《钓鱼岛是中国的固有领土》白皮书（全文）
White Paper: Diaoyu Dao, an Inherent Territory of China

: 0 Comment(s)打印 E-mail 新华网　2012-09-25

调整字号大小:

四、日本主张钓鱼岛主权毫无依据	IV. Japan's Claim of Sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao Is Totally Unfounded
1972年3月8日，日本外务省发表《关于尖阁列岛所有权问题的基本见解》，阐述日本政府对于钓鱼岛主权归属问题的主张：一是钓鱼岛为“无主地”，不包含在《马关条约》规定的由清政府割让给日本的澎湖列岛和台湾及其附属岛屿的范围之内。二是钓鱼岛不包含在“旧金山和约”第二条规定的日本所放弃的领土之内，而是包含在该条约第三条规定的作为西南诸岛的一部分被置于美国施政之下，并根据“归还冲绳协定”将施政权“归还”日本的区域内。三是中国没有将钓鱼岛视为台湾的一部分，对“旧金山和约”第三条规定将钓鱼岛置于美国施政区域内从未提出过任何异议。	On March 8, 1972, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands in an attempt to explain the Japanese government's claims of sovereignty over Diaoyu Dao. First, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was "terra nullius" and not part of Pescadores, Formosa [Taiwan] or their affiliated islands which were ceded to Japan by the Qing government in accordance with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Second, Japan claims that Diaoyu Dao was not included in the territory which Japan renounced under Article 2 of the Treaty of San Francisco, but was placed under the administration of the United States as part of the Nansei Islands in accordance with Article 3 of the said treaty, and was included in the area for which the administrative rights were reverted to Japan in accordance with the Okinawa Reversion Agreement. Third, Japan claims that China didn't regard Diaoyu Dao as part of Taiwan and had never challenged the inclusion of the islands in the area over which the United States exercised administrative rights in accordance with Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco.
日本的上述主张严重违背事实，是完全站不住脚的。	Such claims by Japan fly in the face of facts and are totally unfounded.
钓鱼岛属于中国，根本不是“无主地”。在日本人“发现”钓鱼岛之前，中国已经对钓鱼岛实施了长达数百年有效管辖，是钓鱼岛无可争辩的主人。如前所述，日本大量官方文件证明，日本完全清楚钓鱼岛早已归属中国，绝非国际法上的无主地。日本所谓依据“先占”原则将钓鱼岛作为“无主地”“编入”其版图，是侵占中国领土的非法行为，不具有国际法效力。	Diaoyu Dao belongs to China. It is by no means "terra nullius". China is the indisputable owner of Diaoyu Dao as it had exercised valid jurisdiction over the island for several hundred years long before the Japanese people "discovered" it. As stated above, voluminous Japanese official documents prove that Japan was fully aware that according to international law, Diaoyu Dao has long been part of China and was not "terra nullius". Japan's act to include Diaoyu Dao as "terra nullius" into its territory based on the "occupation" principle is in fact an illegal act of occupying Chinese territory and has no legal effect according to international law.
无论从地理上还是从中国历史管辖实践看，钓鱼岛一直是中国台湾岛的附属岛屿。日本通过不平等的《马关条约》迫使清朝割让包括钓鱼岛在内的“台湾全岛及所有附属各岛屿”。《开罗宣言》、《波茨坦公告》等国际法律文件规定，日本必须无条件归还其窃取的中国领土。上述文件还对日本领土范围作了明确界定，其中根本不包括钓鱼岛。日本试图侵占钓鱼岛，实质是对《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》等法律文件所确立的战后国际秩序的挑战，严重违背了日本应承担的国际法义务。	Diaoyu Dao has always been affiliated to China's Taiwan Island both in geographical terms and in accordance with China's historical jurisdiction practice. Through the unequal Treaty of Shimonoseki, Japan forced the Qing court to cede to it "the island of Taiwan, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it", including Diaoyu Dao. International legal documents such as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation provide that Japan must unconditionally return the territories it has stolen from China. These documents also clearly define Japan's territory, which by no means includes Diaoyu Dao. Japan's attempted occupation of Diaoyu Dao, in essence, constitutes a challenge to the post-war international order established by such legal documents as the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation and seriously violates the obligations Japan should undertake according to international law.
美国等国家与日本签订的片面媾和条约“旧金山和约”所规定的托管范围不涵盖钓鱼岛。美国擅自扩大托管范围，非法将中国领土钓鱼岛纳入其中，后将钓鱼岛“施政权”“归还”日本，都没有任何法律依据，在国际法上没有任何效力。对于美日上述非法行径，中国政府和人民历来是明确反对的。	Diaoyu Dao was not placed under the trusteeship established by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between the United States and other countries with Japan and is partial in nature. The United States arbitrarily expanded the scope of trusteeship to include Diaoyu Dao, which is China's territory, and later "returned" the "power of administration" over Diaoyu Dao to Japan. This has no legal basis and is totally invalid according to international law. The government and people of China have always explicitly opposed such illegal acts of the United States and Japan.