Stay in touch with the latest and widest range of Japan News with JapanToday's News Alert newsletter.
Up to the moment news in your inbox everyday. Subscribe now!
NEW USER REGISTRATION
Already a JapanToday registered user?
Login to update your settings to subscribe to News Alert.
Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday.
Letters and numbers only; 5 to 50 characters. This cannot be changed later.
You will be sent an email to activate your account before you can log in.
Yes, I would like to receive news alerts from JapanToday
Peeping_TomMay. 10, 2013 - 03:24AM JST
Ulysses S. Grant decided that Japan's claim to Okinawa was stronger than China's, when asked to mediate the dispute concerning sovereignty.
Okinawans are genetically and linguistically more closely related to the Yamato people than anyone else on this planet, least of all the Chinese! Their traditional language belongs to the Japonic family.
Being a tributary does not co-relate to sovereignty rights being afforded to the recipient of tributes; China has no claim and they know it.
China is asking for another spanking and it appears they're going to get it; her massive army is useless in any naval entanglement.
Japan is an old naval power whilst China has never been one.
In 1905 the World was readying itself for Japan’s humiliation by Russia, only for Japan to administer what was then the first modern victory of a non-White power over a European one.
China thought itself too as being big, bad and powerful enough to take on the "little" Japanese, resulting in 3 defeats at Japan's hands.
And no, Japan did not surrender in 1945 because it was losing the war against China!
Fast forward to 2013, there are predictions of yet Japanese triumph should naval engagements occur, even without US involvement. China's navy and maritime skills are not capable of defeating Japan, although many armchair generals here at Japan Today would argue otherwise.
China only has one non-operational carrier with no planes; Japan already has 2 Hyuga class carriers both deployed and fully operational, with 2 more even larger carriers on the way. Japanese pilots have the skill to land atop floating platforms in any weather and conduct over the horizon landings. It's only a matter of time before fighters rather than helicopters are on board.
In a non-nuclear conflict between the two, chances are China will get another pasting.
Posted in: Japan protests to China over Okinawa claim
Peeping_TomMar. 18, 2013 - 04:46AM JST
"The point of the article as it says that this JPs train can reach a speed of 320, I am sure it will never do while passengers are on board. It is nothing amazing about it, as the TGV can reach faster speed and for the last 30 years. German trains even go faster and so do Chinese. So whats the point of this article??"
Let's set the record straight, shall we?
"Hayabusa bullet trains began running Saturday at a new top speed of 320 kph on the Tohoku Shinkansen Line, equalling France's TGV as the world's fastest train in operation. "
Posted in: Bullet train starts running at 320 kph on Tohoku Shinkansen route
Peeping_TomJan. 26, 2013 - 04:54AM JST
There is also plenty of evidence that appear to negate your assertions, including:
-Recent Chinese maps clearly indicating Senkaku as part of Okinawa (with Japanese names);
-The fact that no other persons than Japanese have lived on the islets;
-Japan administers the islets and there are Japanese markings on them;
-Chinese letter stating Senkaku is part of Okinawa;
-The relatively long period that took from acquiescence of Japan's possession to a China claim, etc.
Proximity is irrelevant but, if that was an argument the islets are closer to Yonaguni than to China or even Taiwan; I see regular references that they are thousands of miles from Tokyo but, no one bothered to check they are closer to a Japanese island than to any other country!
Nowhere on the peace treaties are the Senkaku mentioned as a territory Japan had to return.
As an added piece of advice for you, no judge will imply terms on a contract; if you wish a clause to be part of it make sure to legislate for it!
You cannot claim party's intention that the Senkaku were to be returned. If that was the case then the islets would have been named and described/identified, as were the Pescadores, Taiwan and the Paracels. By not naming them the parties clearly meant to exclude them.
You may disagree but that's how it works.
Always remember to read before putting pen to paper in the process of signing anything.
As mentioned the Palmas case is the Precedent for this and other similar cases. Familiarise yourself with it and you'll see that China is already on the losing end and that's mainly why they won't come to court.
China will not go to court because she will lose under the stipulated on the aforementioned Palmas case.
If their title is stronger as you submitted then why don't they validate it so that the whole world can see it?
Posted in: U.S. gov't gets tough on China over isle dispute with Japan
Peeping_TomJan. 26, 2013 - 02:48AM JST
As things stand Japan is open to any disputes, provided the challenger(s) signs up for the court's compulsory jurisdiction.
Japan does not have to agree, the case will go ahead whether they want it or not!
Conversely, China (and Korea for that matter) need to agree prior to a challenge be lodged at the ICJ.
It's not difficult to see who's "afraid" of going to court, isn't it?
The question one has to ask is why wouldn’t he who claims to have a better title not come to court.
There is a hierarchy of titles and, I'm afraid Japan's appear stronger than China's, regardless of the fact that China might have known of the islets for a millennia before Japan ever did.
The fact China/Korea don't sign up to the compulsory jurisdiction appears to indicate a real fear of not having enough evidence to back up their claim in the court of law.
If you owed me £1000 and I had no way of asserting my case before a judge (for the lack of evidence in its myriad forms) it would be quite risky to go legal. On the contrary, if I had an IOU signed from your good self, or had witnesses or any other customary evidential form, you would be done for, or so to speak.
The Palmas case is a precedent for these types of disputes and its ratio would indicate a defeat for China was this case to appear before the ICJ.
Peeping_TomJan. 25, 2013 - 03:07AM JST
"Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes...
If Japan doesn't recognize the dispute, China can't bring it up at the ICJ"
With all due respect that's not what the passage is all about. It refers to the fact that in order to bring Japan to the Court China/Korea must accept the same obligation, i.e the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, which neither of them do at the moment.
This is nothing to do with whether Japan recognises a dispute or not. All China/Korea have to do is accept the court's compulsory jurisdiction and Japan is obliged to respond to the case.
Peeping_Tom is no expert but he's got an LLB from London University, where amongst other things he was taught how to interpret statutes.
Taiwan is not a UN member, thus is barred from applying to the ICJ.
If China/Korea are certain of their claim why not come to court then?
Peeping_TomJan. 24, 2013 - 03:59PM JST
"Then take the dispute to the ICJ"
It's up to China, the complainant to take the case to the Court, not Japan's job.
Defendants have never, ever gone to court on behalf of the plaintiff!
Japan is obliged to respond, China is not a part of the compulsory jurisdiction (neither is Korea).
Now think why these two (China/Korea) won't want to go the ICJ's route.
Peeping_TomJan. 24, 2013 - 08:54AM JST
Declarations Recognizing the ICJ's Compulsory Jurisdiction
9 July 2007
I have the honour, by direction of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to declare on behalf of the Government of Japan that, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Japan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation and on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, over all disputes arising on and after 15 september 1958 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date and being not settled by other means of peaceful settlement.
This declaration does not apply to disputes which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to refer for final and binding decision to arbitration or judicial settlement.
This declaration does not apply to any dispute in respect of which any other party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other party to the dispute was deposited or notified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court.
This declaration shall remain in force for a period of five years and thereafter until it may be terminated by a written notice.
I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurances of my highest consideration.
9 July 2007.
(Signed) Kenzo Oshima
Permanent Representative of Japan
to the United Nations."
Hope this helps to clarify the minds of some China/Korea-lovers but rabid Japan detractors (who strangely enough are just too happy to remain in Japan)
Peeping_TomJan. 21, 2013 - 01:01AM JST
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.
Posted in: Abe says territorial disputes have to be resolved legally
Peeping_TomJan. 20, 2013 - 07:05AM JST
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.
Peeping_TomJan. 13, 2013 - 05:02PM JST
Sony's rolling screen is from 2007, not 2010.
There's also a link in the same article which states Sony was the first, not Samsung.
Posted in: Samsung develops bendable phone screen
Peeping_TomJan. 08, 2010 - 04:41PM JST
And exactly who's spinning and what?
Did you care to read the article on the link I posted FIY?
It was published in the Telegraph, our very own well reputable British national paper. It would appear you don't want to accept the fact that Japan's mobile tech,i.e phones are far ahead of its rivals. Fine, it's your prerogative, but that's not what those in the industry think.
And I couldn't care less about phones anyway, just stating a well known fact.
Posted in: Free local TV soon to be available on cell phones
Peeping_TomJan. 08, 2010 - 02:49PM JST
Japanese small share of the mobile phone global market is mostly due to:
Huge profits on the home front meant they didn't really have to make an effort to expand overseas; that is, until now!
The complex functionality of J-handsets, unsuitable for overseas custumers; different perceptions of what a mobile is supposed to do, etc.
Hope the following link is helpful:
Peeping_TomDec. 31, 2009 - 11:43AM JST
The 8 were no civilians, there were CIA agents, thus legitimate target!
Posted in: 8 CIA employees, 5 Canadians killed in attacks in Afghanistan
Peeping_TomNov. 11, 2009 - 02:41AM JST
Just be glad he got caught and stop pretending your/our police would have been any better because there are plenty of unresolved murders here in old Albion.
Posted in: ICHIHASHI ARRESTED BY POLICE IN OSAKA
Peeping_TomSep. 24, 2009 - 03:51AM JST
Japanese residents in the UK must use the foreign/non-EU citizens line!
Posted in: Should foreign residents have local voting rights?
Peeping_TomSep. 24, 2009 - 02:38AM JST
"People who always like to argue against foreigners' rights in Japan, such as your good self, usually say that reciprocation is unimportant"
Perhaps you've got me mixed-up with somebody else; my position has always been on the side of reciprocity as far as relations between countries are concerned; show me any post on which I espouse the opposite!
Foreigners don't have any 'rights' to exercise political activities; you may be granted such a privilege by your hosts, who in turn could revoke it if they so wish (your having a PR doesn't mean it cannot be revoked and your expulsion been carried out).
"UK citizens get fingerprinted at Japanese airports, whereas Japanese citizens don't get fingerprinted at UK airports. "
But you also use the "Japanese only" queue at their airports, don't you (assuming you're a PR)? Guess what, they can't use it here in the UK! Perhaps in the name of balance Japanese should be fingerprinted in the UK and you forced to use the "foreigners only" line in Japan, irrespective of PR? While on the subject, every single Japanese person I know states categorically they would not moan were they to be fingerprinted in the UK; they already do it in the US and no one has died because of that.
So you want to have a say on how Japan should be run while Japanese in your country suck their thumbs? Never mind that the French/Germans/Italians and now even Romanians can vote in London; unless you can prove that the Japanese are also voting and exercising political rights in other countries (which they are not)it's all a moot point.
Peeping_TomSep. 23, 2009 - 01:48AM JST
Nothing against your aspirations Cleo.
However, whilst Japan seems prepared to let you vote, no one in the UK is suggesting reciprocal rights for my girl. Again, why should you be allowed to vote in her country if she's not permitted to vote in yours? There must be a balance otherwise foreigners will be allowed to influence Japanese politics, while denying the same rights to Japanese living in their countries.
Peeping_TomSep. 23, 2009 - 01:25AM JST
"Japanese people, or any foreigners for that matter, who are living, working or studying in the UK get automatic voting rights if they are there for longer than 6 months, even though they may be only short-term residents"
Bullcrap, and you know it! I'm a Londoner and my girl is Japanese; she can't vote even though she's lived here since she was a child.
EU citizens are the only foreigners allowed to vote in the UK local elections; as recently as this very minute Japan is still not part of the EU, therefore all Japanese people living and paying taxes in the EU are not allowed to vote; they aren't complaining either! Why must you foreigners vote in Japan when Japanese cannot vote in yours and my country is beyond me!
Peeping_TomSep. 21, 2009 - 08:56AM JST
"In Denmark and Sweden, foreigners can vote for local elections,".
Yes, they can providing they are EU citizens or Nordic Passport Union holders, which excludes Japanese citizens. That's the same everywhere within the EU, minus the Nordic thingy! As things stand Japan should not allow foreigners to vote in Japan because there's no reciprocity and Japanese cannot vote anywhere in Europe/US/Australia/Africa/Asia!
Peeping_TomJul. 31, 2009 - 02:06AM JST
Horrible! Nice to learn everybody is condemning the alleged perpetrator(s) and not the whole country. But then again this didn't happen in Japan, therefore let's single out the individual and not the nation. Well done folks, that's the way it should be!
Posted in: Baby taken from slain mom's womb found in New Hampshire
May. 24, 2013 - 03:34AM JST
But it comes down to economies of scale. Australia's domestic car market is too small and…
Posted in: Ford to end auto production in Australia in 2016 after 91 years
May. 24, 2013 - 03:24AM JST
It might have been a good idea for this story to note that the man that…
Posted in: Stockholm riots spread as PM slams 'hooliganism'
May. 24, 2013 - 03:21AM JST
When I was a teenager in London 1973-1980, "Paki-bashing" (beating up Pakistanis) was a already a…
Posted in: Anti-Islamist protests flare after British soldier butchered near London barracks
May. 24, 2013 - 03:20AM JST
Attention: Japan Today moderator
I apologize for speaking out of topic of the thread, but I…
Posted in: Kumamoto baby hatch says it received 9 infants in fiscal 2012
May. 24, 2013 - 03:15AM JST
Based on his violent reaction, I would seem that he was a supporter of the terrorist…
Posted in: Man shot to death while being questioned in Boston bombing probe