NOTES
1. Technically the dispute is also with Taiwan, but for practical purposes, the Peoples Republic of China is the only disputant involved.
2. This dispute is also potentially with North Korea as well as South Korea, but only the latter is really involved.
REFERENCE
Chiba, S. and T.J. Schoenbaum (eds) (2008), Peace Movements and Pacifism After September 11, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
NOTES
1. Gao and Wu, p. 32.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 28 August 2004.
3. Harrison (2005, pp. 5-6).
Yomiuri Shimbun, 13 April 2005.
5. Interview with a senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) official, 19 October 2004.
6. Goto Yasuhiro (2005, p. 38).
7. Asian Development Bank Report (2004), Energy Resources in the East China Sea.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 9 June 2004.
Sankei Shimbun, 2 February 2000.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 26 July 2001.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 28 April 2005.
12. Nomura, Japan Times, 8 September 2001, p. 68.
13. www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/special/47/naruhodo168.htm (in Japanese). Accessed 2 February 2008.
14. Hiramatsu (2002, p. 113).
Financial Times, 21 March 2007.
16. Map in Kaijo Hoan Repoto 2006 (Japanese Coast Guard annual report), p. 38.
17. Park (2006, p. 104).
Interfax, 1 July 2004.
Asahi Shimbun, 13 October 2004; Yomiuri Shimbun, 13 April 2005.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 2 April 2005.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 21 February 2005.
Asahi Shimbun , 24 December 2004.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 1 January 2005.
Kaiyo Hakusho, p. 131.
Asahi Shimbun, 15 July 2005.
Financial Times, 14 July 2005.
27. Austin (1998, p. 173).
28. Yu (1992, p. 107).
29. Gao and Wu (2005, p. 33).
Korea Herald, 2 August 2002.
31. Park (2005, p. 21).
32. Park (2006, pp. 104-5).
33. Yu (1992, p. 106).
34. Ibid., p. 107.
35. Drifte (2003, p. 59).
36. 22 June 2007, e-mail from the China Division in the MOFA.
37. Mohri (2006, p. 141).
38. MOFA Press Conference, 15 October 1996.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 28 April 2005; 9 November 2006.
40. MOFA Press Conference, 22 May 2005.
41. Interview with a high-ranking MOFA official, 22 November 2006.
42. Urano (2005, p. 219).
Asahi Shimbun, 20 March 2006.
The Japan Times, 27 October 2004.
45. MOfA Press Conference, 22 June 2004.
46. Interview with Kyodo News Agency in Beijing, 29 October 2004.
The Japan Times, 1 June 2005; Asahi Shimbun, 30 September 2005.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 11 March 2006.
49. Correspondence with Prof. Miyoshi Masahiro, Professor at Kyoto University, Japan, 15 May 2007.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 2 October 2005.
The Japan Times, 2 October 2005.
52. MOfA statement, 1 October 2005.
Sankei Shimbun , 31 May 2006.
Yomiuri Shimbun, 11 March 2006.
Tokyo Shimbun, 4 April 2007.
Asahi Shimbun , 13 April 2007.
Financial Times, 21 March 2007.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Austin, Greg (1998), Chinas Ocean Frontier: International Law, Military Force and National Development, Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Chung, Chien-peng (2004), Domestic Politics, International Bargaining and Chinas Territorial Disputes, London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Drifte, Reinhard (2003), Japans Security Relations with China Since 1989: From Balancing to Bandwagoning? , London: Routledge.
Gao, Zhiguo and Wu Jilu (2005), Key Issues in the East China Sea: A Status Report and Recommended Approaches, in Selig Harrison (ed.) Seabed Petroleum in Northeast Asia: Conflict or Cooperation?, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 32-8.
Goto, Yasuhiro (2005), Kokusai Mondai, April.
Harrison, Selig (ed.) (2005), Seabed Petroleum in Northeast Asia: Conflict or Cooperation?, Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1462&fuseaction=topics. documents&group_id=132299. Accessed 2 February 2008.
Hiramatsu, Shigeo (2002), Chugoku no senryakuteki kaiyo shinshutsu, Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.
Kaiyo Seisaku Kenkyu Zaidan (2006), Kaiyo Hakusho (White paper concerning sea resources), Tokyo.
Mohri, Kazuko (2006), Nitchu kankei. Sengo kara shinjidai e, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
Nomura, Hataru (2001), The Senkaku Islands: gas under the sea, The Japan Times, 8 September, p. 68.
Nomura, Hataru (2005), Senkaku shotoKaitei yuden, Shokun, May: 64-72.
Park, Choon-Ho (2005), Seabed Boundary Issues in the East China Sea, in Selig Harrison (ed.) Seabed Petroleum in Northeast Asia: Conflict or Cooperation? , Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, pp. 18-22.
Park, Choon-Ho (2006), Problems pertaining to the application of the Law of the Sea in the area surrounding the Korean peninsula, Korean Observations on Foreign Relations, 8 (1): 96-116.
Shimizu, Yoshikazu (2006), Chugoku ga "han Nichi wo tsuteru hi, Tokyo: Kodansha.
Urano, Tatsuo (2005), Senkaku shoto, Okinawa, Chugoku (Zohoban) , Tokyo: Sanwa Shoseki.
Yu, Hui (1992), Joint Development of Mineral ResourcesAn Asian Solution?, in Ko Swan Sik et al. (eds), Asian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 2, pp. 87-112.
Zhao, Liguo (2005), Seabed Petroleum in the East China Sea, in Selig Harrison (ed.) Seabed Petroleum in Northeast Asia: Conflict or Cooperation?, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
NOTES
1. For example, the UN Security Council in the exercise of its powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter determined the border between Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 after the Gulf War. See Report of the International Boundary Demarcation Commission, 32 ILM 1425 (1993).
2. PCIJ Ser. A/B, No. 53, 3 Hudson, World Ct. Rep. 148 (1933).
3. PCA, 2 UN Rep. Intl Arb. Awards 829 (1928).
4. 26 AJIL 390 (1932).
5. ICJ Rep. (1953) 47.
6. ICJ Rep. (2002) 90.
7. PCA, http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1056. Accessed 2 February 2008.
8. See Brownlie (1998, pp. 152-3).
9. 5 AJIL 782 (1911). See also the Case Concerning Kaskili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) , IJC Rep. (1999) 39; 39 ILM 310 (2000), which applied the same principle.
See Brownlie (1998, p. 127).
Preah Vihear Temple Case (Cambodia/Thailand), ICJ Rep. (1962) 6.
Status of Eastern Greenland Case, op. cit. Norway was also held to have recognized Denmarks title by its actions.
Brownlie (1998, p. 114).
United States v. The Netherlands (Island of Palmas), PCA (1928) 2 UN Rep. Intl Arb. Awards 829.
See Jennings (1962).
See Charney (1999).
See Roach and Smith (2000).
ICJ Rep. (1969) 3, 87.
ILC Yearbook (1956) II, 300.
Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38.
In addition to the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969), the ICJ was called upon to decide the Continental Shelf Case (Tunisia/Libya) (1982) ICJ Rep. 18 (1982); Continental Shelf Case (Libya/Malta) (1985) ICJ 12 (1985); Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayan (Denmark v. Norway) (1993) ICJ Rep. 38 (1993); Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras with Nicaragua intervening) (1992) ICJ Rep. 351 (1992); Gulf of Maine Case (US/Canada) (1984) ICJ 246 (1984). In the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey) (1976) ICJ Rep. 3 (1976), the ICJ found that it lacked jurisdiction. A number of cases have also been decided by arbitral tribunals: Anglo-French Continental Shelf Case (1977), RIAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 1; Dubai/Sharjah Border Arbitration (1981), arbitral award of 19 October, International Law Reports, Vol. 91, p. 574; Guinea/Guinea Bissau Maritime Boundary Case (1985) 25 ILM 252 (1986); and the Case Concerning the Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and the French Republic (St. Pierre and Miquelon) (1992) 31 ILM 1149 (1992). For a review see Colson (2003).
Next page