Japan Should Refer the Senkaku Island Dispute to the International Court of Justice
YAMADA Fumihiko Professor / Professor, Tokyo University of International Studies
January 12, 2011
Many Japanese are concerned and frustrated by their government’s handling of the dispute over the Senkaku Islands and relations with China. The government has been dogged by criticism of “weak-kneed diplomacy.”
Meanwhile, western countries were alarmed by China’s belligerent stance, which even included an embargo of rare earth shipments to Japan that was tantamount to breaking a taboo. It also deepened concern among Southeast Asian countries that are involved in a potentially explosive territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea. It was the continued expression of such concerns by the respective governments and the media that caused China to gradually soften its stance.
The talk of the Chinese Menace has been there for some time. It had been contained until recently by the idea that helping China develop and integrating it into the international community as a responsible member would benefit both China and the international community. On its part, China had responded through its policies of “Taoguanguyanghui (biding one’s time for the right opportunity)” and “Peaceful Development.”
China’s latest actions became a focus of attention as a test to determine whether the country will continue to walk the path of cooperation by abiding with international rules or to start insisting on its own interests as it grows into a major power.
At the recent summit meeting between Japan and China in Yokohama, both sides agreed on further developing a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests,” suggesting that the Chinese government is exercising a certain level of restraint. However, there is a danger that such rationality at the state level may be swept away by a surge of popular sentiment and that Chinese nationalism may rise to such an extent in the future so as to make it difficult to continue pursuing a moderate policy of international cooperation.
It is therefore extremely important to exercise perseverance and maintain a rational dialogue with China. Unfortunately, the current atmosphere does not allow the two sides to sit calmly at the negotiating table.
Is there any way to break this impasse? There is one solution. It is a solution that Japan has denied itself until now - to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice and seek a legal resolution to the dispute. This would settle the matter fair and square through debate based on international law.
According to international law, Japan is in the right. The Japanese government and many scholars of international law are agreed on this point. The International Court of Justice is also likely to pass judgment along this line. Should China dispute such a ruling, it would be tantamount to publicly denouncing the rules of the international community. It is hard to imagine even China going that far.
China may refuse to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice out of fear for the consequences. But that would be interpreted as an admission of its lack of legal validity in the matter. In either case, the legitimacy of Japan’s claim will become apparent before the Chinese people and the international community.
Even so, the Japanese government has firmly maintained its policy of not referring the matter to the International Court of Justice based on its stance that there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands. It would be illogical to go to court over a nonexistent dispute. Having maintained this stance all these years, the Japanese government can ill afford to lose its face.
However, in reality the islands are already embroiled in a dispute. Japan has no effective means to counter Chinese attempts to force their way through a fait accompli.
And this has resulted in an unreasonable situation in which Japan’s persuasive argument is being drowned by China’s vociferous claims. It is time for Japan to abandon its formalistic logic and its obsession with saving face, to unseal its self-imposed spell by making a political decision to recognize the existence of a dispute, and give serious consideration to referring the matter to the International Court of Justice.
Such a move could also provide leverage in negotiations with South Korea, which has stubbornly refused to accept Japan’s proposal of referring the Takeshima Island dispute to the International Court of Justice.
A solution based on the “soft power” of international law is the choice Japan should seek as a peaceful nation.
The writer formerly served as a minister for the Japanese Embassy in France. The article originally appeared in the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper dated December 2, 2010.
Meanwhile, western countries were alarmed by China’s belligerent stance, which even included an embargo of rare earth shipments to Japan that was tantamount to breaking a taboo. It also deepened concern among Southeast Asian countries that are involved in a potentially explosive territorial dispute with China in the South China Sea. It was the continued expression of such concerns by the respective governments and the media that caused China to gradually soften its stance.
The talk of the Chinese Menace has been there for some time. It had been contained until recently by the idea that helping China develop and integrating it into the international community as a responsible member would benefit both China and the international community. On its part, China had responded through its policies of “Taoguanguyanghui (biding one’s time for the right opportunity)” and “Peaceful Development.”
China’s latest actions became a focus of attention as a test to determine whether the country will continue to walk the path of cooperation by abiding with international rules or to start insisting on its own interests as it grows into a major power.
At the recent summit meeting between Japan and China in Yokohama, both sides agreed on further developing a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests,” suggesting that the Chinese government is exercising a certain level of restraint. However, there is a danger that such rationality at the state level may be swept away by a surge of popular sentiment and that Chinese nationalism may rise to such an extent in the future so as to make it difficult to continue pursuing a moderate policy of international cooperation.
It is therefore extremely important to exercise perseverance and maintain a rational dialogue with China. Unfortunately, the current atmosphere does not allow the two sides to sit calmly at the negotiating table.
Is there any way to break this impasse? There is one solution. It is a solution that Japan has denied itself until now - to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice and seek a legal resolution to the dispute. This would settle the matter fair and square through debate based on international law.
According to international law, Japan is in the right. The Japanese government and many scholars of international law are agreed on this point. The International Court of Justice is also likely to pass judgment along this line. Should China dispute such a ruling, it would be tantamount to publicly denouncing the rules of the international community. It is hard to imagine even China going that far.
China may refuse to refer the issue to the International Court of Justice out of fear for the consequences. But that would be interpreted as an admission of its lack of legal validity in the matter. In either case, the legitimacy of Japan’s claim will become apparent before the Chinese people and the international community.
Even so, the Japanese government has firmly maintained its policy of not referring the matter to the International Court of Justice based on its stance that there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands. It would be illogical to go to court over a nonexistent dispute. Having maintained this stance all these years, the Japanese government can ill afford to lose its face.
However, in reality the islands are already embroiled in a dispute. Japan has no effective means to counter Chinese attempts to force their way through a fait accompli.
And this has resulted in an unreasonable situation in which Japan’s persuasive argument is being drowned by China’s vociferous claims. It is time for Japan to abandon its formalistic logic and its obsession with saving face, to unseal its self-imposed spell by making a political decision to recognize the existence of a dispute, and give serious consideration to referring the matter to the International Court of Justice.
Such a move could also provide leverage in negotiations with South Korea, which has stubbornly refused to accept Japan’s proposal of referring the Takeshima Island dispute to the International Court of Justice.
A solution based on the “soft power” of international law is the choice Japan should seek as a peaceful nation.
The writer formerly served as a minister for the Japanese Embassy in France. The article originally appeared in the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper dated December 2, 2010.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
尖閣諸島問題を国際司法裁に付託すべし
山田 文比古 / 東京外国語大学教授
2011年 1月 12日
尖閣諸島問題と日中関係への日本政府の対応について、多くの国民は懸念と不満を抱いている。「弱腰外交」との批判も根強い。
一方、日本にレアアース禁輸という禁じ手まで発動した中国の強硬姿勢は、欧米諸国の中国への疑念を掻き立てた。南シナ海で中国との領土紛争の火種を抱える東南アジア諸国も懸念を強めた。中国政府が時とともに態度軟化を見せ始めた背景には、こうした各国政府やメディアの相次ぐ懸念表明がある。
中国脅威論は、これまでも根強く存在してきた。それを抑えてきたのは、むしろ中国の発展を助けながら責任ある国際社会の一員として融けこませることが、中国と国際社会双方の利益になるという考え方だ。中国も「韜光養晦」と「和平発展」政策でそれに応じてきた。
中国が今後も国際社会のルールを守りながら協調路線を歩み続けるのか、それとも、大国化とともに独自の主張を強めだすのか、今回の中国の対応は、それを見極める試金石として注目された。
先日の横浜での日中首脳会談では、双方が「戦略的互恵関係」の発展で合意し、中国政府側にも一定の自制が働いていることが窺われた。ただ、今後懸念されるのは、国家理性が国民感情に押し流され、穏健な国際協調路線の継続が困難となるほど、中国ナショナリズムが高揚することだ。
従って、中国とは理性的な対話を根気よく続けることが極めて重要だ。しかし、現状ではなかなか双方が冷静な対話のテーブルにつけるような雰囲気ではない。
それを打開する方法はないか。ひとつだけある。それは、これまで封印されてきた、国際司法裁判所への付託による司法的解決に委ねるという方法だ。国際法というルールに則り正々堂々と議論して決着をつけようということだ。
国際法的には日本の主張が正しい。日本政府も多くの国際法学者もそう考えている。国際司法裁も同様の判断を示すであろう。もし、その判決を認めないとの態度を中国がとれば、それは中国が国際社会のルールに従わないと公言するに等しい。さすがの中国もそこまではできまい。
それを恐れる中国が国際司法裁への付託自体を拒否すれば、自ら国際法上正当性がないことを認めたと解釈される。いずれにしても、日本の主張の正しさが、中国国民と国際社会の前で明らかになる。
しかし日本政府は、国際司法裁への付託はしないとの方針を堅持している。なぜなら日本は、尖閣諸島に関し領土問題は存在しないとの立場だからだ。問題として存在しないものを裁判に訴えるというのは筋が通らない。またそれで通してきた日本政府としての面子もある。
とは言うものの、現実には既に問題化してしまっている。中国側の既成事実化に対し、日本は有効な対抗手段をとりえないからだ。
その結果、中国の声高な主張のみが響き、日本の説得力ある主張がかき消されるという理不尽なことが起きている。今こそ日本は、形式的な筋論や面子への拘りを捨て、問題の存在を認めるとの政治判断によって自らの封印を解き、国際司法裁に付託することを真剣に検討すべきだ。
そのことは、竹島問題で、日本の国際司法裁付託提案に頑として応じない韓国への交渉の梃子ともなり得る。
国際法というソフトパワーによる解決こそが、平和国家日本の取るべき選択肢である。
（筆者は元駐仏公使。本稿は2010年12月2日付毎日新聞に掲載された。）
一方、日本にレアアース禁輸という禁じ手まで発動した中国の強硬姿勢は、欧米諸国の中国への疑念を掻き立てた。南シナ海で中国との領土紛争の火種を抱える東南アジア諸国も懸念を強めた。中国政府が時とともに態度軟化を見せ始めた背景には、こうした各国政府やメディアの相次ぐ懸念表明がある。
中国脅威論は、これまでも根強く存在してきた。それを抑えてきたのは、むしろ中国の発展を助けながら責任ある国際社会の一員として融けこませることが、中国と国際社会双方の利益になるという考え方だ。中国も「韜光養晦」と「和平発展」政策でそれに応じてきた。
中国が今後も国際社会のルールを守りながら協調路線を歩み続けるのか、それとも、大国化とともに独自の主張を強めだすのか、今回の中国の対応は、それを見極める試金石として注目された。
先日の横浜での日中首脳会談では、双方が「戦略的互恵関係」の発展で合意し、中国政府側にも一定の自制が働いていることが窺われた。ただ、今後懸念されるのは、国家理性が国民感情に押し流され、穏健な国際協調路線の継続が困難となるほど、中国ナショナリズムが高揚することだ。
従って、中国とは理性的な対話を根気よく続けることが極めて重要だ。しかし、現状ではなかなか双方が冷静な対話のテーブルにつけるような雰囲気ではない。
それを打開する方法はないか。ひとつだけある。それは、これまで封印されてきた、国際司法裁判所への付託による司法的解決に委ねるという方法だ。国際法というルールに則り正々堂々と議論して決着をつけようということだ。
国際法的には日本の主張が正しい。日本政府も多くの国際法学者もそう考えている。国際司法裁も同様の判断を示すであろう。もし、その判決を認めないとの態度を中国がとれば、それは中国が国際社会のルールに従わないと公言するに等しい。さすがの中国もそこまではできまい。
それを恐れる中国が国際司法裁への付託自体を拒否すれば、自ら国際法上正当性がないことを認めたと解釈される。いずれにしても、日本の主張の正しさが、中国国民と国際社会の前で明らかになる。
しかし日本政府は、国際司法裁への付託はしないとの方針を堅持している。なぜなら日本は、尖閣諸島に関し領土問題は存在しないとの立場だからだ。問題として存在しないものを裁判に訴えるというのは筋が通らない。またそれで通してきた日本政府としての面子もある。
とは言うものの、現実には既に問題化してしまっている。中国側の既成事実化に対し、日本は有効な対抗手段をとりえないからだ。
その結果、中国の声高な主張のみが響き、日本の説得力ある主張がかき消されるという理不尽なことが起きている。今こそ日本は、形式的な筋論や面子への拘りを捨て、問題の存在を認めるとの政治判断によって自らの封印を解き、国際司法裁に付託することを真剣に検討すべきだ。
そのことは、竹島問題で、日本の国際司法裁付託提案に頑として応じない韓国への交渉の梃子ともなり得る。
国際法というソフトパワーによる解決こそが、平和国家日本の取るべき選択肢である。
（筆者は元駐仏公使。本稿は2010年12月2日付毎日新聞に掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟