Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@Zero_wing
pls use more comma, point and offset for better reading of your texts.
So in short it was not an annexation by Japan from China why you ask one formosa now know as Taiwan was not complete administered by china until the chinese defeat the dutch after the dutch took control of said island from Spanish Philippines (which in this case Spain) in the 17th century so your cry of this historical fact has limited or no hope in International courts other reason is that the Chinese forces later on establish a republic independent from mainland china by a local warlord which was later defeated by Japaneses then fighting local indigenous tribes Taiwanese aborigines making Formosa a Japanese territory than after the end of the second world war or the Pacific war the formosa was return to china under the republic of china (the real legitimate of china) which after the retreated to said Island
but going back to have sovereign control over said islands you must have people two control excusing political and law enforcing
but then again Japanese have no people but the island was private owned
In September 1896, Koga Tatsushiro became the first Japanese native to lease the islands. In his biography, he attributed Japan's possession of the islands to "the gallant military victory of our Imperial forces."
so tricky so to some it all up you little chance to prove it in the International courts so good luck for taiwan case its a bit tricky as well first their political status is one problem.
At last someone who is telling that pathetic hater to use comma and point because he can only write a bunch of text making it for everyone very difficult to read. Plus his grammar is terrible to say the least.
Way to go off on a tangent. Let's stick with the issue, the Diaoyu Islands/Diaoyutai.
Obviously not, if the Spratly Islands disputes are anything to go by. Anyways I won't touch on that issue so let's leave it at that.
As you can see, their ownership of the islands are directly attrbutable to Japan's imperial expansion, as stated by Han-yi Shaw.
You can see a brief summary of his arguments for the islands here:
Han-yi Shaw: Japan's Dubious Claim to the Diaoyus - WSJ.com
Here's the interesting thing, Taiwan's president Ma Ying-jeou has already stated that Taiwan wants to refer the Diaoyu Dao/Diaoyutai dispute to the ICJ and that Japan should do so as well. ICJ won't be able to take on the case unless Japan decides to do a 180 degrees and accept arbitration of the Diaoyu Dao/Diaoyutai by the ICJ, which it so far has steadfastly refused.
Fishermen enraged over Japan's harassment of fishing operations: Ma - CNA ENGLISH NEWS
I should add that, should the ICJ take on this case then Japan is almost certain to lose. Japan's case is dubious at best and illegal at worst.
Also, since you did not directly contradict any point I made in an earlier post we can assume you have no argument on that front?
not really, TW's stance is pretty clear "We will also seek consensus with Japan and China.". in other words status-quo.Taiwan has been very active involved in the dispute recently and that put the US into an awkward position. I bet Hilary Clinton wishes she can take back what she said earlier this year that the US will back Japan in her island disputes.
not really, TW's stance is pretty clear "We will also seek consensus with Japan and China.". in other words status-quo.
china must be working hard to back down without loosing face.
So just like china going to ICJ Taiwan is a hard case since its political status as a country one Its officially the Republic of China not the Republic of Taiwan not unless the country declares Independence which would bring them hell since bully china will be bring them a can of kick @** now that their Aircraft carrier is official in the Fleet so good luck its a head scratcher
and IFY last time i check its ICJ is a UN institution so good luck going there regardless of what the government of Taiwan would like to do its almost next to impossible not unless Taiwan political status is cleared
Article 93
1. All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Man you need to check it again that all i have to say
So you have nothing to put forth now. Got it...
its not that its just so hard to convince a wall