Senkaku Islands dispute
The Senkaku Islands dispute centers on a group of eight uninhabited islets and rocks in the East China Sea, administered by Japan as part of Okinawa Prefecture since their incorporation in 1895, but claimed by the People's Republic of China (as the Diaoyu Islands) and the Republic of China (Taiwan, as the Diaoyutai Islands).[1][2] The islands, spanning about 7 square kilometers and located roughly 170 kilometers northeast of Taiwan, possess no indigenous population or permanent habitation, yet they underpin claims to extensive exclusive economic zones (EEZs) potentially containing fisheries resources and undersea hydrocarbon deposits identified in the late 1960s.[3][4] Japan bases its sovereignty on the 1895 Cabinet decision to annex the then-unclaimed (terra nullius) islands following surveys confirming their uninhabited status, followed by over a century of effective control, including private land leasing, lighthouse construction, and law enforcement, uninterrupted except for U.S. military administration from 1945 to 1972 under the Ryukyu Islands command.[3][5][6] The U.S. explicitly returned administrative rights to Japan via the 1971 Okinawa Reversion Treaty, affirming Japan's prior control without prejudice to underlying sovereignty claims, while subsequent U.S. policy has recognized the islands as Japanese territory under the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.[1] In contrast, Chinese assertions of ancient discovery and inclusion in historical maps lack evidence of effective administration, with formal protests absent until 1970—coinciding with a United Nations report on potential oil and gas reserves in the adjacent continental shelf—suggesting resource interests as a catalyst rather than longstanding grievance.[7][8][9] Tensions have intensified since the 2000s through incidents like the 2010 collision between a Chinese fishing vessel and Japanese coast guard ships, leading to diplomatic standoffs, and Japan's 2012 nationalization of the islands from private Japanese owners to maintain status quo control, which prompted Chinese anti-Japan protests and increased maritime patrols.[2][10] The dispute underscores broader East China Sea frictions, including overlapping air defense identification zones and resource development moratoriums, with Japan emphasizing rule-of-law resolution via bilateral talks or international arbitration, while China pursues assertive "salami-slicing" tactics through coast guard incursions.[11][12]