论近世琉球的历史和法律地位——兼议钓鱼岛主权归属  

The Historical and Legal Status of Pre-modern Ryukyu and the Sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands

作　　者：刘丹[1] LIU Dan(KoGuan Law School, Shanghai Jiao Tong Universit)

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学凯原法学院海洋法治研究中心

出　　处：《中国海洋法学评论（中英文版）》2016年第2期83-154,共72页China Oceans Law Review

基　　金：本研究为刘丹副研究员主持的国家社科基金青年项目《钓鱼岛争端视角下琉球法律地位问题研究》（13CFX123）、上海交通大学文理交叉海洋专项基金项目《以国际法为中心的南海法律战研究》（16JCHY09）的阶段性成果,本文也受到中国海洋发展研究会重大项目《中国在推进海洋战略过程中的法制完善研究》（CAMAZDA201501）的资助.

摘　　要：中日钓鱼岛争端中，日方极力撇开《马关条约》和其取得钓鱼岛所谓“主权”之间的关联，并认为钓鱼岛列屿的行政编制隶属琉球、琉球是日本的领土，所以钓鱼岛的主权应归日本，即日方主张包含着“钓鱼岛属于琉球、琉球属于日本，所以钓鱼岛属于日本”的荒谬逻辑。本文着重对琉球地位问题“去伪”，即通过探究近世琉球（1609—1879）在历史和国际法上的地位、中琉历史上的海上自然疆界，从而进一步印证钓鱼岛属于中国，为我国钓鱼岛主权主张提供有力论据。In the Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, Japan, on the one hand, strives to evade the relations of its acquisition of ＂sovereignty＂ over these islands with the Treaty of Shimonoseki; on the other hand, it assumes that the Diaoyu Islands is a part of Ryukyu under its administrative system, and Ryukyu constitutes a part of Japanese territory, therefore, Japan has the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands. In this regard, Japan＇s absurd logic lies in that ＂the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Ryukyu, and the latter belongs to Japan, hence the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Japan＂. This paper attempts to eliminate the misstatements about the status of Ryukyu, by examining the status of pre-modern Ryukyu （1609-1879） in history and international law, and the marine boundaries between China and Ryukyu in history. In doing so, the paper further demonstrates that the Diaoyu Islands is an inherent part of China, thereby providing compelling evidences to support China＇s claim to the sovereignty of these islands.

关 键 词：琉球地位 国际法 钓鱼岛争端 

分 类 号：P[天文地球]