    False. The actual reversion agreement itself calls for Japan to assume soverignty by stating " to assume full responsibility and authority for the exercise of all powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands;"

    However, when China started to assert her claim afterwards, the U.S. took a neutral stand "recognizing administration by Japan" for it was officially out of their jursidiction.

    4.Before 1895, for about 500 years, no nation challenge these islands' overship of China. It is Since 1895 that Japan took these islands by force. It is like a robber who took things from others, renamed it and kept it for a while and make the claims that these things are belongt to them with no doubt. What a shameless thing! -

    False. Japan did not take these islands by force. It was incorporated under terra nullius pursuant to the international law. Furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest that China had ever taken "effective control" which is clearly evident in their complete lack of exercizing any form of administration, legislation and jurisdiction. As per Palmas Island case, a simple discovery alone (maps, for instance) is an incomplete title which has very little substance in terms of international law.

    And again, Treaty of Shimonoseki is irrelevant to Senkaku issue simply because the islands were incorporated prior.

    As to the Posdam Declaration which is signed by U.S., U.K. and Republic of China, the first two parties signed a Peace treaty with Japan whereby U.S. was given a sole " right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters" while Republic of China executed a separate Treaty with Japan not only recognizing the aforementioned Treaty(terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty) but failing to mention the renouncement of Senkaku by Japan thereby agreeing that the said islands were never the property of Republic of China to begin with.

  • 2

    lachance

    Obviously the Chinese have backed down. If not, they would have placed the buoys within Senkaku waters. The fact that they respected the sovereignty (yes, sovereignty) of the Senkaku Islands shows that they backed down from war with Japan...because the Chinese Navy would have been sunk and the Chinese Air Force would have been blown out of the sky. They know. Their military is far from being the equal of Japan's Self-Defense Forces.

  • -2

    sfjp330

    In 1978, there was signing of a treaty between China and Japan for Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute. At the time, PM Nakasone accepted that "the dispute shall be posponed". This was first Japanese representative to admit that there was dispute over the islands. Today, Japan goverment states "there is no dispute". In 1972, U.S. Foreign Relations Committee stated that Okinawa Revision Agreement grants Japan the rights of adminstration and not sovereignty.

    In the early 1950's, U.S. and Japan had ratified military defence in order to forestall the communist threat. At the time, the main goal for U.S. was to limit the expansion of communism in the world. Therefore, the U.S. had to respect the views of Japan. The U.S. has interest in keeping the conflict alive. The islands make Jpaan drift closer to U.S.

    In 1895, why did the J-goverment depart from an established course from its previous incorporation proceedings? The Daioyu islands incorporation was conspicuously made. In Japan incorporation of Daiyou Islands, China was never notified about Japan's incorporation nor wer any formal acts carried out, which could have been regarded as Japan's symbolic incorporation. How can Japan explain thees clashing differences of procedures? Was the nearby end of the Sino-Japanese war a coincidence or were political reason behind it? There must've been fear within the Japanese goverment of creating diplomatic hardship with the Chinese in case of an publicized incoration of the islands.

    The political importance of the dispute is too critical that the parties of the conflict feel that a purely legal strategy contains too many risks. Political factors often outweigh resonable legal arguments in Asia and international law is perceived as western influence. International law is distrusted by Asian goverments.

  • -2

    IRobin

    Thank you for the explanation, I am a little clear now.

    For Japanese, they really has more reasons in law to support their opinions, but the laws are more unjust. We may conclude that without the war that Japan invade other nation and the cold war that the US needed, these law will never exsit.

    No reason to believe these islands are ownerless before 1895. This is a lie. we can only believe that these islands are too small to claim the ownership alone on them, just like hundreds of small islands around Japanese had gotten their names in 2012. This is abviously a trick.

    We can see that Japan will not only lost the islands under the situation of raising of China but also against the moral standards.

  • 1

    FPSRussia

    It's just for research...(grinning). Today someone in China made me laugh.

    Getting a taste of your medicine....Priceless!

  • -2

    IRobin

    It is not just for research! It is no use to lie or to be unreasonable stubbornness just like a lot of people in Japan and the PM Abe. All the unjust thing will be correct in the future. This is the most powerful thing in the world believe it or not.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in National

View all

View all