Abe says territorial disputes have to be resolved legally

Politics Jan. 19, 2013 - 06:58AM JST ( 12 )

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

Order by Time Order by Popularity

12 Comments

-1

AsianhometownJan. 19, 2013 - 07:24AM JST

Japan unilaterally purchased the islands from a private owner setting off this dispute. Why doesn't Mr Abe follow international law and refer the island to international courts but Abe refuses to do so. Why? What is Mr Abe afraid of if he truly believes that Japan has indisputable evidence. Is it because the UN, Europeans and even the US don't recognize the Japan's claim to the island. US turned the Adminstration of the islands to Japan and not its ownership. After WWII Japan was required to turn over the islands to China/Taiwan according to Japan's terms of surrender. So Mr Abe should follow international laws and give up its claim to the islands per Japan's terms of surrender.
0

flowersJan. 19, 2013 - 08:58AM JST

I bet Abe was trying to act like a big brother, do you think he has the right to say to other countries “territorial disputes have to be resolved legally”? Why didn’t he just say it outright that Japan wants to resolve the territorial disputes with China legally? Admitting that there is a dispute is the first step; and then have a talk with China in order to set aside the dispute to be resolved in the Court. However, apparently his words are just meant to boost his popularity, they are meaningless.
-1

semperfiJan. 19, 2013 - 10:21AM JST

Absolutely. . . There are TREATIES that define boundaries . . . .CHINESE DREAD this bc they will not have a leg to stand on . . . . . . . especially if Japan sould run a class-action suit ( with other countries ) against China's violation of boundaries by it famous bullying tactics.
4

OssanAmericaJan. 19, 2013 - 10:30AM JST

flowersJan. 19, 2013 - 08:58AM JST I bet Abe was trying to act like a big brother, do you think he has the right to say to other countries “territorial disputes >have to be resolved legally”? Why didn’t he just say it outright that Japan wants to resolve the territorial disputes with >China legally?

Because the other countries are all suffering from China's aggression as well as Japan. China is he only country that doesn't seem to believe in the international legal framework. Time to get civilized perhaps?
0

marcelitoJan. 19, 2013 - 11:07AM JST

Well, then legally resolve all of your disputes .. Don,t just selectively pick and choose the ones that suit you. SK controls Dokdo islands and Japan wants to take that " dispute " in front of the International tribunal but refuses to do the same with Senkaku,s ( as Japan doesn't recognize there is a dispute ). Walk the walk.
-1

RedcliffJan. 19, 2013 - 04:23PM JST

@ marcelito

You hit the nail on the head.
-1

Kazuaki ShimazakiJan. 20, 2013 - 02:00AM JST

Japan unilaterally purchased the islands from a private owner setting off this dispute.

And the ChiComs uniltaterally made an issue where there was none when oil was discovered near those islands... In fact, the only mistake Japan made was taking too long between thought and action (weakness of society so dependent on that Nemawashi business). If they just finished buying it in one day, China never be given a chance to scream (I don't want to use fait accompli because that connotates Japan sneaked under the radar when the purchase was perfectly within their rights).

To go to court will be to partially admit the validity of the opponent's claim. It is like me claiming your house and you actively taking me to court for it.
1

nigelboyJan. 20, 2013 - 02:29AM JST

Well, then legally resolve all of your disputes .. Don,t just selectively pick and choose the ones that suit you. SK controls Dokdo islands and Japan wants to take that " dispute " in front of the International tribunal but refuses to do the same with Senkaku,s ( as Japan doesn't recognize there is a dispute ). Walk the walk.

Since when does a defendant file claim on behalf of the plaintiff? Some people just need to relax, take a deep breath, and use common sense.
0

Mark SouleJan. 20, 2013 - 06:42AM JST

"Japan unilaterally purchased the islands from a private owner setting off this dispute."

I cannot say it better, now let's see how it all ends...... I am very Pessimistic about the outcome.... and it will happen regardless how we try to keep peace on earth!
0

Peeping_TomJan. 20, 2013 - 07:05AM JST

Nigelboy,

I really enjoy reading your posts and cannot fault your grasp of the issue; however, it is my humble opinion that on occasion you ought to lower your level just a bit so that some people here can understand what you're saying.

Considering their ignorance of the basics, I would suggest a more child-like approach, such as:

China = Plaintiff (complainant, the one with a "beef" with Japan);

Japan = Defendant (robber of the islets, according to China)

China MUST start legal proceedings against Japan at the ICJ, NOT the opposite!

It always amazes me to read statements that it's up to Japan to take China to the ICJ, particularly when suggested by certain posters who should know better.

Carry on the good work.
0

AsianhometownJan. 20, 2013 - 04:24PM JST

ICJ will not even consider a case if both parties do not agree. That is why Japan has not taken their claim against Korea because Korea refuses and China has not taken the case to ICJ because Japan refuses.
0

Peeping_TomJan. 21, 2013 - 01:01AM JST

Asianhometown

China/Korea Plaintifs x Japan Defendant @ ICU =

Case will proceed because Japan is a Compulsory to the Court; check meaning if you wish.

Japan Plaintiff v Korea @ ICJ =

ICJ need Korea's consent to be hear case because Korea is NOT a compulsory to the court.

The suggestion that Japan should bring China before the ICJ over the Senkaku is a preposterous one, because no Defendant has ever brought any case before any tribunal on behalf of the plaintiff.

China must start proceedings and Japan must answer.

Clear enough?