The territorial dispute over the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands: An update

Ocean Development and International Law

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 45-61

  Su, Steven Wei ^a  

^a NONE   (China)

Author keywords

Law of the sea; Territorial disputes; Tiaoyu Islands

Indexed keywords

GEOPOLITICS; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LAW OF THE SEA; TERRITORIAL DISPUTE;

EAST CHINA SEA; OCEANIC REGIONS; PACIFIC OCEAN; SENKAKU ISLANDS; WORLD;

EID: 15044365395     PISSN: 00908320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00908320590904948     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. Tiaoyu is the Chinese name of the Islands in the Latin alphabet. It is spelled in the Wade-Giles Pin Yin system widely used in the Republic of China (ROC) and Hong Kong. Its Chinese name is spelled as "Diaoyu Dao," "Tiao-yu tai," or as "Tiao yü Tai" or "Diao yu tai" in the Han Yu Pin Yin system. The Islands in the People's Republic of China (PRC) are called "Diaoyu Tai" or "Diaoyu Dao." The ROC gives the same Chinese characters but differs in the Pin Yin system: "Tiao Yu Tai." Japan names the Islands "Senkaku, Senkaku Gunto" or "Sento Shosho" in Japanese.
2. The dispute arose mainly between the ROC, which has been referred to by the PRC as the Taiwan Authority, and Japan. After Japan officially terminated its diplomatic ties with the ROC and recognized the PRC in the early 1970s, the PRC officially replaced the ROC as the disputant on the Chinese side in this matter, though the ROC has neither officially withdrawn its previous claims, nor ceased its sovereignty claim against Japan over the Islands and the surrounding sea. "China is used throughout this article to refer to the PRC. "ROC" is used to refer to Taiwan. This author is of the view that the ROC is an integral part of China, despite its current de facto independent status. Regarding the historic development of the Taiwan problem,
3. see J. Charney and J. R. V. Prescott, "Resolving Cross-Strait Relations between China and Taiwan," 94 Am J Int'l L (2000), pp. 458 ff.
4. Regarding the international legal status of Taiwan and cross-strait relations, see Jean-Marie Henckaerts (ed.), The International Status of Taiwan in the New World Order (Kluwer Law International, 1996).
5. The maritime boundary disputes in the East China Sea have been reviewed and discussed in numerous places. The history and basic facts of the dispute can be found in: J Greenfield, China's Practice in the Law of the Sea (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992;
6. Choon-ho Park, East Asia and the Law of the Sea (National University Press, Seoul, 1983) and "Continental Shelf Issues in the Yellow Sea and the East China Sea." Occasional Paper, No. 15, Law of the Sea Institute, University of Rhode Island (1972);
7. Tao Cheng, 'The Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Tiaoyutai (Senkaku) Islands and the Law of Territorial Acquisition," 14 Vir.J. Int'l L. (1974), pp. 221 ff;
8. and Ying-Jeou Ma, Legal Problems of Seabed Boundary Delimitation in the East China Sea Legal Problems of Seabed Boundary Delimitation in the East China Sea (University of Maryland, Baltimore, 1984).
9. See: M. Valencia, "Regional Maritime Regime Building: Prospects in the Northeast and Southeast Asia," 31 Ocean Dev. & Int'l L. (2000), p. 14
10. and M. Valencia, A Maritime Regime for North-East Asia. (Oxford Press, Hong Kong, 1996), pp. 88-89.
11. IBRU, Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 7 No. 2 (1999), p. 47 and Vol. 9 No. 2 (2001), p. 55.
12. "Define Borders, China urges Japan"; Financial Times, London, on 14 September 2000.
13. The incident occurred in the area about 260 km outside China's territorial sea in the East China Sea: "Japan fires on 'intruding' boat" on the BBC News online, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/ world/asia-pacific/newsid_1724000/1724913.stm (last visit 05/06/2003).
14. See also "Coast guard sinks suspect ship in East China Sea," The Japan Times, Online http://www.intellnet.org/news/2001/12/23/ 8516-1.htm (latest visited on 05/06/2003).
15. A Chinese Spokesman from the PRC's Ministry of Foreign Affairs at a Press Conference on 25 December 2001 said: "The Chinese side has expressed its serious concern over the use of force of the Japanese side in chasing the unidentified ship as well as the sinking of the ship within the exclusive economic zone of China." Posted on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/22811.html (last visited on 05/06/ 2003).
16. See: D. Dzurek, "Effect of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute on Maritime Delimitation" in Martin Pratt and Janet Allison Brown (eds.), Borderlands under Stress (IBRU International Boundary Studies Series, Kluwer Law International, 2000), p. 412.
17. So far the parties have conducted 12 rounds of boundary negotiations. In 2001, an agreement was reached requiring one party to "prior notify" this sort of activities in the overlapped but undelimited EEZs to the other.
18. See: Akira Takada, "Marine scientific in the EEZ and Japan-China agreement for prior notification," 44, Jap. Ann. Int'l L. (2001), pp. 134 ff.
19. In 1997, China and Japan signed a fishery agreement in the East China Sea, which marked off a cooperation zone (Provisional Measures Zone) in which both parties have access to the fishery resources but exercise restrained jurisdiction. The Islands-affected area is left out to maintain the status quo. The English version of the Treaty can be found in 41 Jap. Ann. Int'l L. (1998), pp. 122-129.
20. For comments and analyses of the arrangement, see Zou Keyuan "Sino-Japanese Joint Fishery Management in the East China Sea," 27 Marine Policy (2003), pp. 132-142.
21. Choon-ho Park, East Asia and the Law of the Sea, supra note 3, p. 32.
22. Jonathan Charney referred to the distance between the "principal island of the group" and the low-water line of the nearest point on Ryukyu Islands and that of Taiwan, which are respectively measured at 77 nm and 93 nm, and the distance from the group to the nearest mainland coast of China as roughly 182 nm.
23. J. Charney, "The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Maritime and Territorial Dispute," in International Law Conference on the Dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands (Taiwan, 2-3 April 1997) (Taiwan Law Society and Taiwan Institute of International Law, eds., 1997), p. 120.
24. J. Greenfield, supra note 3, p. 127.
25. Choon-ho Park, "Oil under Troubled Waters: The Northeast Asia Seabed Controversy" 14 Hav. Int'l L.J. (1973), p. 256 and Tao Cheng, supra note 3, at pp. 257-259.
26. J. Prescott and C. Schofield, "Undelimited Maritime Boundaries of the Asian Rim in the Pacific Ocean" in Maritime Briefing, Vol. 3 No. 1, IBRU, Durham (2001), p. 21.
27. The Okinawa Trough borders the continental shelf in the west and the Ryukyu arc in the east. The Trough, arguably, is the most striking geophysical character of the seabed of the East China Sea in terms of its location, size and depth. The northern part of the Trough is actually a comparatively wide continental slope, though the discontinuity of the extension of the shallow seabed is obvious. The depression of the seabed in this part of the sea goes from 200 m to the depth between 500 m and 1000 m. In the south, the shelf declines more abruptly to the depth of 1000-2719 m when it meets the Okinawa Trough. The maximum depth of the sea appears in southern part of the Trough where it reaches 2719 m. Qin Yunshan, Zhao Yiyang and Chen Lirong (eds), Geology of the East China Sea (Science Press, Beijing, 1996), pp. 1-3.
28. Although the importance of the natural prolongation principle in bilateral boundary delimitation has diminished and the continental shelf defined by distance principle and the concept of EEZ have been adopted by the LOS Convention and been affirmatively supported since the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf Case [1985] I.C.J. Reports 13, it remains one of the valid criteria for determining the outer limit of continental shelf. The EEZ and distance principle have no impact on the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
29. The territorial dispute has been discussed in numerous places. See: Tao Cheng, supra note 3;
30. H. Chin, "An Analysis of the Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Tiaoyoutai Islets (Senkaku Gunto)," 15 Chinese Y.B. Int'l L. & Affairs 9-31 (1996-97);
31. J. Greenfield, supra note 3, pp. 127-29;
32. V. Li, "China and Off-Shore Oil: The Tiao-yu Tai Dispute," 10 Stan. J. Int'l Studies (1975), p. 151;
33. Ying-Jeou Ma, supra note 3;
34. T. Okuhara, "The Territorial Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands and Problems on the Surrounding Continental Shelf," 15 Jap. Ann. Int'l L. (1971), p. 97 ff;
35. Y. Matsui, "International Law of Territorial Acquisition and the Dispute over the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands," 40 Jap. Ann. Int'l L. (1997), p. 3 ff.;
36. Park, supra note 12, 212;
37. International Law Conference on the Dispute Over Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, supra note 10, 1-162;
38. P. Deans, "The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Dispute: The Unwanted Controversy," at http://ukc.ac.uk/politics/publications/journals/ kentpapers/deans.html (last visited 27/10/2001);
39. and W. Heflin, "Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Japan and China Oceans Apart," 18 Asian-Pacific Law and Policy Journal (2000), p. 1.
40. Report of the Sixth Session of the Committee for Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources in Asian Offshore Areas, U.N. Doc. E/ CN.11/L.239 (1970), at 51-67;
41. see also Park, East Asia and the Law of the Sea, supra note 3, pp. 248-249;
42. and U. Suganuma, Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations (2000), pp. 129-31.
43. Cheng, supra note 3, p. 243.
44. Article 2 and 3 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, 8 September 1951, 136 U.N.T. S. p. 45.
45. The text is available at http://newtaiwan.virtualave.net/ sanfrancisco01.htm (latest visited on 04/11/2001). For the history of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty and its relation to the origin of the dispute of the Tiaoyu/Senkaku Islands,
46. see: S. Lee, "The 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan and The Territorial Disputes in East Asia," 11 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (2002), pp. 123-127.
47. For the legal background of the Treaty and territorial depositions in the Treaty, see: D.P. O'Connell, "Legal Aspects of the Peace Treaty with Japan," 29 Brit Y. B. Int'l L. (1952), pp. 423-435.
48. Agreement Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands (Okinawa Reversion Treaty), signed on 17 June 1971 and entered into force on 10 November 1971, reprinted in United States Treaty and Other International Acts Vol. 23, p. 446.
49. Article I of the Treaty provides for the United States to return to Japan "all and any powers of administration legislation and jurisdiction" over Ryukyu and Daito Islands held by the United States under Article 3 of the 1951 Peace Treaty. However, the United States took no position on the sovereignty dispute, stating that "a return of administrative rights over these islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims." The declaration of the State Department of the United States concerning the territorial dispute is quoted by W. Schachte, "The United States' Role: Thoughts on the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute, in International Law Conference on the Dispute over Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands," supra note 10, pp. 59-73.
50. See: Kyodo News, 29 September 1990, in FBIS, Daily Report: East Asia, 2 October, 1990, pp. 11-12.
51. In 1978 the two states achieved the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People's Republic of China (12 August, 1978). The text of the Treaty can be found at http://www.taiwandocuments.org/ beijing.htm (last visited on 22/10/2004). As part of this China and Japan agreed to shelve the dispute to the "following generation." This Statement was reprinted in the People's Daily, Beijing, 26 October 1978 (in Chinese).
52. Article 2 of the Law of the Peoples Republic of China on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone (adopted on 25 February 1992), the English version is reprinted in the United Nations Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 21 (August 1992).
53. C. Schofield, "Island Disputes in East Asia Escalate," 8 Jane's Intelligence Rev., No. 11, p. 517 (1 November 1996).
54. "Japanese coast guard wins standoff with protesters"; 26 May 1997, World News Story Page of the CNN. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/26/ islands.taiwan/index.html (last visited on 13/11/2003).
55. "Opposition Parliamentarian Lands on China-Claimed Island," Japan Weekly of Kyodo News 9 May 1997.
56. See also "Japanese legislator lands on disputed islands," Report from CNN, 6 May 1997, http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9705/06/ china.japan/ (last visited on 10/11/2003).
57. Press Conference by the Press Secretary (24 September 1996) at http:// www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1996/9/924.html (last visited on 10/11/ 2003).
58. Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 8 No. 2 (2000), IBRU, p. 49.
59. Statement made by the Spokesman of Foreign Affairs of Peoples Republic of China on 30 April 2000, see http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/english/html/ find.asp?value=Diaoyu&pagenumber=2 (last visited on 10/11/2003).
60. Boundary and Security Bulletin, Vol. 8 No. 2 (2000), IBRU, p. 49.
61. SCMP, "Free the Diaoyus activists now, Beijing demands." 26 March 2004. For the Chinese positions, see PRC Foreign Ministry Spokesman's Statements on 24 March 2004, posted at http:// www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/xwfw/fyrth/t80526.htm (in Chinese). Japan's stance is made clear by its chief cabinet secretary Yasuo Fukuda quoted by the CNN as stating "it is crystal clear that the Senkaku islands are our country's indigenous territory." Posted at http://www.cnn.com/ 2004/WORLD/asiapcf/03/25/china.japan.reut/index.html (last visited on 26/03/2004).
62. See: 15 Beijing Review (January 1972), p. 13;
63. Ji Guoxing, "The Diaoyudao (Senkaku) Disputes and Prospects for Settlement," The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis (1994), pp. 287-288;
64. and Chiu, supra note 16, pp. 19-20.
65. The Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the PRC (dated 30 December 1971), reprinted in 15 Beijing Review (January 1972), p. 12.
66. G. Austin, China's Ocean Frontier, Allen & Unwin Australia Pty Ltd. (1998), p. 164.
67. Cheng, supra note 3, pp. 256-57. The granting document clearly mentioned the names of Diaoyutai, Huangweiyu, and Chiweiyu. The relevant parts of the document are quoted in G. Austin, supra note 34, p. 165.
68. More evidence in favor of China's historical title over the Islands is referred to in Tao Cheng, supra note 3, pp. 254-256;
69. Chiu, supra note 6, pp. 9-29;
70. and Heflin, supra note 16, pp. 3-5.
71. The Treaty was signed on 17 April 1895 and is reprinted in C. Parry (ed.), The Consolidated Treaty Series, Vol. 181 (Oceana Publications Inc., 1979), pp. 217-224.
72. It is also available at http://newtaiwan.virtualave.net/ shimonoseki01.htm (last visited on 08/07/2002). Article 2 of the Treaty provided: China Cedes to Japan in perpetuity and full sovereignty the following territories, together with all fortifications, arsenals and public property thereon: ... (b) The island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa (c) The Pescadores Group, that is to say, all islands lying between the 119th and 120th degree of longitude east of Greenwich, and the 23rd and 24th degrees of north Latitude.
73. Article 2(b) of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, supra note 19, signed by neither China nor Taiwan, simply states, "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and Pescadores." Article 3 provides that: Japan will concur in any proposal of the United States to the United Nations to place under its trusteeship system, with the United States as the sole administering authority, Nansei Shoto south of 29° N (including the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands).... Pending the making of such a proposal and affirmative action thereon, the United States will have the right to exercise all and any powers of administration, legislation and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands, including their territorial waters. The Tiaoyu Islands were in the area of nansei Shoto.
74. China was not a party to the 1951 San Francisco Treaty because the communists took over mainland China in 1949 and the Allies held divergent views on whether the PRC or the ROC should be represent China to sign the Treaty. China, therefore, signed separate bilateral peace treaty with Japan in 1952. H. Chiu, "The International Legal Status of Taiwan" in Jean-Marie Henckaerts, supra note 2, pp. 3-8.
75. The full text of the Treaty of Peace between the Republic of China and Japan, signed at Taipei on 28 April 1952 can be found on http:// www.taiwandocuments.org/taipei01.htm (last visited on 22/10/2004).
76. Tao Cheng, supra note 3, pp. 251-252. The ROC had expressed disagreement with Article 3 of the San Francisco Treaty, though not being a party to it. The ROC took the position that Japan, according to the spirit of the Potsdam Proclamation 1945, should be totally deprived of sovereignty over the Ryukyu Islands, rather than placing the islands under the Trusteeship of the United Nations. The ROC had no intention of making a territorial claim over the Ryukyu Islands. This is recorded in a memorandum from the Chinese (ROC) Foreign Affairs to the U. S. Ambassador in Taipei, which is quoted in Tao Cheng, supra note 3, footnote 102.
77. Article VII of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States and the Republic of China, signed in December 1954, 248 U.N.T.S., pp. 213 ff.
78. Japan has reiterated this position on many occasions. For example, a Japanese spokesman said, "There does not exist any territorial issue regarding the Senkaku Islands." Press Conference held by the MOFA on 23 July 1996, posted at http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1996/7/ 723.html#2.
79. See also: statements made by the Spokesman of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) at the press conferences on 26 July 1996, 17 September 1996, 24 September 1996, 27 May 1997, etc. The record of the press conference were posted at the website of the MOFA, http://www.mofa.go.jp.
80. See also Matsui, supra note 16, p. 4.
81. Japan's policy remains that "residents of Japan will not be stopped from going to the Islands without legal grounds for that." See: "The fundamental position of the Government of Japan on the Senkaku Islands," the statement made on the Press Conference of MOFA on 24 September 1996, at http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1996/9/924.html#2 (last visited on 13/11/2003).
82. Japan has noted: "Although the Government of China has a different attitude, we would like to strengthen our bilateral relationship, and we would hope that this will be the case in the future." See: "Japanese policy on Senkaku Islands," Press Conference by the Press Secretary on 10 September 1996, posted at http:// www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1996/9/910.html (last visited on 13/11/ 2003). Similar positions are also expressed in answering the question, "If Japan regards the Senkaku Islands as sovereign territory, why not deploy armed forces on the islands?" The Spokesman said, "We do not want to make the Senkaku Islands such a big issue that relations with neighbouring countries and regions would be jeopardized." Press Conference by the Press Secretary on 27 May 1997, posted at http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/1997/5/527.html#7 (last visited on 13/11/2003).
83. "The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands," posted on the official website of Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html (last visit on 07/06/2001) (hereinafter "Basic View").
84. "Basic View," supra note 44. See also: the statement of Japanese Foreign Ministry on 8 March 1972, the official text is reprinted in J. Cohen and H. Chiu, People's China and International Law, A Documentary Study, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ, 1974), pp. 351-352.
85. Japan's annexation of the Islands was conducted in a gradual and silent manner. The 1895 "cabinet decision" actually covered only two of the largest islands in the group: Tiaoyu tai and Huangwei Yu. Chiweiyu was not formally incorporated into Japan until 1921 and was leased to a Japanese national in 1926. The other five rocks in the group might never have been the subject of any act of territorial acquisition except expression in connection with the three main Islands. Tao Cheng, supra. note 3, p. 246.
86. See supra note 38.
87. "Basic View," supra note 44.
88. J. Merrills, "The International Court of Justice and the Adjudication of Territorial and Boundary Disputes," 13 Lei. J. Int'l L. (2000), pp. 882-883.
89. See: R. Jennings and A. Watts (eds.), Oppenheim's International Law (1992) (9th ed.), p. 687
90. and R. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law (Manchester University Press, 1961), pp. 21-23.
91. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, [1975] I.C.J. Reports, para. 79.
92. Case Concerning Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, [1992] I.C.J. Reports, paras. 330-368.
93. Island of Palmas Case, R.I.A.A. (1928), pp. 829 and 846.
94. Island of Palmas Case, R.I.A.A. (1928), ibid, pp. 865-866
95. Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law, France-Mexico, Arbitral Award on the Subject of the Difference Relative to the Sovereignty over Clipperton Island, the award was rendered by King Victor Emanuel III of Italy in January 1931, reprinted in 26 Am. J. Int'l L. (1932), p. 393.
96. Judicial Decisions Involving Questions of International Law, France-Mexico, Arbitral Award on the Subject of the Difference Relative to the Sovereignty over Clipperton Island, the award was rendered by King Victor Emanuel III of Italy in January 1931, reprinted in 26 Am. J. Int'l L. (1932), p. 392-393.
97. I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (5th ed.) (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998), p. 144.
98. Eastern Greenland Case, P. C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 53, pp. 45-6.
99. R. Jennings and A. Watts, supra note 49, p. 576.
100. R. Jennings and A. Watts, supra note 49, p. 576.
101. R. Jennings and A. Watts, supra note 49, p. 576.
102. See text accompanying supra notes 32-36.
103. It has been suggested that whether the Islands were terra nullius is critical to finding if Japan's activity is valid. Professor Prescott has commented that, "Were the Diaoyu Islands in January 1895 terra nullius?" must be answered. "[I]f the Islands were not terra nullius in January 1895 (the time of Japan's annexation), and if the Islands is deemed to be part of Taiwan, then Japan has no right to annex the Islands."
104. J. R. V. Prescott, "An Analysis of the bases of Claims by Taiwan and Japan to the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands," in International Law Conference on the Dispute over Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, supra note 10, pp. 47-57.
105. The variation and flexibility of the criteria used to demonstrate title as shown in the case law are discussed in S. Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law (Matinus Nijihoff Publishers, 1997), pp. 70-107.
106. Minquiers and Ecrehos Case, [1953] I.C.J. Reports pp. 53, 65-67. For the reasoning of the I.C.J. on accepting the UK's effective occupation of the Minquiers and Ecrehos islets,
107. see also W. Bishop Jr., "Minquirers and Ecrehos Case," 48 Am. J. Int'l L. (1954), pp. 316-326.
108. Clipperton Island Arbitration, supra. note 54, p. 394.
109. See: Sharma, supra note 63, pp. 101-102.
110. The 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Phase I, para. 523 at http://www.pca-cpa.org.
111. The 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Phase I, paras. 491, 502, 503, and 507. ibid
112. The 1998 Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, Phase I, paras. 509 and 522. ibid
113. I. Brownlie, supra note 56, p. 136.
114. Island of Palmas Case, supra note 52, pp. 839 and 846.
115. G. Schwarzenberger, "Title to Territory: Response to a Challenge," 51 Am. J. Int'l L. (1957), pp. 315-316.
116. See also: Sharma, supra note 63, pp. 102-103.
117. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, supra. note 67, para. 450;
118. Minquiers and Ecrechos Case, supra note 64, para. 47;
119. Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, supra note 50, para. 93;
120. and Case Concerning Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute, supra note 51, para 344.
121. Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) I] [1999] I.C.J. Reports, para. 99.
122. See: Brownlie, supra note 56, pp. 136-142 and R. Jennings and A. Watts, supra. note 49, pp. 688-696.
123. The ICJ took the view that this sort of evidence depended on whether it was clear and the attitude of the parties towards its function.
124. See: S. Akweenda, "The Legal Significance of Maps in Boundary Questions: A Reappraisal with Particular Emphasis on Namibia," 60 Brit. Y. B. Int'l L. (1989), pp 212-226 and J. Merrills, supra note 48, pp. 887-888.
125. Eritrea-Yemen Arbitration, supra. note 67, para. 525.
126. Sharma, supra note 63, p. 104.
127. Clipperton Island Arbitration, supra note 54, pp. 392-393.
128. Island of Palmas Case, supra note 52, p. 864.
129. See: E. Dickinson, "The Clipperton Island Case," 27 Am. J. Int'l L (1933), pp. 130-133.
130. Y. Matsui, supra note 16, p. 18.
131. Judge Huber opined that both doctrine and practice recognised that the territorial sovereignty should be displayed continuously and peacefully. Island of Palmas Case, supra note 52, pp. 839-840.
132. The norms set in the case are revisited in S. Sharma, supra note 63, pp. 74-75;
133. Nuno Sérgio Maques Antunes, Boundary and Territory Briefing: Estoppel, Acquiescence and Recognition in Territorial and Boundary Dispute Settlement, Vol. 2, No. 8, IBRU (2000), p. 32.
134. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), [1962] I.C.J. Reports, p. 29.
135. Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), [1962] I.C.J. Reports, p. 27, 28, and 30.
136. Quoted from a report written by the magistrate of Ryukyu to the Interior Minister of Japan in 1885. It is quoted by Tao Cheng, supra note 3, p. 248.
137. Cited in W. Heflin, supra note 16, p. 18:4.
138. Matsui, supra note 16, p. 17.
139. Matsui, supra note 16, p. 17.
140. Matsui, supra note 16, p. 18.
141. Tao Cheng, supra note 3, p. 249.
142. Nuno Sérgio Maques Antunes, supra note 81, p. 34.
143. Cheng, supra note 3, p. 252. See text accompanying supra note 41.
144. See text accompanying supra. notes 38, 46, and 47.
145. See text accompanying supra note 37 and H. Chiu, supra note 16, pp. 24-25.