:Senkaku Islands dispute

{{Main|Senkaku Islands#Geography|l1=Senkaku Islands geography}}

The Senkaku Islands are located in the East China Sea between Japan, China, and Taiwan. The archipelago contains five uninhabited islands and three barren rocks,{{Cite news |date=2010-09-17 |title=How uninhabited islands soured China-Japan ties |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139 |access-date=2025-02-12 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}} ranging in size from 0.002km² to 3.81km².{{Cite web |title=Senkaku Islands Information |url=https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/senkaku/page1we_000009.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230522193950/https://www.mofa.go.jp/a_o/c_m1/senkaku/page1we_000009.html |archive-date=22 May 2023 |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan |language=en-US |url-status=live }}

File:Senkaku bonito.jpg

Following the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government formally annexed what was known as the Ryukyu Kingdom as Okinawa Prefecture in 1879. The Senkaku Islands, which lay between the Ryukyu Kingdom and the Qing empire, became the Sino-Japanese boundary for the first time.{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}

In 1885, the Japanese Governor of Okinawa Prefecture, Nishimura Sutezo, petitioned the Meiji government, asking that it take formal control of the islands. However, Inoue Kaoru, the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, commented that the islands lay near to the border area with the Qing empire and that they had been given Chinese names. He also cited an article in a Chinese newspaper that had previously claimed that Japan was occupying islands off China's coast. Inoue was concerned that if Japan proceeded to erect a landmark stating its claim to the islands, it would make the Qing empire suspicious. Following Inoue's advice, Yamagata Aritomo, the Minister of the Interior, turned down the request to incorporate the islands, insisting that this matter should not be "revealed to the news media".{{Cite book| title = Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations| author = Unryu Suganuma| publisher = University of Hawaii Press| year = 2000| pages = 89–97| isbn = 978-0-8248-2493-8}}

On 14 January 1895, during the First Sino-Japanese War, Japan incorporated the islands under the administration of Okinawa, stating that it had conducted surveys since 1884 and that the islands were terra nullius, with there being no evidence to suggest that they had been under the Qing empire's control.{{cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan|title=Q&A on the Senkaku Islands|access-date=29 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101209063711/http://www.mofa.go.jp//region//asia-paci//senkaku//qa_1010.html|archive-date=9 December 2010|url-status=live}}

After China lost the war, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki in April 1895 that stipulated, among other things, that China would cede to Japan "the island of Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa (Taiwan)",[Article II{b}], Treaty of Shimonoseki but yet the treaty does not clearly define the geographical limits of the island of Formosa and the islands appertaining or belonging to Formosa ceded to Japan. The treaty was superseded by the Treaty of San Francisco, which was signed between Japan and part of the Allied Powers in 1951 after Japan lost the Second World War.

In the treaty of San Francisco, Japan explicitly relinquished the control of Taiwan/Formosa together with all islands appertaining or belonging to it. There is a disagreement between the Japanese, PRC and ROC governments as to whether the islands are implied to be part of the "islands appertaining or belonging to said island of Formosa" in the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Mainland China and Taiwan both dispute the Japanese claim by citing Yamagata Aritomo's reasons and decisions to turn down the request to incorporate the islands in 1885.

Both China and Taiwan asserted sovereignty over the islands.Durdin, Tillman. [https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/06/archives/peking-claims-disputed-oilrich-isles.html?sq=1972+senkaku&scp=2&st=p "Peking Claims Disputed Oil-Rich Isles,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180723041443/https://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/06/archives/peking-claims-disputed-oilrich-isles.html?sq=1972+senkaku&scp=2&st=p |date=23 July 2018 }} The New York Times. 6 December 1970. Japan points out that the islands were placed under the administration of the United States of America as part of the Ryukyu Islands, in accordance with Article III of the said treaty and China expressed no objection to the status of the Islands being under the administration of the United States under Article III of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. The Japanese government points out that "the Treaty of Shimonoseki does not clearly define the geographical limits of the island of Formosa and the islands appertaining or belonging to Formosa ceded to Japan by the Qing Dynasty of China, nothing in the negotiation history (or otherwise) supports the interpretation that the Senkaku Islands are included in the island of Formosa and the islands appertaining or belonging to it in Article 2b of the Treaty," and had "incorporated the Senkaku Islands into Okinawa Prefecture before the treaty was signed."

In 1972, the United States ended its occupation of Okinawa and the Ryukyu Island chain, which included the Senkaku Islands.Durdins, Tillman. [https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/15/archives/okinawa-islands-returned-by-us-to-japanese-rule-agnew-in-tokyo.html?sq=May+15%2C+1972+okinawa&scp=3&st=p "Okinawa Islands Returned by U.S. to Japanese Rule; Agnew, in Tokyo, Declares 'Last Major Issue' of the Pacific War Is Resolved U.S. Returns Okinawa to Japanese Rule,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180723034719/https://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/15/archives/okinawa-islands-returned-by-us-to-japanese-rule-agnew-in-tokyo.html?sq=May+15%2C+1972+okinawa&scp=3&st=p |date=23 July 2018 }} The New York Times. 15 May 1972. See also, [https://books.google.com/books?id=ChGQAAAAMAAJ&dq=Reversion+to+Japan+of+the+Ryukyu+and+Daito+Islands&pg=PA449 Reversion to Japan of the Ryukyu and Daito Islands, official text] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151118082025/https://books.google.com/books?id=ChGQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA449&lpg=PA449&dq=Reversion+to+Japan+of+the+Ryukyu+and+Daito+Islands&source=bl&ots=CgYLSIR4-E&sig=sbw8qhGget4RBCqyWWKhZNtMb6Q&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Reversion%20to%20Japan%20of%20the%20Ryukyu%20and%20Daito%20Islands&f=false |date=18 November 2015 }} Although the United States transferred administration of the islands to Japan as part of Okinawa, it did not take a position on the question of who their sovereign was.{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back : transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=105 |oclc=1331741429 |access-date=6 January 2023 |archive-date=6 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306101710/https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |url-status=live }}

Korean academic Lee Seokwoo notes:

{{Blockquote|text=The significance of subsequent acts and behaviour of the interested parties is dependent upon the determination of the applicable critical date, which is defined as 'the date by reference to which a territorial dispute must be deemed to have crystallized,' since the outcome of this dispute will be fundamentally different depending on whether the critical date is January 1895, as claimed by Chinese side, when Japan incorporated Senkaku Islands into Japanese territory, or February 1971 in the case of Taiwan, or December 1971 in the case of China, when Japan made known its official standpoint with the signing of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty, as claimed by Japan.{{Cite book | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA10 | title = Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands (Boundary & Territory Briefing Vol.3 No.7) | isbn = 9781897643501 | first1 = Lee | last1 = Seokwoo | page = 10 | year = 2002 | access-date = 15 November 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151106000542/https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA10 | archive-date = 6 November 2015 | url-status = live }}{{parabr}}Accordingly, and having regard to the various factual and legal issues explored above, one is inclined to conclude that Japan has a stronger claim to the disputed islands. In other words, the critical date in this case should be February 1971 (in the case of Taiwan) and December 1971 (in the case of China), as claimed by Japan. This is the more so that historical evidence relating to territorial disputes does not have its own value as history alone, but should be evaluated within the framework of international law on territorial acquisition and loss.{{cite book|title=Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands|journal=Boundary & Territory Briefing|volume=3|issue=7|first=Seokwoo |last=Lee|publisher=IBRU|isbn=978-1897643501|page=30|year=2002}}}}

{{Quote box|quote ="I didn't care about the Senkaku Islands, but on the oil question, historians made it an issue." |author= Zhou Enlai|source=in a meeting with Yoshikatsu Takeiri on 28 July 1972{{cite web |last1=Kraska |first1=James |title=Japan's Legal Response in the Gray Zone |url=https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/japans-legal-response-in-the-gray-zone/ |website=thediplomat.com |publisher=The Diplomat |access-date=6 August 2020 |archive-date=7 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807184042/https://thediplomat.com/2020/08/japans-legal-response-in-the-gray-zone/ |url-status=live }} }}

Prior to the 1970s, neither the China nor Taiwan government made any official statements claiming sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands or disputing the sovereignty claims of other countries over it. Several maps, newspaper articles, and government documents from both countries after 1945 refer to the islands by their Japanese name, and some even explicitly recognize their status as Japanese territory. It was only the early 1970s that Chinese documents began to name them collectively as the Diaoyu Islands and as Chinese territory.

The People's Daily, the organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), referred to the Senkaku Islands by the Japanese name "Senkaku Shotō" and described the islands were a part of (then) U.S.-occupied Ryukyu Islands. The article published on 8 January 1953 titled "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation"琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 wrote "The Ryukyu Islands lie scattered on the sea between the Northeast of Taiwan of China and the Southwest of Kyushu, Japan. They consist of 7 groups of islands; the Senkaku Islands, the Sakishima Islands, the Daitō Islands, the Okinawa Islands, the Oshima Islands, the Tokara Islands and the Ōsumi Islands."[http://www.ps.emb-japan.go.jp/NewslettersEng/RepresentativeNewsletterEn2.pdf Representative Office of Japan to PNA, Newsletter #2, November 2010; see Item 3] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110722105142/http://www.ps.emb-japan.go.jp/NewslettersEng/RepresentativeNewsletterEn2.pdf |date=22 July 2011 }}; "... an article in the People's Daily dated January 8, 1953, under the title of "Battle of people in the Ryukyu Islands against the U.S. occupation", made clear that the Ryukyu Islands consist of 7 groups of islands including the Senkaku Islands"; accord [http://www.israel.emb-japan.go.jp/eojprofiles/AmbNewsletter2_Oct2010.pdf Embassy of Japan in Israel, Newsletter #2, October 2010 see Item 4] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110112111530/http://www.israel.emb-japan.go.jp/EOJPRofiles/AmbNewsletter2_Oct2010.pdf |date=12 January 2011 }}.{{cite news|url=http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201009220480.html |work=Asahi shimbun |location=Japan |title=Why Japan claims the Senkaku Islands |date=25 September 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100929190448/http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201009220480.html |archive-date=29 September 2010 }}; "In his book "Gendai Chugoku Nenpyo" (Timeline on modern China), Masashi Ando referred to a People's Daily article dated 8 January 1953, which makes reference to the "Senkaku Islands in Okinawa".{{cite book|title=Gendai Chūgoku nenpyō, 1941–2008.|trans-title=Modern Chinese Chronological Table 1941-2008|first=Masashi|last=Ando|publisher=Iwanami shoten |isbn= 978-4-00-022778-0|year=2010|language=ja|page=88 |quote=「人民日報」が米軍軍政下の沖縄の尖閣諸島(当時の中国の呼び方のまま. 現在中国は「釣魚島」という)で日本人民の米軍の軍事演習に反対する闘争が行われていると報道. 「琉球諸島はわが国台湾の東北および日本九州島の西南の間の海上に散在し、尖閣諸島、先島諸島、大東諸島、沖縄諸島、大島諸島、吐噶喇諸島、大隅諸島など7つの島嶼からなっている」と紹介(新華月報：1953-7)}}; [https://translate.google.com/translate_t?q=%E8%98%BF%E8%94%94%E9%A0%AD&hl=en&num=100&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wT#ja%7cen%7c%E3%80%8C%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E6%97%A5%E5%A0%B1%E3%80%8D%E3%81%8C%E7%B1%B3%E8%BB%8D%E8%BB%8D%E6%94%BF%E4%B8%8B%E3%81%AE%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%96%E9%96%A3%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%EF%BC%88%E5%BD%93%E6%99%82%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%AE%E5%91%BC%E3%81%B3%E6%96%B9%E3%81%AE%E3%81%BE%E3%81%BE.%20%E7%8F%BE%E5%9C%A8%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%AF%E3%80%8C%E9%87%A3%E9%AD%9A%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86%EF%BC%89%E3%81%A7%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E3%81%AE%E7%B1%B3%E8%BB%8D%E3%81%AE%E8%BB%8D%E4%BA%8B%E6%BC%94%E7%BF%92%E3%81%AB%E5%8F%8D%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E9%97%98%E4%BA%89%E3%81%8C%E8%A1%8C%E3%82%8F%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93.%20%E3%80%8C%E7%90%89%E7%90%83%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AF%E3%82%8F%E3%81%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E3%81%AE%E6%9D%B1%E5%8C%97%E3%81%8A%E3%82%88%E3%81%B3%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%B9%9D%E5%B7%9E%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AE%E8%A5%BF%E5%8D%97%E3%81%AE%E9%96%93%E3%81%AE%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E3%81%AB%E6%95%A3%E5%9C%A8%E3%81%97%E3%80%81%E5%B0%96%E9%96%A3%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%85%88%E5%B3%B6%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E6%9D%B1%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E5%B3%B6%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%90%90%E5%99%B6%E5%96%87%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E9%9A%85%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AA%E3%81%A97%E3%81%A4%E3%81%AE%E5%B3%B6%E5%B6%BC%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E7%B4%B9%E4%BB%8B%EF%BC%88%E6%96%B0%E8%8F%AF%E6%9C%88%E5%A0%B1%EF%BC%9A1953-7 read Google Chinese-English translation] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110628225310/http://translate.google.com/translate_t?q=%E8%98%BF%E8%94%94%E9%A0%AD&hl=en&num=100&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wT#ja%7cen%7c%E3%80%8C%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E6%97%A5%E5%A0%B1%E3%80%8D%E3%81%8C%E7%B1%B3%E8%BB%8D%E8%BB%8D%E6%94%BF%E4%B8%8B%E3%81%AE%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E3%81%AE%E5%B0%96%E9%96%A3%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%EF%BC%88%E5%BD%93%E6%99%82%E3%81%AE%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%AE%E5%91%BC%E3%81%B3%E6%96%B9%E3%81%AE%E3%81%BE%E3%81%BE.%20%E7%8F%BE%E5%9C%A8%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E3%81%AF%E3%80%8C%E9%87%A3%E9%AD%9A%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E3%81%84%E3%81%86%EF%BC%89%E3%81%A7%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E3%81%AE%E7%B1%B3%E8%BB%8D%E3%81%AE%E8%BB%8D%E4%BA%8B%E6%BC%94%E7%BF%92%E3%81%AB%E5%8F%8D%E5%AF%BE%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E9%97%98%E4%BA%89%E3%81%8C%E8%A1%8C%E3%82%8F%E3%82%8C%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%81%A8%E5%A0%B1%E9%81%93.%20%E3%80%8C%E7%90%89%E7%90%83%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AF%E3%82%8F%E3%81%8C%E5%9B%BD%E5%8F%B0%E6%B9%BE%E3%81%AE%E6%9D%B1%E5%8C%97%E3%81%8A%E3%82%88%E3%81%B3%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E4%B9%9D%E5%B7%9E%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AE%E8%A5%BF%E5%8D%97%E3%81%AE%E9%96%93%E3%81%AE%E6%B5%B7%E4%B8%8A%E3%81%AB%E6%95%A3%E5%9C%A8%E3%81%97%E3%80%81%E5%B0%96%E9%96%A3%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%85%88%E5%B3%B6%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E6%9D%B1%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E6%B2%96%E7%B8%84%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E5%B3%B6%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%90%90%E5%99%B6%E5%96%87%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%80%81%E5%A4%A7%E9%9A%85%E8%AB%B8%E5%B3%B6%E3%81%AA%E3%81%A97%E3%81%A4%E3%81%AE%E5%B3%B6%E5%B6%BC%E3%81%8B%E3%82%89%E3%81%AA%E3%81%A3%E3%81%A6%E3%81%84%E3%82%8B%E3%80%8D%E3%81%A8%E7%B4%B9%E4%BB%8B%EF%BC%88%E6%96%B0%E8%8F%AF%E6%9C%88%E5%A0%B1%EF%BC%9A1953-7 |date=28 June 2011 }}{{cite web |url=http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100929a5.html |title=Maehara: People's Daily described Senkaku Islands as Japan's in 1953 |date=29 September 2010 |work=Japan Times |quote=The People's Daily described the Ryukyu Islands as "dispersed between the northeastern part of our country's Taiwan and the southwestern part of Japan's Kyushu Island" and as including the Senkaku Islands as well as the Sakishima Islands, Maehara said. |access-date=3 February 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101006052951/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100929a5.html |archive-date=6 October 2010 |url-status=live }}

A Chinese diplomatic draft written by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of PRC on 15 May 1950 referred to the Senkaku Islands by the Japanese names "Senkaku shotō" and "Sentō Shosho" and indicated Chinese recognition of the islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands. The 10-page document titled "Draft outline on issues and arguments on parts concerning territories in the peace treaty with Japan"对日和约中关于领土部份问题与主张提纲草案 says the Ryukyus "consist of three parts—northern, central, and southern. The central part comprises the Okinawa Islands, whereas the southern part comprises the Miyako Islands and the Yaeyama Islands (Sentō Shosho)."北中南三部　中部是沖縄諸島(...)　南部是宮古群島和八重山群島(尖頭諸嶼) The parentheses appear in the original. It also says "It should be studied whether the Senkaku Islands should be incorporated into Taiwan due to an extremely close distance,"东經123° – 125° 北纬25° 30' – 26° 間之尖閣諸島及东經124° – 125° 北纬25° 30' – 26° 間之赤尾嶼亦是台灣甚近是非應划入台灣亦須研究 suggesting that the Chinese government did not consider the islands to be part of Taiwan. The passages leave no doubt that Beijing regarded the Senkaku Islands as part of the Ryukyu Islands as of 1950.{{cite web|url=http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/202008.html|date=28 December 2012|title=1950 Chinese diplomatic draft sees Senkakus as part of Ryukyus|agency=Kyodo News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231164913/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/12/202008.html|url-status=live|archive-date=31 December 2012}}{{cite web|url=http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201212280079|title=As far back as 1950, China referred to Senkakus as part of Ryukyus|date=28 December 2012|work=The Asahi Shimbun|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231201637/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201212280079|url-status=dead|archive-date=31 December 2012}}

There are many official maps published by both Chinas after 1945 that support they did not recognize their sovereignty over the islands and they recognized the islands as Japanese territory. The PRC has been cracking down on "erroneous" maps in both print and digital forms, and government agencies have handled 1,800 cases involving map irregularities and confiscated 750,000 maps since 2005. The National Administration of Surveying, Mapping and Geoinformation said "as China is involved in several disputes with neighboring countries, it is vital to raise public awareness of the country's due territory."{{cite web|title=China cracks down on erroneous maps|date=9 January 2013|url=http://www.china.org.cn/china/2013-01/09/content_27638274.htm|publisher=Xinhua China.org.cn|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130109191316/http://china.org.cn/china/2013-01/09/content_27638274.htm|url-status=live|archive-date=9 January 2013}}

File:PRCmap-senkakuislands.jpg states that this is a classified PRC government map from 1969 and that it lists the Senkaku islands as Japanese name "Senkaku Guntō".{{cite web |title=China-Japan tensions |url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-ring-145889960/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100918113100/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/15/inside-the-ring-145889960/ |archive-date=18 September 2010 |access-date=18 September 2010 |work=The Washington Times}}{{Better source needed|reason=Wikipedia consensus is Washington Times is only marginally reliable on politics. Can we find something better (WP:RSP).|date=January 2023}}]]

:*An atlas made by the Chinese State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping (中国国家测绘总局) in 1969 apparently referred to the overall group of islands by the Japanese name "Senkaku Guntō" (尖閣群島). The name of Uotsuri Island, the westernmost island in the group, was written in the Japanese name "Uotsuri-shima" (魚釣島).{{cite web |title=1969 Chinese atlas used 'Senkaku Islands' |date=16 March 2015 |work=The Yomiuri Shimbun |url=http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002008996|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150317140807/http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0002008996 |archive-date=17 March 2015 |access-date=12 July 2015}}

:*From 1946 to 1971, the Taiwan Statistical Abstract published by the Taiwanese Provincial Government stated "the easternmost point of Taiwan is Mianhua Islet and the northernmost point is Pengjia Islet", excluding the Senkaku islands. In 1972, immediately after the Executive Yuan of the ROC announced that the islands belonged to Yilan County of Taiwan Province in December 1971, the description was revised and the points were extended to the Senkaku Islands: "the easternmost point of Taiwan is Taishō-jima and the northernmost point is Kuba-jima."{{cite journal|journal=Asian Affairs: An American Review|volume=39|issue=2|year= 2012|title=The Diaoyutai Islands on Taiwan's Official Maps: Pre- and Post-1971|doi=10.1080/00927678.2012.678122|first1=Ko-Hua |last1=Yap|first2= Yu-Wen |last2=Chen |first3= Ching-Chi |last3=Huang|pages= 90–105|s2cid=153801454}}

:*The Grand Atlas of the World Vol. 1 (世界地圖集第一冊 東亞諸國) published in October 1965 by the National Defense Research Academy (國防研究院) and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan records the Diaoyu Islands with Japanese names: Uotsuri-shima (Diaoyu Islands), Taishojima (Chiwei Island), and Senkaku Gunto in the "Map of the Ryukyu Islands". Taiwan and the Senkaku Gunto were clearly divided by a national border. The revised version in 1971, "Senkaku Gunto" was changed to the "Tiaoyutai Islets". Furthermore, the national border was relocated to an area between the Daioyutai Islands and the Ryukyu Islands. However, in the English index, the name "Senkaku Gunto" remained unrevised.{{cite book |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=vDpEiKR2osoC&pg=PA126 |page= 126 |title= Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations: Irredentism and the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands |first= Unryu |last= Suganuma |publisher= University of Hawaii Press |year= 2001 |isbn= 978-0-8248-2493-8 |quote= Furthermore, the first volume of Shijie Dituji (The World Atlas), published by the Taiwan Defense Ministry and the Institute of Physical Geology in 1965, records the Diaoyu Islands with Japanese names: Gyochojima (Diaoyu Islands), Taishojima (Chiwei Island), and Senkaku Gunto. In addition, a high school textbook in Taiwan uses Japanese name to identify Diaoyu Islands. In the late 1970s, the government of ROC began to recall these books, but it was too little too late – the damage was already done. |access-date= 23 May 2020 |archive-date= 27 August 2024 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240827202408/https://books.google.com/books?id=vDpEiKR2osoC&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status= live }}Lee, {{google books|MZGsi1ptLvoC|p. 11.|page=11}}; excerpt: "Further support for Japan's claim is the fact that" in the World Atlas, Volume 1, East Asia Nations, 1st edition, published in October 1965, by the National Defense Research Academy and the China Geological Research Institute of Taiwan, and in the People's Middle School Text-book.

:*The National Atlas of China Vol. 1 published by the National War College of Taiwan did not include Diaoyutai Islands in the map of "Taipei and Keelung" in the first (1959), second (1963), or even third (1967) editions. However the fourth edition (1972) included an extra map of the "Taio Yu Tai Islets" as part of the Taiwan's territory in the upper left corner of the map of "Taipei and Keelung".

File:Atlas 1960 Senkaku.jpg

:*A world atlas published in November 1958, by the Map Publishing Company of Beijing, treats the Senkaku Islands as a Japanese territory and described them in Japanese name Senkaku Guntō (Senkaku Islands) and Uotsuri-Jima,Lee, {{google books|MZGsi1ptLvoC|p. 11.|page=11}}

:*In the 1970 junior high school geography textbook published by the National Institute for Compilation and Translation of Taiwan, the Diaoyutai Islands were named Senkaku Gunto in the "Physical Map of the Ryukyu Islands". Senkaku Gunto and the Ryukyu Islands were clearly not included in the Taiwan's territory by the national border on the map. However, in the 1971 edition, Senkaku Gunto was renamed Diaoyutai Islands, and the Taiwan national border was redrawn so that the Diaoyutai Islands were included.「国民中学地理教科書・第四冊(Geography textbook for national junior high schools)」January 1970

File:1786年中国往琉球海路图2.jpg (三国通覧図説) by Hayashi Shihei adopted the Chinese kanji (釣魚臺 Diaoyutai) to annotate the Senkaku Islands, which were painted red in the same color as all other lands that it did not rule.Title: Sangoku tsūran zusetsu.三國通覧圖說. Sŏul : Kyŏngin Munhwasa, 1982.Hayashi, Shihei, 1738–1793.Reprint.Preface by Katsuragawa Hoshū dated Tenmei kinotouma [sic]; introd. by Hayashi Shihei, the author, dated Tenmei 5 [1785]. The primary text itself can be found here.[http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/ru03/ru03_01547/index.html] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100920184851/http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/ru03/ru03_01547/index.html|date=20 September 2010}} 三国通覧図説 (Sangoku Tsuran Zusetsu), 林子平(Hayashi Shihei)]]

Although Chinese authorities did not assert claims to the islands while they were under US administration, formal claims were announced in 1971 when the US was preparing to end its administration.Han-yi Shaw, [http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/ "The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120921031428/http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/the-inconvenient-truth-behind-the-diaoyusenkaku-islands/ |date=21 September 2012 }} The New York Times 19 September 2012 A 1968 academic survey undertaken by United Nations Economic Council for Asia and the Far East found possible oil reserves in the area, which many believe explains the emergence of Chinese claims,{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA10|title=Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands (Boundary & Territory Briefing Vol.3 No.7)|first=Seokwoo|last=Lee|publisher=IBRU|isbn=978-1897643501|pages=10–11|quote="For a long time following the entry into force of the San Francisco Peace Treaty China/Taiwan raised no objection to the fact that the Senkaku Islands were included in the area placed under US administration in accordance with the provisions of Article of the treaty, and USCAP No. 27. In fact, neither China nor Taiwan had taken up the question of sovereignty over the islands until the latter half of 1970 when evidence relating to the existence of oil resources deposited in the East China Sea surfaced. All this clearly indicates that China/Taiwan had not regarded the Senkaku Islands as a part of Taiwan. Thus, for Japan, none of the alleged historical, geographical and geological arguments set forth by China/Taiwan are acceptable as valid under international law to substantiate China's territorial claim over the Senkaku Islands."|year=2002|access-date=15 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151106000542/https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA10|archive-date=6 November 2015|url-status=live}} a suggestion confirmed by statements made on the diplomatic records of the Japan-China Summit Meeting by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972.Diplomatic statements at the Japan-China Summit Meeting between Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka and Premier Zhou Enlai on 27 September 1972. Prime Minister Tanaka asked, "What is your view on the Senkaku Islands?" Premier Zhou replied, "It only became an issue because of the oil out there. If there wasn't oil, neither Taiwan nor the United States would make this an issue" However, supporters of China's claim that the sovereignty dispute is a legacy of Japanese imperialism and that China's failure to secure the territory following Japan's military defeat in 1945 was due to the complexities of the Chinese Civil War in which the Kuomintang (KMT) were forced off the mainland to Taiwan in 1949 by the Chinese Communist Party. Both China and Taiwan respectively separately claim sovereignty based on arguments that include the following points:

1. Discovery and early recording in maps and travelogues.[http://gz.fjedu.gov.cn/dili/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=18912 On the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120229055333/http://gz.fjedu.gov.cn/dili/ShowArticle.asp?ArticleID=18912 |date=29 February 2012 }} (论钓鱼岛主权的归属), Fujian Education Department
2. The islands being China's frontier off-shore defence against wokou (Japanese pirates) during the Ming and Qing dynasties (1368–1911).
3. A Chinese map of Asia, as well as the Sangoku Tsūran Zusetsu map compiled by Japanese cartographer Hayashi Shihei"[https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44014900] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190430070530/https://www.worldcat.org/title/sangoku-tsuran-zusetsu/oclc/44014900%26referer%3Dbrief_results|date=30 April 2019}}" in the 18th century, showing the islands as a part of China.
4. Japan taking control of the islands in 1895 at the same time as the First Sino-Japanese War was happening. Furthermore, correspondence between Foreign Minister Inoue and Interior Minister Yamagata in 1885, warned against the erection of national markers and developing their land to avoid Qing Dynasty suspicions.[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-09/10/content_11282795.htm Japan's action off Diaoyu raises concern] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100913052230/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-09/10/content_11282795.htm |date=13 September 2010 }}, China Daily, 10 September 2010{{cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html#qa08|title=Q&A on the Senkaku Islands|work=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan|access-date=30 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031172439/http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html#qa08|archive-date=31 October 2014|url-status=live}}
5. The Potsdam Declaration stating that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshū, Hokkaidō, Kyūshū, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine", and "we" referred to the victors of the Second World War who met at Potsdam and Japan's acceptance of the terms of the Declaration when it surrendered.{{cite web |url=http://japanfocus.org/-koji-taira/2119 |title=Koji Taira |publisher=Japan Focus |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822000515/http://www.japanfocus.org/-Koji-Taira/2119 |archive-date=22 August 2012 |url-status=live }}{{cite web|url=http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html|title=Potsdam Declaration (full text)|access-date=30 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122210220/http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html|archive-date=22 January 2015|url-status=live}}
6. China's formal protest of the 1971 US transfer of control to Japan.People's Daily, Beijing, China, 31 December 1971, Page 1, "An Declaration of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, 1971–12–30"

According to Chinese claims, the islands were known to China since at least 1372,Lee, {{google books|MZGsi1ptLvoC|p. 10.|page=10}} had been repeatedly referred to as part of Chinese territory since 1534, and were later controlled by the Qing dynasty along with Taiwan. The earliest written record of Diaoyutai dates back to 1403 in a Chinese book Voyage with the Tail Wind (:zh:順風相送),Title: Liang zhong hai dao zhen jing / [Xiang Da jiao zhu].Imprint: Beijing : Zhonghua shu ju : Xin hua shu dian Beijing fa xing suo fa xing, 2000 reprint edition. Contents: Shun feng xiang song—Zhi nan zheng fa. (順風相送--指南正法). {{ISBN|7-101-02025-9}}. p96 and [http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04B5B77C.002C p253] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707045318/http://bbs.home.news.cn/upfiles/04B5B77C.002C|date=7 July 2011}}. The full text is available on [http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%A4%E7%A7%8D%E6%B5%B7%E9%81%93%E9%92%88%E7%BB%8F wikisource] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615044828/http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E4%B8%A4%E7%A7%8D%E6%B5%B7%E9%81%93%E9%92%88%E7%BB%8F|date=15 June 2011}}. which recorded the names of the islands that voyagers had passed on a trip from Fujian to the Ryukyu Kingdom.

By 1534, all the major islets of the island group were identified and named in the book Record of the Imperial Envoy's Visit to Ryukyu (使琉球錄). and were the Ming dynasty's (16th-century) sea-defense frontier.[http://english.people.com.cn/200305/25/eng20030525_117192.shtml "China's Diaoyu Islands Sovereignty is Undeniable"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100920032657/http://english.people.com.cn/200305/25/eng20030525_117192.shtml |date=20 September 2010 }}, People's Daily, 25 May 2003. Retrieved 24 February 2007. One of the islands, Chihweiyu, marked the boundary of the Ryukyu Islands. This is viewed by China and Taiwan as meaning that these islands did not belong to the Ryukyu Islands.

File:Qing Dynasty 1820.png in 1820, with provinces in yellow, military governorates and protectorates in light yellow, tributary states in orange.]]

The First Sino-Japanese War broke out in 1894 and after the Qing dynasty of China lost the war, both countries signed the Treaty of Shimonoseki on 17 April 1895. In Article 2(b) the Treaty stated that "the island of Formosa, together with all islands appertaining or belonging to the said island of Formosa" should be ceded to Japan.{{cite news |author=[ Displaying Abstract ] |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F4091FF83C5811738DDDAD0894D0405B8585F0D3 |title=THE JAPAN-CHINA TREATY – Full Text of the Shimonoseki Peace Convention. HOW THE INDEMNITY IS TO BE PAID Korea's Autonomy Is Assured – Japan Treats China as a Semi-Civilized Nation – The Cession Clause Opposed by Russia. – Article |work=The New York Times |date=10 June 2012 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110172818/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F4091FF83C5811738DDDAD0894D0405B8585F0D3 |archive-date=10 November 2012 |url-status=live }} Although the Treaty did not specifically name every ceded island, the PRC and ROC argue that Japan did not include the islands as part of Okinawa Prefecture prior to 1894, and that the eventual inclusion occurred only as a consequence of China's cession of Taiwan and the Pescadores to Japan after the Sino-Japanese War.

The Japanese government argues that the islands were not ceded by this treaty. In 1884, issues relating to the islands had been officially discussed by the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Inoue Kaoru and the Minister of the Interior Yamagata Aritomo before incorporating them in 1895, shortly before Japan's victory in the Sino-Japanese War. It is also claimed that Japanese references to these islands did not appear in governmental documents before 1884.

The China and Taiwan governments claim that during negotiations with China over the Ryukyu Islands after the First Sino-Japanese War, the islands were not mentioned at all in a partition plan suggested by US ex-President Ulysses S. Grant. The lease of the islands in 1896 and subsequent purchase in 1930 by the Koga family were merely domestic arrangements made by the Japanese government which had no bearing on the legal status of the islands.

According to China, Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek failed to protest American decisions with regard to the disposition of the islands because he depended on the US for support.

In April 2012, Taiwan declined an invitation from China to work together to resolve the territorial dispute with Japan. Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister Lai Shin-yuan said, "The ROC and Mainland China will not deal with the Tiaoyutai Islands disputes together. Mainland China said the two sides should solve these issues together, but that is not the approach we are taking because [Taiwan and Mainland China] already have sovereignty disputes. We insist on our sovereignty."Radio Taiwan International, "Taipei Declines Beijing's Invitation To Solve Disputed Territory Issues Together", 26 April 2012, [wire service report].

Regarding Japan's argument about the 1953 People's Daily, Jin Canrong, a professor at Renmin University of China thinks that the article, which is anonymous, implies that Ryukyu Islands should be a sovereign state, also independent from Japan.{{cite web|url=http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/special/diaoyudaozhengduan/content-3/detail_2012_10/06/18067214_0.shtml|title=日本外务省称人民日报曾承认钓鱼岛属冲绳一部分_资讯频道_凤凰网|access-date=30 October 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141031022559/http://news.ifeng.com/mainland/special/diaoyudaozhengduan/content-3/detail_2012_10/06/18067214_0.shtml|archive-date=31 October 2014|url-status=live}} Other Chinese commentators, including a government research institution run by a retired People's Armed Police general,{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/world/asia/china-warns-japan-over-island-dispute.html|title=More Protests in China Over Japan and Islands|last=Johnson|first=Ian|date=18 September 2012|work=The New York Times|access-date=8 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121008122819/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/world/asia/china-warns-japan-over-island-dispute.html|archive-date=8 October 2012|url-status=live}} extend the Chinese claim to the entire Ryukyu chain, including Okinawa.{{cite news|url=https://vancouversun.com/business/China+movable+boundaries+amorphous+empire/7215119/story.html|title=China and the movable boundaries of an amorphous empire|last=Manthorpe|first=Jonathan|date=9 September 2012|work=The Vancouver Sun|access-date=7 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120918041608/http://www.vancouversun.com/business/China+movable+boundaries+amorphous+empire/7215119/story.html|archive-date=18 September 2012|url-status=live}} In June 2013, The New York Times described the Chinese campaign "to question Japanese rule of [Okinawa and the Ryukyu] islands" as "semiofficial", noting that "almost all the voices in China pressing the Okinawa issue are affiliated in some way with the government."Jane Perlez, [https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/asia/sentiment-builds-in-china-to-press-claim-for-okinawa.html Sentiment Builds in China to Press Claim for Okinawa] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170127200355/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/asia/sentiment-builds-in-china-to-press-claim-for-okinawa.html |date=27 January 2017 }} The New York Times 13 June 2013

The stance given by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that the Senkaku Islands are clearly an inherent territory of Japan in light of historical facts and based upon international law, and the Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of Japan. They also state "there exists no issue of territorial sovereignty to be resolved concerning the Senkaku Islands."{{cite news|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE68N09H20100925|title= Japan refuses China demand for apology in boat row|publisher=Reuter|date= 25 September 2010|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100928022824/http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE68N09H20100925|url-status=dead|archive-date= 28 September 2010}}

The following points are given:

1. The islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China prior to 1895.{{cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html|title=The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands|website=www.mofa.go.jp|access-date=10 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100930044112/http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html|archive-date=30 September 2010|url-status=live}}
2. The islands were neither part of Taiwan nor part of the Pescadores Islands, which were ceded to Japan by the Qing Dynasty of China in Article II of the May 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki, thus were not later renounced by Japan under Article II of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.Satoru Sato, Press Secretary, Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704129204575505141368553952 Letter to the Editor: Clarifying the Senkaku Islands Dispute] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171114181634/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704129204575505141368553952 |date=14 November 2017 }} The Wall Street Journal, 21 September 2010
3. A resident of Okinawa Prefecture who had been engaging in activities such as fishery around the Senkaku Islands since around 1884 made an application for the lease of the islands, and approval was granted by the Meiji Government in 1896. After this approval, he sent a total of 248 workers to those islands and ran the following businesses: constructing piers,{{cite video| title=Akira Ikegami Special なぜ日中は対立するのか？ 映像で見えてきた尖閣問題|language=ja}} collecting bird feathers, manufacturing dried bonito, collecting coral, raising cattle, manufacturing canned goods and collecting mineral phosphate guano (bird manure for fuel use). The fact that the Meiji Government gave approval concerning the use of the Senkaku Islands to an individual, who in turn was able to openly run these businesses mentioned above based on the approval, demonstrates Japan's valid control over the Islands.{{cite web | url=http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/34418/7/61504107.pdf | script-title=zh:日本的東海政策 — 第四章：釣魚臺政策 | access-date=30 October 2013 | language=zh | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101020732/http://nccuir.lib.nccu.edu.tw/bitstream/140.119/34418/7/61504107.pdf | archive-date=1 November 2013 | url-status=dead }}
4. Though the islands were controlled by the United States as an occupying power between 1945 and 1972, Japan has since 1972 exercised administration over the islands.
5. Japanese allege that Taiwan and China only started claiming ownership of the islands in 1971, following a May 1969 United Nations report that a large oil and gas reserve may exist under the seabed near the islands.{{cite news|first = Masami|last = Ito|url = http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120518f1.html|title = Jurisdiction over remote Senkakus comes with hot-button dangers|date = 18 May 2012|newspaper = Japan Times|access-date = 17 May 2012|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120519185138/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120518f1.html|archive-date = 19 May 2012|url-status = live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html|title=The Basic View on the Sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan|access-date=10 October 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100930044112/http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html|archive-date=30 September 2010|url-status=live}}

:* The examples of Japanese valid control after the reversion to Japan of the administrative rights over Okinawa including the Senkaku Islands are as follows:

::# Patrol and law enforcement. (e.g. law enforcement on illegal fishing by foreign fishing boats)

::# Levying taxes on the owners of the Islands under private ownership. (in Kuba Island.)

::# Management as state-owned land (in Taisho Island, Uotsuri Island, etc.)

::# As for Kuba Island and Taisho Island, the Government of Japan has offered them to the United States since 1972 as facilities/districts in Japan under the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.

::# Researches by the Central Government and the Government of Okinawa Prefecture (e.g. Utilization and development research by Okinawa Development Agency (construction of temporary heliport, etc.) (1979), Fishery research by the Okinawa Prefecture (1981), Research on albatrosses commissioned by the Environment Agency (1994).).

After the Meiji Restoration, the Japanese government surveyed the islands in 1885, which found that the islands were terra nullius and that there was no evidence to suggest that they had ever been under Chinese control. At the time of this survey, however, Yamagata Aritomo, the minister of interior of the Meiji government, took a cautious approach and put off the request to incorporate the islands. The Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895, to erect markers on the islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan through the surveys conducted by the Government of Japan, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been not only uninhabited but also showed no trace of having been under the control of the Qing Dynasty of China.{{cite web | title=沖縄県下八重山群島ノ北西ニ位スル久場島魚釣島ヘ標杭ヲ建設ス | url=http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?IS_STYLE=default&ID=M2006090417540525073 | publisher=Japan Center for Asian Historical Records | access-date=4 October 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927111459/http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?IS_STYLE=default&ID=M2006090417540525073 | archive-date=27 September 2011 | url-status=live }}

Japan claims that neither China nor Ryukyu had recognized sovereignty over the uninhabited islands. Therefore, they claim that Chinese documents only prove that Kumejima, the first inhabited island reached by the Chinese, belonged to Okinawa. Kentaro Serita (芹田 健太郎) of Kobe University points out that the official history book of the Ming Dynasty compiled during the Qing Dynasty, called the History of Ming (明史), describes Taiwan in its "Biographies of Foreign Countries" (外国列传) section. Thus, China did not control the Senkaku Islands or Taiwan during the Ming Dynasty.{{cite web|url=http://akebonokikaku.hp.infoseek.co.jp/page092.html |title=島の領有と経済水域の境界確定 |publisher=Akebonokikaku.hp.infoseek.co.jp |date=1 January 2000 |access-date=20 August 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101010165613/http://akebonokikaku.hp.infoseek.co.jp/page092.html |archive-date=10 October 2010 }}{{Unreliable source?|date=October 2010}}

A record in August 1617 of Ming Shilu, the annals of Ming dynasty emperors, shows that China did not control the Senkaku Islands. According to the record, the head of the Chinese coast guard海道副使　[Haidao fu shi] mentioned the names of islands, including one on the eastern edge of the Dongyin, Lienchiang, about 40 kilometers off the Chinese mainland, that was controlled by the Ming皆是我関閩門 and said the ocean beyond the islands was free for China and any other nation to navigate.此外溟渤華夷所共 The Senkaku Islands are about 330 kilometers from the Chinese coast. This contradicts Beijing's claim that China have controlled Senkaku Islands since the Ming dynasty about 600 years ago and underlines Japan's position that they are an inherent part of this country's territory. An expert in international law, says "We know the Ming had effective control only of the coastal area from other historical sources. What is remarkable about this finding is that a Chinese official made a clear statement along these lines to a Japanese envoy. This proves the Senkaku Islands were not controlled by the Ming."{{cite web|title=Chinese document contradicts Beijing's claim to Senkakus|url=http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T130122003523.htm|work=The Yomiuri Shimbun|date=23 January 2013|access-date=5 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130126095855/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T130122003523.htm|archive-date=26 January 2013|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}{{cite web|script-title=ja:尖閣、４００年前は支配外…明王朝公式日誌に|trans-title=The annals of Ming Dynasty says China didn't control the Senkaku 400 years ago|date=21 January 2013|work=The Yomiuri Shimbun|url=http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20130121-OYT1T00687.htm|language=ja|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://archive.today/20130205202721/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20130121-OYT1T00687.htm|archive-date=5 February 2013|df=dmy-all}}

After ratifying UNCLOS in June 1996, Japan began asserting an exclusive economic zone around the islands in July 1996.{{Rp|page=260}}

In 2005, Japan passed its first parliamentary resolution on the islands and asserted its claim of territorial sovereignty over them.{{Rp|page=262}}

During a private visit 9 years after stepping down from office, former President of Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui, once said that the islands are part of Okinawa.{{cite web |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/09/05/2003452834 |title=Lee Teng-hui arrives in Japan |access-date=22 September 2009 |date=5 September 2009 |work=The Taipei Times |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090909221614/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2009/09/05/2003452834 |archive-date=9 September 2009 |url-status=live }} During the 2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations, on 13 September 2012, Lee remarked, "The Senkaku Islands, no matter whether in the past, for now or in the future, certainly belong to Japan."{{cite news|last1=Tiezzi|first1=Shannon|title=Taiwan's Former President Causes Controversy in Japan|url=https://thediplomat.com/2015/07/taiwans-former-president-causes-controversy-in-japan/|access-date=31 July 2015|work=The Diplomat|date=30 July 2015|archive-date=1 August 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150801011109/http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/taiwans-former-president-causes-controversy-in-japan/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Lee Teng-hui: Diaoyutais have always been Japan's|url=http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120914000015&cid=1101|archive-url=https://archive.today/20150706052236/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120914000015&cid=1101|url-status=dead|archive-date=6 July 2015|access-date=31 July 2015|work=Want China Times|date=14 September 2012}} In 2002, he also stated, "The Senkaku Islands are the territory of Japan."{{cite web | title=Press Conference 27 September 2002 | date=24 August 2012 | access-date=4 October 2012 | url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/2002/9/0927.html | publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan | archive-date=21 January 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121014653/http://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/press/2002/9/0927.html | url-status=live }}

On 25 December 1953, U.S. Civil Administration of the Ryukyus Proclamation 27 (USCAR 27) set geographical boundaries of the Ryukyu Islands that included the Senkaku Islands.{{Cite web|date=25 December 1953|url=http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/caproc27.html|title=CIVIL ADMINISTRATION PROCLAMATION NO. 27 GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE RYUKYU ISLANDS|publisher=the ryukyu-okinawa history and culture website|access-date=23 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214045108/http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/caproc27.html|archive-date=14 December 2013|url-status=live}} Moreover, during U.S. administration of the islands, the U.S. Navy built firing ranges on them and paid annual rent of $11,000 to Jinji Koga, son of the first Japanese settler of the islands.

During the San Francisco Peace Treaty discussions, John Foster Dulles, chief U.S. delegate to the peace conference, set forth the concept that Japan had "residual sovereignty" over the Ryukyu Islands. According to an official analysis prepared by the U.S. Army, "residual Sovereignty" meant that "the United States will not transfer its sovereign powers over the Ryukyu Islands to any nation other than Japan." In June 1957, President Eisenhower confirmed this at the U.S.-Japan summit meeting, telling Japanese Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi that "residual sovereignty" over the Ryukyus meant that "the United States would exercise its rights for a period and that the sovereignty would then return to Japan." In March 1962, President John F. Kennedy stated in an Executive Order for the Ryukyus, "I recognize the Ryukyus to be a part of the Japanese homeland and look forward to the day when the security interests of the Free World will permit their restoration to full Japanese sovereignty." Since there was no U.S. action to separate the Senkaku Islands from the Ryukyu, these applications of "residual sovereignty" appeared to include the Senkaku Islands.{{cite web|url=http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=446508|title=China's Maritime Territorial Claims: Implications for U.S. Interests|date=12 November 2001|publisher=Congressional Research Service|first1=Kerry|last1=Dumbaugh|display-authors=etal|access-date=9 October 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717035422/http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=446508|archive-date=17 July 2015|url-status=live}}

In the first quarter of 1971 U.S. officials became aware of and successfully opposed a Japanese proposal to set up a weather station on the islands.[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/05/national/u-s-killed-71-plan-for-senkaku-islands-weather-station/ U.S. killed '71 plan for Senkaku Islands weather station] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131005004524/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/05/national/u-s-killed-71-plan-for-senkaku-islands-weather-station/ |date=5 October 2013 }} Kyodo News 5 September 2013

In May 1971, a report compiled by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency said "[t]he Japanese claim to sovereignty over the Senkakus is strong, and the burden of proof of ownership would seem to fall on the Chinese". The CIA also said in related documents that any dispute between Japan, China, and Taiwan over the islands would not have arisen, had it not been for the discovery around 1968 of potential oil reserves on the nearby continental shelf.{{cite web|url=http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012100200485|title=Japan's Claim over Senkaku Islands Strong: 1971 CIA Report|date=2 October 2012|publisher=Jiji Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150620054909/http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012100200485|archive-date=20 June 2015|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}

On 7 June 1971, President Richard M. Nixon confirmed Japan's "residual sovereignty" over the Senkaku Islands just before a deal to return Okinawa Prefecture to Japan in a conversation with his national security adviser Henry Kissinger. Kissinger also told Nixon that "these [Senkaku] islands stayed with Okinawa" when Japan returned Taiwan to China after the end of World War II in 1945.{{cite web|url=http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012100300631|title=U.S. Confirmed Japan's "Residual" Senkaku Sovereignty in 1971|date=3 October 2012|publisher=Jiji Press|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131112153019/http://jen.jiji.com/jc/eng?g=eco&k=2012100300631|archive-date=12 November 2013|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}

The Nixon Administration removed the Senkakus from its inclusion in the concept of Japanese "residual sovereignty" in presenting the Okinawa Reversion Treaty to the U.S. Senate for ratification. On 20 October 1971, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers sent a letter to U.S Congress. In his letter, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser Robert Starr stated "The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants{{nbsp}}... The United States has made no claim to the Senkaku Islands and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned."{{cite web|url=https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198821.pdf|title=We're sorry, that page can't be found.|date=2017-02-06|website=fpc.state.gov|access-date=25 June 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427204034/https://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/198821.pdf|archive-date=27 April 2017|url-status=live}} Several experts have attributed this Nixon Administration policy shift as having been influenced by White House overtures to China during 1971–1972, culminating in the Nixon visit to China.

In April 1978, Japan asked the United States to side with the Japanese view, but the United States declining because "it could become embroiled in a Sino-Japanese territorial dispute."

In June 1978, the United States Navy stopped using the Sekibi-Sho firing range off the coast of Taisho Island to avoid any potential confrontation between China and Japan, according to declassified government documents. The next year the federal government denied a military request to resume operations in the Senkakus.{{cite news |title=U.S. ceased using Senkakus firing range in 1978 to avoid riling China |url=https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/04/57606c2b9e0c-us-ceased-using-senkakus-firing-range-in-1978-to-avoid-riling-china.html |access-date=6 April 2021 |agency=Kyodo News |date=April 5, 2021 |archive-date=5 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210405175117/https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2021/04/57606c2b9e0c-us-ceased-using-senkakus-firing-range-in-1978-to-avoid-riling-china.html |url-status=live }}

Top US government officials have declared in 2004, 2010, and September 2012 that as Japan maintains effective administrative control on the islands, the islands fall under the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan which requires the US to assist Japan in defending the islands if anyone, including China, attacks or attempts to occupy or control them.{{cite news|first=Eckert|last=Paul|title=Treaty With Japan Covers Islets in China Spat: U.S. Official|work=Reuters|date=20 September 2012|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-japan-usa-idUSBRE88J1HJ20120920|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120921041335/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/20/us-china-japan-usa-idUSBRE88J1HJ20120920 |url-status=live|archive-date=21 September 2012}}

On 29 November 2012, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved an amendment to National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 stating the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands fall under the scope of a Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and that the U.S. would defend Japan in the event of armed attacks.{{cite web|url=http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/11/196783.html|title=U.S. Senate reaffirms defense of Senkakus under Japan-U.S. pact|date=30 November 2012|agency=Kyodo News|access-date=15 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121204173753/http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2012/11/196783.html|archive-date=4 December 2012|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310eas.pdf#page=753|title=H.R. 4310: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, SEC. 1251. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE SITUATION IN THE SENKAKU ISLANDS.|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|access-date=15 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717035340/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310eas/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310eas.pdf#page=753|archive-date=17 July 2015|url-status=live}}

In 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the United States does not take a position on the sovereignty of the islands, but that it recognizes they are under Japanese administration and opposes any unilateral efforts that would undermine Japanese administration of the islands.{{Cite book |last=Li |first=Xiaobing |title=The Cold War in East Asia |date=2018 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-138-65179-1 |location=Abingdon, Oxon}}{{Rp|page=201}}

In May 2013, the U.S. Department of Defense criticized the Chinese territorial claim in a report titled "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2013."{{cite web|title=Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China 2013|publisher=Office of the Secretary of Defense|url=http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf|page=12|access-date=9 May 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150113120816/http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_china_report_final.pdf|archive-date=13 January 2015|url-status=live}}

{{blockquote|text=In September 2012, China began using improperly drawn straight baseline claims around the Senkaku Islands, adding to its network of maritime claims inconsistent with international law.}}

{{blockquote|text=In December 2012, China submitted information to the U.N. Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf regarding China's extended continental shelf in the East China Sea that includes the disputed islands.}}

On 30 July 2013, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution condemning China's action over the Senkaku Islands. The Resolution titled "Senate Resolution 167—Reaffirming the Strong Support of the United States for the Peaceful Resolution of Territorial, Sovereignty, and Jurisdictional Disputes in the Asia-Pacific Maritime Domains", referring to the recent Chinese provocations near the Senkaku Islands, condemns "the use of coercion, threats, or force by naval, maritime security, or fishing vessels and military or civilian aircraft in the South China Sea and the East China Sea to assert disputed maritime or territorial claims or alter the status quo."{{cite web |title=US senators blast China's use of force in sea disputes |first=Jojo |last=Malig |publisher=ABS-CBNnews.com |date= 13 June 2013 |url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/global-filipino/world/06/12/13/us-senators-blast-chinas-use-force-sea-disputes|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131223928/http://news.abs-cbn.com/global-filipino/world/06/12/13/us-senators-blast-chinas-use-force-sea-disputes|url-status=live |archive-date=31 January 2016}}{{cite web |title=Senate Resolution 167-Reaffirming the strong support of the United States for the peaceful resolution of territorial, sovereignty, and jurisdictional disputes in the Asia-Pacific maritime domains |date=10 June 2013 |url=http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/06/10/senate-section/article/S4062-2 |publisher=Congress.Gov |access-date=20 June 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103005101/http://beta.congress.gov/congressional-record/2013/06/10/senate-section/article/s4062-2/ |archive-date=3 November 2013 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=US Senate okays reso on South China Sea disputes |publisher=ABS-CBNnews.com |date=31 July 2013 |url=http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/31/13/us-senate-okays-reso-vs-chinas-use-force |access-date=31 July 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130802161024/http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/31/13/us-senate-okays-reso-vs-chinas-use-force |archive-date=2 August 2013 |url-status=live }}

In 2014, United States Pacific Commander Samuel J. Locklear said that he did not have sufficient resources to carry out a successful amphibious warfare campaign should the dispute lead to a war.{{cite web |url=http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140327000128&cid=1101&MainCatID=0 |title=US needs more amphibious lift in Pacific: commander |date=27 March 2014 |website=Want China Times |access-date=27 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717031626/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140327000128&cid=1101&MainCatID=0 |archive-date=17 July 2015 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }} In April 2014, the United States will begin Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk patrols of the seas around the islands.{{cite web |url=http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140405/NEWS08/304050029 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20140405173338/http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140405/NEWS08/304050029 |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 April 2014 |title=Hagel: U.S. strongly committed to protecting Japan |last1=Baldor |first1=Lolita C. |date=5 April 2014 |publisher=armytimes.com |agency=Associated Press |access-date=5 April 2014 }}

On 23–25 April 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama made a state visit to Japan and held a summit meeting with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. President Obama repeated that the commitments of Article 5 of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan covered all territories under Japan's administration, including the Senkaku Islands, in a joint press conference and reiterated in a U.S.-Japan Joint Statement.{{Cite web|url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/24/joint-press-conference-president-obama-and-prime-minister-abe-japan|title=Joint Press Conference with President Obama and Prime Minister Abe of Japan|access-date=8 May 2014|date=24 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170125194744/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/24/joint-press-conference-president-obama-and-prime-minister-abe-japan|archive-date=25 January 2017|via=National Archives|work=whitehouse.gov|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|url=http://www.mofa.go.jp/na/na1/us/page24e_000045.html|title=U.S.-Japan Joint Statement:The United States and Japan: Shaping the Future of the Asia-Pacific and Beyond|access-date=8 May 2014|date=25 April 2014|publisher=Ministry of Foreign Affairs|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140502111345/http://www.mofa.go.jp/na/na1/us/page24e_000045.html|archive-date=2 May 2014|url-status=live}} Barack Obama is the first president of the United States to have mentioned that the Senkaku Islands are covered under Article 5 of Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan.{{cite news |title=米大統領「尖閣に安保適用」 |trans-title=U.S. president said "Anpo [the US-Japan security treaty] applied to Senkaku".|newspaper=Yomiuri Shimbun 23 April 2014 Ver.13S Page 1|location=Tokyo}}

In November 2020, during a conversation with Prime Minister Suga, Joe Biden declared that US security guarantees for Japan include the Senkaku Islands. Suga said "President-elect Biden gave me a commitment that Article 5 of the US-Japan security treaty applies to the Senkaku Islands".{{cite web |website=Financial Times |title=Biden says US-Japan defence treaty applies to disputed Senkaku Islands |date=11 November 2020 |url=https://www.ft.com/content/3aec3bbd-a86d-4eef-9cf4-4b5e8f190013 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20201112081655/https://www.ft.com/content/3aec3bbd-a86d-4eef-9cf4-4b5e8f190013 |archive-date=12 November 2020}}

On 24 January 2021, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin reaffirmed America's commitment to defend the Senkaku Islands and that it's covered by Article 5 of the U.S.-Japan security treaty. The USA also opposes any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the East China Sea.{{cite web |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-defence/u-s-reaffirms-commitment-to-japan-to-defending-islands-disputed-with-china-idUSKBN29T07U |title=U.S. reaffirms commitment to Japan to defending islands disputed with China |date=24 January 2021 |publisher=Reuters.com |work=Reuters |access-date=25 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210124163644/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-usa-defence/u-s-reaffirms-commitment-to-japan-to-defending-islands-disputed-with-china-idUSKBN29T07U |archive-date=24 January 2021}}

When China-Japan diplomatic relations were established in 1972, {{citation needed span|both nations|date=October 2019|reason=Japan specifically disputes that they 'shelved' anything. See [https://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/pdfs/senkaku_pamphlet.pdf] page 9, unfounded claim #5 which reads, "It is nonsense that, based on Chinese unilateral argument, there exists an issue on the territorial sovereignty, and Japan agreed to" shelve" such an issue." Therefore, specific credible evidence of 'shelving' from the Japanese side would be needed here.}} found reasons to set aside this territorial dispute.Miles, Edward L. (1982). {{Google books|f0i1RO3fdMoC|The Management of Marine Regions: the North Pacific|page=217}} According to negotiator Deng Xiaoping, "It does not matter if this question is shelved for some time, say, 10 years. Our generation is not wise enough to find common language on this question. Our next generation will certainly be wiser. They will certainly find a solution acceptable to all."MIT faculty web page, [http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/T.Fravel.html M. Taylor Fravel, "Publications"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100115102830/http://web.mit.edu/polisci/faculty/T.Fravel.html |date=15 January 2010 }}: [http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/Triangle/7_fravel.pdf "Explaining Stability in the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands Dispute," pp. 145–167, 157] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726202210/http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/Triangle/7_fravel.pdf |date=26 July 2011 }} in Gerald Curtis et al. (2010). Getting the Triangle Straight: Managing China-Japan-US Relations; compare [http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64184/64185/66612/4488778.html 这个问题可以把它放一下，也许下一代比我们更聪明些，会找到实际解决的方法] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120914030317/http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/64184/64185/66612/4488778.html |date=14 September 2012 }} in 邓小平文选第三卷 (Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume III)

In 1969, the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) identified potential oil and gas reserves in the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands. During subsequent decades, several rounds of bilateral talks considered joint-development of sub-seabed resources in disputed territorial waters. Such efforts to develop a cooperative strategy were unsuccessful.Pan, Junwu. {{Google books|5_1y5fLm5eUC|Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. p. 144.|page=144}}

In 2008, a preliminary agreement on joint development of resources was reached but the agreement only includes the area far from these islands.[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68J0NX20100920?pageNumber=2 "Q&A: China, Japan and the East China Sea gas dispute,"] Reuters, 20 May 2010; citing U.S. Energy Information Administration report, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html China] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110222211939/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/Background.html |date=22 February 2011 }}+[http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=CH China Energy Profile] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101218225106/http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=CH |date=18 December 2010 }}; compare Selig S. Harrison ed., [http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Asia_petroleum.pdf "Seabed Petroleum in Northeast Asia,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613072719/http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Asia_petroleum.pdf |date=13 June 2010 }} Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In 2009, a hotline was agreed to (and in 2010 a military-to-military hotline), neither of which have been implemented.{{cite news |author=Agence France-Presse in Tokyo |url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1146826/japan-suggests-hotline-beijing-over-island-spat |title=Japan suggests hotline to Beijing over island spat |work=South China Morning Post |date=2 September 2013 |access-date=16 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190407003645/https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1146826/japan-suggests-hotline-beijing-over-island-spat |archive-date=7 April 2019 |url-status=live }}

Explanations of the manifold causes of the intensified conflict involving the Senkaku Islands vary.Yamada, Takao. "Keeping the big picture in sight in Senkaku Islands dispute," Mainichi Shimbun (Tokyo). 4 October 2010, citing 1972 book by Kiyoshi Inoue, [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/044016263 釣魚列島的歷史和主權問題] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141116112757/http://www.worldcat.org/title/diaoyu-dao-li-shi-yu-zhu-quan/oclc/044016263 |date=16 November 2014 }} (Diaoyu dao: li shi yu zhu quan, Historical Facts of Senkaku Islands/Diaoyu Islands, 1972){{cite news |url=http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5077&Itemid=189 |title=Could the Senkaku/Daoyus Drag Asia into a War? |publisher=Asia Sentinel |date=3 January 2013 |access-date=16 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130402173453/http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5077&Itemid=189 |archive-date=2 April 2013 |url-status=dead }} For example, some use the term "territorial dispute"; however, the Japanese government has consistently rejected this framing since the early 1970s.[http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/renho-refers-to-senkakus-as-territorial-issue-but-later-retracts-remark "Renho refers to Senkakus as territorial issue, but later retracts remark,"]{{dead link|date=August 2012 }} Japan Today. 15 September 2010; Fackler, Martin and Ian Johnson. [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/asia/20chinajapan.html "Arrest in Disputed Seas Riles China and Japan,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219213113/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/asia/20chinajapan.html |date=19 December 2016 }} The New York Times. 19 September 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2011 An analysis of incidents and issues require distinguishing between disputes which are primarily over territory and those which merely have a territorial component.Koo, Min-gyo. (2010). {{Google books|8Ac9hLAES18C|Island Disputes and Maritime Regime Building in East Asia, p. 2.|page=2}}; [http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100923004355.htm "Japan's Senkaku Islands—what's all the fuss about?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119021508/http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T100923004355.htm |date=19 January 2012 }} Yomiuri Shimbun. 10 September 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2011

{{blockquote|The real importance of the islands lies in the ... implications for the wider context of the two countries' approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. – Zhongqi Pan.[http://www.cewp.fudan.edu.cn/attachments/article/68/Pan%20Zhongqi,%20Sino-Japanese%20Dispute%20over%20the%20DiaoyuSenkaku%20Islands%20The%20Pending%20Controversy.pdf Microsoft Word – 5 Sino-Japanese_Dispute_Pan_Zhongqi.doc] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120323063108/http://www.cewp.fudan.edu.cn/attachments/article/68/Pan%20Zhongqi,%20Sino-Japanese%20Dispute%20over%20the%20DiaoyuSenkaku%20Islands%20The%20Pending%20Controversy.pdf |date=23 March 2012 }}. (PDF).Pan, Zhongqi. "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007. Retrieved 29 May 2011{{better source needed|date=August 2012}}}}

{{as of|2011}}, news organizations of various nations were monitoring developments and attempting to explain the causes of the crisis,Chellaney, Brahma. [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6569541.cms "India-China: Let facts speak for themselves,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617113129/http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6569541.cms |date=17 June 2011 }} The Economic Times (Mumbai). 17 September 2010; "Mismatched intentions end up intensifying Japan-China row over islands," Asahi Shimbun (Japan). 22 September 2009. Retrieved 29 May 2011 e.g.,

• Senkakus described as a proxy. According to China Daily, the Senkaku Islands are a disruptive mine planted by the United States into Sino-Japanese relations.Feng Zhaoku. [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/thinktank/2010-09/15/content_11303758.htm "Diaoyu dispute sowed by US,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110121183343/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/thinktank/2010-09/15/content_11303758.htm |date=21 January 2011 }} China Daily (Beijing). 15 September 2010; Tow, William T. (2001). {{Google books|u_yzShzLvPcC|Asia-Pacific strategic relations: seeking convergent security, p. 68.|page=68}}. Retrieved 29 May 2011
• Senkakus characterized as a pretext. According to the New York Times, some analysts frame all discussion about the islands' status within a broader pattern of Chinese territorial assertions.Fackler, Martin and Ian Johnson. [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/asia/20chinajapan.html "Arrest in Disputed Seas Riles China and Japan,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219213113/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/world/asia/20chinajapan.html |date=19 December 2016 }} The New York Times. 19 September 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2011
• Senkakus identified as a tactic. According to the Christian Science Monitor, the early phase of the dispute may have represented a tactical distraction from China's internal power struggle over who would replace the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012.[http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0921/Fisherman-s-arrest-in-Asia-China-and-Japan-must-not-trawl-for-trouble "Fisherman's arrest in Asia: China and Japan must not trawl for trouble,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110122162911/http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0921/Fisherman-s-arrest-in-Asia-China-and-Japan-must-not-trawl-for-trouble |date=22 January 2011 }} The Christian Science Monitor (US). 21 September 2010. Retrieved 29 May 2011
• Senkakus characterized as a lack of firm foreign policy-making control and of dysfunctional decision-making. The Economist posits that "Lacking clear direction, [Chinese] bureaucracies may be trying to look tough."{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569757-armed-clashes-over-trivial-specks-east-china-sea-loom-closer-drums-war |title=China and Japan square up: The drums of war |newspaper=The Economist |date=19 January 2013 |access-date=16 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131101223411/http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569757-armed-clashes-over-trivial-specks-east-china-sea-loom-closer-drums-war |archive-date=1 November 2013 |url-status=live }} The Diplomat posits that the PLA may at some level be acting independently of top CPC leadership, and notes more generally that there is a lack of coordination within China's decision-making apparatus.{{cite news |url=https://thediplomat.com/2013/02/08/how-involved-is-xi-jinping-in-the-diaoyu-crisis-3/?all=true |title=How Involved Is Xi Jinping in the Diaoyu Crisis? |publisher=The Diplomat |date=8 February 2013 |access-date=16 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520143036/https://thediplomat.com/2013/02/08/how-involved-is-xi-jinping-in-the-diaoyu-crisis-3/?all=true |archive-date=20 May 2013 |url-status=live }}

The historical record is a backdrop for each new incident in the unfolding chronology of these islands.Lohmeyer, Martin. "The Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Questions of Sovereignty and Suggestions for Resolving the Dispute," University of Canterbury (NZ), 2008, [http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf Contents, pp. 1–8] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110718173058/http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/4085/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf |date=18 July 2011 }}; Koo, {{Google books|8Ac9hLAES18C|pp. 103–134.|page=103}}{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative |title=The Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands: Narrative of an empty space |newspaper=The Economist |date=22 December 2012 |access-date=16 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140226002234/http://www.economist.com/news/christmas/21568696-behind-row-over-bunch-pacific-rocks-lies-sad-magical-history-okinawa-narrative |archive-date=26 February 2014 |url-status=live }}

While Taiwan and China first publicly claimed the islands in 1971 (in February{{cite book|title=Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands|journal=Boundary & Territory Briefing|volume=3|issue=7|first=Seokwoo|last=Lee|publisher=IBRU|isbn=978-1897643501|page=7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA7|quote=23 February 1971 Taiwan made the first public assertion for its own claim to the Senkaku Islands.|year=2002|access-date=23 May 2020|archive-date=27 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240827202333/https://books.google.com/books?id=MZGsi1ptLvoC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false|url-status=live}} and December,{{cite journal|url=http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1972/PR1972-01.pdf|journal=Peking Review|volume=15|issue=1|date=7 January 1972|title=Statement of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of People's Republic of China December 30, 1971|page=12|access-date=10 February 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121028115820/http://www.massline.org/PekingReview/PR1972/PR1972-01.pdf|archive-date=28 October 2012|url-status=live}} respectively), there were no major incidents between the three states regarding the islands until the 1990s. Since 2004, however, several events, including naval encounters, scrambled fighter jets, diplomatic efforts, and massive public protests, have heightened the dispute.

{{See also|China Marine Surveillance#Deployments around Senkaku Islands}}

File:Taiwan and Japan Coast Guard 2012-09-25.jpg vessel and Japan Coast Guard vessel.]]

On 12 April 1978, over 80 Chinese fishing boats came to the waters around the disputed islands and remained there for about a week, raising tensions with Japan a few months before the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and China was concluded.{{Rp|pages=254-255}} As of at least 2024, there is no historical consensus about what prompted this activity due to sparse historical records on the issue.{{Rp|page=255}} Chinese Vice Premier Geng Biao sought to alleviate tensions, stating that the incident was "neither intentional nor deliberate" and that "we should not argue over the island problem, and we should resolve that problem in the future".{{Rp|page=255}} Deng Xiaoping canceled a planned major People's Liberation Army Navy exercise as a further effort to reduce tension.{{Rp|page=255}} Ultimately, Japanese Ambassador Sato Shoji and Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Han Nianlong agreed to avoid discussing the issue again prior to concluding the treaty and the tensions over the incident were defused.{{Rp|page=255}}

On 29 September 1990, Japanese media reported that the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency was preparing to recognize (as an official navigation mark) a lighthouse that a right-wing Japanese group built on the main island of the disputed island group.{{Rp|page=258}} The Taiwan government protested immediately following the reports.{{Rp|page=258}} On 18 October, a PRC spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was asked about the lighthouse at a press conference and stated that it was "a violation of China's sovereignty" and that the Japanese government should "immediately take effective measures to stop the activities of the right-wing group and prevent similar incidents in the future".{{Rp|page=258}} On 21 October, twenty-four activists from Taiwan attempted to place a torch on the island to assert ROC sovereignty and the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency prevented them from doing so.{{Rp|page=258}} On 23 October, Japanese Prime Minister Toshiki Kaifu stated that Japan would take a "cautious attitude" and indicated it would not send military ships to the area.{{Rp|page=259}} On 27 October, PRC Vice Foreign Minister Qi Huaiyuan met with the Japanese Ambassador, reiterated the PRC's position of sovereignty over the islands, and stating that the two countries should shelve the dispute and look for opportunities to jointly develop resources in the area.{{Rp|page=259}} On 30 October, China and Japan stopped disputing the lighthouse issue.{{Rp|page=259}}

Tensions over the disputed islands again increased from June to October 1996.{{Rp|pages=260-261}} In June, Japan ratified UNCLOS and in July it began claiming a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the islands.{{Rp|page=260}} Also in July, a right-wing Japanese organization built a makeshift lighthouse on one of the smaller islands and applied to the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency for the makeshift lighthouse to be accepted as an official navigational aid.{{Rp|page=260}} Concerns on the Chinese side were further heightened following visits by Japanese Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, cabinet members, and more than eighty members of parliament to the Yasukuni Shrine, which honors Japan's war dead including its war criminals from World War II.{{Rp|page=260}} On 18 August, another Japanese group placed a wooden Japanese flag on the main disputed island in the group.{{Rp|page=260}} Ten days later, Japanese Foreign Minister Yukihiko Ikeda stated that the islands "have always been Japan's territory" and "there is no need to explain".{{Rp|page=260}}

The organization which had built the makeshift lighthouse returned on 9 September to repair it.{{Rp|page=260}} China protested to the Japanese government and stated that if the Japanese government continued to tolerate the group's actions, the bilateral relationship would be damaged.{{Rp|page=260}} Tensions began decreasing after a 24 September Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Japanese Foreign Minister Ikeda met and agreed that the Japanese group's actions were harmful and should be permitted.{{Rp|page=260}} Tensions rose two days later, however, when the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency stopped Hong Kong-based activist David Chan Yuk-cheung's boat from landing on the islands, and he drowned while attempting to swim to shore.{{Rp|page=260}} His death prompted major protests in Hong Kong and on Taiwan.{{Rp|page=260}}

On 1 October, Chinese Premier Li Peng stated that "the interruption of and damage to the Sino-Japanese relationship" had been caused by "a tiny handful of right-wing forces and militarists" in Japan.{{Rp|page=260}} Around the same time, Japan denied the Japanese organization's request for the makeshift lighthouse to be recognized as an official navigational aid.{{Rp|page=260}} During a visit to Japan, on 29 October, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan requested that Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Shunji Yanai agreed to shelve the issue and tensions again declined.{{Rp|page=260-261}}

In 2002, Japan's government leased three of the disputes islands from their private owner, stating that doing so would "help prevent the illegal landing of third parties".{{Rp|page=262}} Japanese patrol ships prevented Chinese activists from landing in the islands in June 2003.{{Rp|page=262}} In August, Japanese activists landed on the islands.{{Rp|page=262}} Chinese activists again tried to land on the islands in October, but were prevented by Japanese patrols.{{Rp|page=262}} In March 2004, Chinese activists landed but were arrested by Japanese authorities.{{Rp|page=262}} This prompted protests in China, and on the third day of their detention, Japan released the Chinese activists, citing a desire not to hurt the bilateral relationship.{{Rp|page=262}}

Since 2006, vessels from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong have entered waters that Japan claims as part of its exclusive economic zone connected with the islands on a number of occasions. In some cases, the incursions have been carried out by Chinese and Taiwanese protesters, such as in 2006 when a group of activists from the Action Committee for Defending the Diaoyu Islands approached the islands; the group was stopped by the Japanese Coast Guard prior to landing.Associated Press, 26 October 2006 [http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/27/asia/AS_GEN_Japan_China_Disputed_Islands.php "Activist ship from Hong Kong briefly enters Japan's waters in protest over islands"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724150619/http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/27/asia/AS_GEN_Japan_China_Disputed_Islands.php |date=24 July 2008 }}. International Herald Tribune. In June 2008 activists from Taiwan, accompanied by Chinese Coast Guard vessels, approached within {{convert|0.4|nmi|m}} of the main island, from which position they circumnavigated the island in an assertion of sovereignty of the islands.{{cite news |title=Officials drop plan to visit Diaoyutais |author=Shih Hsiu-Chuan |author2=Flora Wang |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/06/18/2003415043 |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=18 June 2008 |access-date=5 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081008013648/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/06/18/2003415043 |archive-date=8 October 2008 |url-status=live }} In 2011, a fishing boat carrying some activists navigated to within 23 nautical miles of the islands. Japan sent coast guard vessels to block the ship and a helicopter to monitor its actions, subsequent to which the Coast Guard Agency Keelung office of Taiwan sent five patrol vessels. After a short standoff between the two groups of vessels, the Taiwanese fleet returned to their own territory.{{cite news|title=Taiwan fishing boat repelled by Japanese ships near Diaoyutai|url=http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20110630000117|newspaper=Want China Times|date=30 June 2011|agency=China Times News Group|location=Taiwan|access-date=22 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120314232810/http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20110630000117|archive-date=14 March 2012|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}{{cite news|last=Blanchard|first=Ben|title=China lambastes Japan after Taiwan boat confrontation|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/china-japan-taiwan-idUKL3E7HT20T20110629|date=29 June 2011|author2=Yoko Kubota|author3=Yoko Nishikawa|work=Reuters|location=UK|access-date=22 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121018144738/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/china-japan-taiwan-idUKL3E7HT20T20110629|archive-date=18 October 2012|url-status=dead}} In July 2012, Coastguard vessels from Taiwan and Japan collided while the Taiwanese vessel was escorting activists to the area.{{cite news |title=Taiwan, Japan coastguards collide near islands |agency=Agence France-Presse |url=http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1211616/1/.html |newspaper=Channel New Asia |publisher=MediaCorp Pte Ltd. |date=4 July 2012 |access-date=1 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120706232209/http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1211616/1/.html |archive-date=6 July 2012 |url-status=live }} In August 2012, activists from Hong Kong were able to swim ashore after their boat was stopped by the Japan Coast Guard. The activists were detained and then deported two days later.{{cite web |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/why-japan-south-korea-and-china-are-so-riled-up-over-a-few-tiny-islands/261224/ |title=Why Japan, South Korea, and China Are So Riled Up Over a Few Tiny Islands |date=16 August 2012 |work=The Atlantic |archive-date=18 August 2012 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6A1M6jeDR?url=http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/why-japan-south-korea-and-china-are-so-riled-up-over-a-few-tiny-islands/261224/ |author=Sheila A. Smith |access-date=18 August 2012}}
{{cite news |url=http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/asia/world_asia_japan-china-island-dispute_1_uninhabited-islands-chinese-nationals-diaoyu-islands |title=Japan deporting Chinese held over island landing |first=Elizabeth |last=Yuan |date=17 August 2012 |publisher=CNN |archive-date=18 August 2012 |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6A1MGMdue?url=http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-17/asia/world_asia_japan-china-island-dispute_1_uninhabited-islands-chinese-nationals-diaoyu-islands |access-date=18 August 2012}} In January 2013, a boat carrying activists from Taiwan was intercepted by Japanese patrols and diverted from an attempted landing on the islands through the use of water cannons.{{cite news|last=Yunbi|first=Zhang|title=Senior officials urge calm over islands dispute|url=http://africa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-01/25/content_16172578.htm|access-date=24 January 2013|newspaper=China Daily|date=24 January 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130129043752/http://africa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2013-01/25/content_16172578.htm|archive-date=29 January 2013|url-status=live}}
{{cite web|title=Taiwan boat leaves islands after Japan water cannon duel|url=http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZZN7BUoMwUTskTMODUzbyO/Taiwan-boat-leaves-islands-after-Japan-water-cannon-duel.html|work=Live Mint|access-date=24 January 2013|date=2013-01-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150508235926/http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ZZN7BUoMwUTskTMODUzbyO/Taiwan-boat-leaves-islands-after-Japan-water-cannon-duel.html|archive-date=8 May 2015|url-status=live}}

In addition, a number of incidents have occurred due to the presence of Chinese or Taiwanese fishing vessels in sea zones claimed by Japan. In some cases, these incidents have resulted in a collision between boats. The first major event occurred in 2008, when a Taiwanese fishing boat and a Japanese patrol vessel collided. The passengers were released, but the captain was detained for three days.{{cite web |url=http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national%20news/2008/06/11/160421/Taiwan-fishing.htm |title=Taiwan fishing boat sunk by Japanese frigate |work=China Post |date=11 June 2008 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120924083610/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national%20news/2008/06/11/160421/Taiwan-fishing.htm |archive-date=24 September 2012 |url-status=live }}
{{cite news |url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKPEK35756320080612 |title=Taiwan protests as Japan holds fishing boat captain |work=Reuters |date=12 June 2008 |access-date=20 August 2012 |first=Ralph |last=Jennings |archive-date=28 July 2012 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120728185916/http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKPEK35756320080612 |url-status=dead }}
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_7450000/newsid_7452300/7452336.stm 台強硬施壓　日釋放"聯合號"船長] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131124024214/http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_7450000/newsid_7452300/7452336.stm |date=24 November 2013 }} ("Strong pressure on Taiwan, the release of Captain"), BBC Chinese (UK). 13 June 2008. Later in June, after releasing video taken by the Taiwanese boat, Japan apologized for the incident[http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_7460000/newsid_7466500/7466561.stm 日方向"聯合號"船長道歉] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131124024316/http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_7460000/newsid_7466500/7466561.stm |date=24 November 2013 }} ("Captain's Apology"). BBC Chinese (UK). 20 June 2008. and agreed to pay NT$10 million (US$311,000) as compensation to the owner of the boat.Takahashi, Kosuke. [http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LJ05Dh01.html "China signals V for Victory,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://archive.today/20101031211613/http://atimes.com/atimes/Japan/LJ05Dh01.html |date=31 October 2010 }} Asia Times Online. 5 October 2008. On 7 September 2010, a Chinese fishing trawler collided with two Japanese Coast Guard patrol boats in disputed waters near the islands. The collisions occurred after the Japanese Coast Guard ordered the trawler to leave the area. After the collisions, Japanese sailors boarded the Chinese vessel and arrested the captain Zhan Qixiong.{{Cite news |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gfux6suEvEhsCmNJgxMYAYK68ZIQ |title=High-seas collisions trigger Japan-China spat |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=7 September 2010 |access-date=12 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140131052313/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gfux6suEvEhsCmNJgxMYAYK68ZIQ |archive-date=31 January 2014 |url-status=dead }}{{cite web |title=Rare Earths: The Hidden Cost to Their Magic", Distillations Podcast and transcript, Episode 242 |url=https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/rare-earths-the-hidden-cost-to-their-magic |website=Science History Institute |date=25 June 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190803101711/https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/podcast/rare-earths-the-hidden-cost-to-their-magic |archive-date=3 August 2019 |url-status=live }} Japan held the captain until 24 September.{{cite news |first=Roland |last=Buerk |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11403241 |title=Japan to free Chinese boat captain |publisher=BBC |date=24 September 2010 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110918145847/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11403241 |archive-date=18 September 2011 |url-status=live }} Each country blamed the other for the collision. Japan sought to address the collision through its courts in violation of the Sino-Japanese Fisheries Agreement, which specifies that the area around the contested islands are treated as the high seas subject to flag state jurisdiction. China demanded Zhao's immediate and unconditional release, and Japan sought to save face by releasing him if he would pay a fine for the collision.{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back : transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=105–106 |oclc=1331741429 |access-date=6 January 2023 |archive-date=6 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306101710/https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |url-status=live }} Because that would have meant Japan retained jurisdiction, China refused.{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back : transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=106 |oclc=1331741429 |access-date=6 January 2023 |archive-date=6 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306101710/https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |url-status=live }} When China arrested four Japanese nationals on allegations of videotaping military targets, Japan released Zhan.

While Japanese government vessels regularly patrol the ocean surrounding the islands, Japanese civilians have also entered the area. In July 2010, nine Japanese boats fished in the area. A spokesman from Ganbare Nippon, which owned one of the vessels, stated it was done specifically to assert Japanese sovereignty over the islands.{{cite news|last=Blanchard|first=Ben|title=China presses Japan over sea row as Tokyo voices concern|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/china-japan-idUKL3E7I40YO20110704|date=4 July 2011|author2=Yoko Kubota|author3=Yoko Nishikawa|work=Reuters|location=UK|access-date=22 July 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717050843/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/china-japan-idUKL3E7I40YO20110704|archive-date=17 July 2015|url-status=dead}} In August 2012, Ganbare Nippon organized a group of four vessels carrying Japanese activists travelling to the islands,{{cite web |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/08/2012818133556135779.html |title=Japanese activists arrive at disputed islands – Asia-Pacific |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=4 October 2011 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120820000004/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/08/2012818133556135779.html |archive-date=20 August 2012 |url-status=live }} carrying about 150 Japanese activists.{{cite news | url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19303931 | title=Japan activists land on disputed islands amid China row | work=BBC News | date=19 August 2012 | access-date=19 August 2012 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120818042944/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19303931 | archive-date=18 August 2012 | url-status=live }} The Japanese government denied the groups the right to land, after which a number swam to shore and raised a Japanese flag.{{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19303931 |title=Japan boats reach disputed islands amid China row |date=18 August 2012 |work=BBC News |archive-date=18 August 2012 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120818042944/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19303931 |access-date=18 August 2012 }}
Bouthier, Antoine, "[https://archive.today/20130218134806/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120820a3.html Nationalists exult in Senkaku isle landing]", Japan Times, 20 August 2012, p. 2

On some occasions, ships and planes from various Chinese and Taiwanese government and military agencies have entered the disputed area. In addition to the cases where they escorted fishing and activist vessels as described above, there have been other incursions. In an eight-month period in 2012, over forty maritime incursions and 160 aerial incursions occurred.{{cite news |title=Japan Will Have Busy Year Defending Islands Against China |author=Richard D. Fisher Jr. |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_02_25_2013_p15-544303.xml |newspaper=Aviation Week |date=25 February 2013 |access-date=5 March 2013 |quote=Between March and November, 47 Chinese ship incursions were recorded. From April to December, the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) scrambled fighters 160 times in response to Chinese aircraft in the East China Sea, up from 156 in 2011. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104125823/http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_02_25_2013_p15-544303.xml |archive-date=4 November 2013 |df=dmy-all }} For example, in July 2012, three Chinese patrol vessels entered the disputed waters around the islands.{{cite news| url= http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/RestOfAsia/Chinese-ships-near-disputed-islands-Japan/Article1-886758.aspx| title= Chinese ships near disputed islands: Japan| date= 11 July 2012| url-status= dead| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20131111021822/http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/RestOfAsia/Chinese-ships-near-disputed-islands-Japan/Article1-886758.aspx| archive-date= 11 November 2013| df= dmy-all}} On 13 December 2012, a Chinese government aircraft entered Japanese-controlled airspace for the first time since records began in 1958,{{cite news |title=Back to the future |url=https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569046-shinzo-abes-appointment-scarily-right-wing-cabinet-bodes-ill-region-back-future |newspaper=The Economist |date=5 January 2013 |access-date=5 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216195240/http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569046-shinzo-abes-appointment-scarily-right-wing-cabinet-bodes-ill-region-back-future |archive-date=16 February 2013 |url-status=live }} following months of incursions by Chinese surface vessels.{{cite news |title=Japan protests Chinese plane entering their airspace |author=Julian Ryall |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9741746/Japan-protests-Chinese-plane-entering-their-airspace.html |newspaper=The Telegraph |date=13 December 2012 |access-date=5 March 2013 |location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121217220430/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9741746/Japan-protests-Chinese-plane-entering-their-airspace.html |archive-date=17 December 2012 |url-status=live }} The Japan Air Self-Defense Force scrambled eight F-15 fighters and an airborne early warning aircraft in response to the Chinese flight. The Japanese government made a formal diplomatic protest to China.{{cite web|url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/20989c44-44f7-11e2-838f-00144feabdc0.html|title=China flies aircraft over disputed islands|date=13 December 2012|work=Financial Times|access-date=14 December 2012|archive-date=27 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240827202335/https://www.ft.com/content/20989c44-44f7-11e2-838f-00144feabdc0|url-status=live}}

The most direct confrontation to date between the countries' official vessels occurred in September 2012. Seventy five Taiwanese fishing vessels were escorted by ten Taiwanese Coast Guard vessels to the area, and the Taiwanese Coast Guard ships clashed with Japanese Coast Guard ships. Both sides fired water cannons at each other and used LED lights and loudspeakers to announce their respective claims to the islands.{{cite news |title=Local, Japan vessels clash off Diaoyutais |author=Enru Lin |url=http://chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/09/26/355552/Local-Japan.htm |newspaper=China Post |date=26 September 2012 |access-date=5 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150620160935/http://chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/09/26/355552/Local-Japan.htm |archive-date=20 June 2015 |url-status=dead }}
{{cite news |title=Taiwan, Japan in high-seas standoff |agency=Central News Agency |url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/09/26/2003543677 |newspaper=Taipei Times |date=26 September 2012 |access-date=5 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130323145956/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2012/09/26/2003543677 |archive-date=23 March 2013 |url-status=live }}

Military escalation continued in 2013. The two sides sent fighter airplanes to monitor ships and other planes in the area.{{cite news |title=China 'launches fighter jets' amid Japan dispute |agency=Agence France-Presse |url=https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1DRFaYWeo1rNNsDqxhFFg23Q3JQ?docId=CNG.88b43ed87f5f35ef5a8340ffa9439648.531 |date=11 January 2013 |access-date=25 January 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115043743/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h1DRFaYWeo1rNNsDqxhFFg23Q3JQ?docId=CNG.88b43ed87f5f35ef5a8340ffa9439648.531 |archive-date=15 January 2013 |url-status=dead }} In February, Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera revealed that a Chinese frigate had locked weapons-targeting radar onto a Japanese destroyer and helicopter on two occasions in January.{{cite web | title =Japan Protests Chinese Ship's Alleged Use of Radar to Guide Missiles | author =Steve Herman | date =5 February 2013 | url =https://www.voanews.com/a/chinese-warship-locked-prefiring-radar-on-japanese-navy-tokyo/1597325.html | publisher =Voice of America | access-date =6 February 2013 | archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20130207120727/http://www.voanews.com/content/chinese-warship-locked-prefiring-radar-on-japanese-navy-tokyo/1597325.html | archive-date =7 February 2013 | url-status =live }}
{{cite news |title=Japan Accuses China of Using Weapons Radar on Ship |author=Mari Yamaguchi |url=http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_ASIA_DISPUTED_ISLANDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-05-09-22-53 |agency=Associated Press |date=5 February 2013 |access-date=7 February 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130208012003/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_ASIA_DISPUTED_ISLANDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-02-05-09-22-53 |archive-date=8 February 2013 |df=dmy-all }} The Chinese Jiangwei II class frigate and the Japanese destroyer were three kilometers apart, and the crew of the latter went to battle stations.{{cite news |title=Stopping short of war |author=Eric S Margolis |url=https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Feb-2013/stopping-short-of-war |newspaper=The Nation |publisher=Nawaiwaqt Group of Newspapers |date=11 February 2013 |access-date=4 March 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215141510/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/11-Feb-2013/stopping-short-of-war |archive-date=15 February 2013 |df=dmy-all }} The Chinese state media responded that their frigates had been engaged in routine training at the time.{{cite news |title=China refutes Japan's allegations on radar targeting |author=Bi Mingxin |url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/08/c_132160506.htm |agency=Xinhua News Agency |publisher=Xinhua Network Corporation Limited |date=8 February 2013 |access-date=4 March 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130211070028/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/08/c_132160506.htm |archive-date=11 February 2013 |df=dmy-all }}
{{cite news |title=China Denies Directing Radar at Japanese Naval Vessel and Copter |author=Chris Buckley |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/asia/china-denies-directing-radar-at-japanese-military.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=8 February 2013 |access-date=4 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130301083449/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/world/asia/china-denies-directing-radar-at-japanese-military.html |archive-date=1 March 2013 |url-status=live }} In May 2013, a warship flotilla from North Sea Fleet deployed from Qingdao for training exercises western North Pacific Ocean.{{cite news|work=South China Morning Post|title=PLA Navy's three fleets meet in South China Sea for rare show of force|date=24 June 2013|access-date=16 July 2011|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1246897/pla-navys-three-fleets-meet-south-china-sea-rare-show-force|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130527152544/http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1246897/pla-navys-three-fleets-meet-south-china-sea-rare-show-force|archive-date=27 May 2013|url-status=live}} In October 2013 the Chinese Ministry of Defense responded to reports that if Chinese drones entered what Japan considered its territory Japan might shoot them down by declaring that China would consider such an action an "act of war." State-controlled media in China warned that "a war looms following Japan's radical provocation" while expressing confidence that "China's comprehensive military power... is stronger than Japan's."[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8438156.html Tokyo's incitement incurs dangerous cycle] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200937/http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/8438156.html |date=29 October 2013 }} People's Daily 28 October 2013

USN Captain James Fanell has claimed that Mission Action 2013 was a dress rehearsal for a PLA seizure of the islands.{{cite web |url=https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/chinas-military-trains-for-war-against-japan/ |title=China's Military Trains for War Against Japan |last1=Keck |first1=Zachary |date=19 February 2014 |publisher=thediplomat.com |access-date=20 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140220005213/https://thediplomat.com/2014/02/chinas-military-trains-for-war-against-japan/ |archive-date=20 February 2014 |url-status=live }}

In April 2014, a Washington Post blog reported that since October 2013, patrols by the Chinese Coast Guard in the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands have greatly decreased.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/12/chinese-signaling-in-the-east-china-sea/ |title=Chinese signaling in the East China Sea? |last1=Fravel |first1=M. Taylor |last2=Johnston |first2=Alastair Iain |date=13 April 2014 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=13 April 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140412213231/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/12/chinese-signaling-in-the-east-china-sea/ |archive-date=12 April 2014 |url-status=live }}

The Japanese Coast Guard announced in June 2020 that Chinese government ships had been spotted for a record number of consecutive days in the territorial waters of the Senkaku Islands. As of 19 June 2020, the number of consecutive days is 67.{{cite news |title=Tiny East China Sea islands could be the next military flashpoint in Asia |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-hnk-intl/index.html |access-date=30 June 2020 |work=CNN |date=21 June 2020 |archive-date=28 June 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200628032307/https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/20/asia/china-japan-islands-dispute-hnk-intl/index.html |url-status=live }}

On 4 June 2022, Chinese-Russian military activity was spotted in the area of the Senkaku Islands. A Russian frigate sailed inside the “contiguous zone” of the Senkaku Islands for over 1 hour and thereafter a Chinese frigate sailed inside it for 40 minutes. The incursion by a Chinese warship was the fourth time since June 2016.{{cite web |title=Japan sights China, Russia warships near disputed islands |website=Yahoo News, AP |date= July 4, 2022 |url=https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-sights-china-russia-warships-114532592.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220704150753/https://www.yahoo.com/news/japan-sights-china-russia-warships-114532592.html |archive-date=July 4, 2022}}

The Japan Coast Guard reported that Chinese government vessels intruded into Japanese territorial waters near the islands of Minamikojima and Uotsurijima just after 11 AM on 30 March 2023. The vessels stayed for a record 80 hours and 36 minutes.{{cite web |website=NHK |title=China ships stay in Japan territorial waters off Senkakus for over 80 hours |url=https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230403_01/ |date=April 2, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230404144033/https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20230403_01/ |archive-date=April 4, 2023}}

The various governments have lodged protests and criticisms of each other in response to the unfolding situation in and around the islands. For example, the Taiwanese government recalled its highest representative to Japan, who then resigned, in the wake of the 2008 collision.{{cite web |url=http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIop13n4GrM8b9z_DwLEubvoEbvg |title=Japan apologises over Taiwan boat incident |date=20 June 2008 |access-date=20 August 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121006225848/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iIop13n4GrM8b9z_DwLEubvoEbvg |archive-date=6 October 2012 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}{{Cite web |date=2008-06-15 |title=MOFA recalls representative to Japan |url=https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2008/06/15/2003414823 |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=www.taipeitimes.com}} Similarly, the Chinese government protested the 2012 Ganbare Nippon incident.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japanese-activists-land-raise-flag-on-disputed-island-provoking-protest-from-china/2012/08/18/31726b20-e99f-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120819213241/http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japanese-activists-land-raise-flag-on-disputed-island-provoking-protest-from-china/2012/08/18/31726b20-e99f-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html |archive-date=19 August 2012 |title=Japanese activists land, raise flags on disputed island, provoking Chinese protests |date=18 August 2012 |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=18 August 2012 |url-status=dead}} The 2010 collision incident resulted in a significant increase in tensions between the two countries, both during the event as they argued over the release of the fishing boat crew, and after, as both said they would seek compensation from the other for damages.{{cite news|title=China releases 3 Japanese but isle dispute lingers|url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/china-japan-idUKTOE68T04120100930|access-date=12 February 2013|work=Reuters|date=30 September 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150717050812/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/09/30/china-japan-idUKTOE68T04120100930|archive-date=17 July 2015|url-status=dead}}

In 2012, President of Taiwan Ma Ying-Jeou proposed the East China Sea Peace Initiative, which called for the sharing of the region's resources, including the Senkaku Islands, mediated by peaceful negotiations, international law, and international consensus.{{cite web |url=http://www.taiwanembassy.org/SE/ct.asp?xItem=311450&ctNode=11401&mp=172 |title=President Ma's "East China Sea Peace Initiative" - Press Releases - Taipei Mission in Sweden 駐瑞典台北代表團 |access-date=2018-07-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630215732/http://www.taiwanembassy.org/SE/ct.asp?xItem=311450&ctNode=11401&mp=172 |archive-date=2015-06-30 }}

Following the Chinese government's statement in 2024,{{Cite web |last= |first= |date=23 November 2024 |title=China says it will remove buoy set up in Japan's EEZ near Senkakus |url=https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/11/666c6d9a57fe-china-says-it-will-remove-buoy-set-up-in-japans-eez-near-senkakus.html |access-date=12 February 2025 |website=Kyodo News+}} a Chinese buoy was removed from the area, with the Chinese government stating that "the buoy has completed its task".{{Cite web |title=One Chinese buoy no longer in Japan's EEZ near Senkaku Islands |url=https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20250212_07/ |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=NHK WORLD |language=en}}{{Cite web |last= |title=China makes autonomous, technical readjustment to Diaoyu Islands' buoy |url=https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202502/11/WS67ab1afaa310a2ab06eab956.html |access-date=2025-02-12 |website=www.chinadaily.com.cn}}

File:Antijapanese demonstration5.jpg, China on 17 September 2012]]

{{see also|2012 China anti-Japanese demonstrations}}

There have protests in Taiwan, China, Japan, and the United States addressing the disputed islands, often triggered by the specific incidents described above.

The United States proposal in 1971 to transfer the islands to Japan prompted the development of the Baodiao movement.{{Cite book |last=Cheng |first=Wendy |title=Island X: Taiwanese Student Migrants, Campus Spies, and Cold War Activism |date=2023 |publisher=University of Washington Press |isbn=9780295752051 |location=Seattle, WA |jstor=jj.11786279}}{{Rp|page=52}} This movement began among students from Taiwan and Hong Kong studying in the United States, and then spread to Taiwan and Hong Kong.{{Rp|page=52}} Protests directly related to the Baodiao movement ended in 1972.{{Rp|page=52}}

Following the 1990 incident in which the Japanese Maritime Safety Agency intended to recognize as official a lighthouse built by a right-wing Japanese, large protests against Japan resulted in Taiwan and in the United States.{{Rp|pages=|page=259}} Large protests also occurred in Hong Kong and Macau but the PRC government prevented large scale protests in the PRC and censored news reports of protests by overseas Chinese (although British Broadcasting Corporation reports and Voice of America reports meant that the Chinese public continued to be aware of media reports on the issue).{{Rp|page=259}} In Beijing, protestors distributed handbills and put up posters criticizing the Communist Party for being "soft" on Japan.{{Rp|page=259}}

A major set of protests revolved around the 2010 boat collision, with protests being held in Japan, China, and Taiwan. In 2012, major protests began in August 2012 after reports that the Japanese government was considering purchasing the islands. The protests continued after the formal purchase into the middle of September. At the height of the protests, there were demonstrations in as many as 85 Chinese cities,{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228298/chinese-flood-streets-in-anti-japan-demonstrations|title=Second Day of Anti-Japan Protests Rock China|website=NPR|access-date=17 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917021250/http://www.npr.org/2012/09/16/161228298/chinese-flood-streets-in-anti-japan-demonstrations|archive-date=17 September 2012|url-status=live}} along with Hong Kong{{cite web|url=https://www.voanews.com/a/anti-japan-protests-spread-to-hong-kong/1509165.html|title=Anti-Japan Protests Spread to Hong Kong|date=16 September 2012 |access-date=17 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120917212058/http://www.voanews.com/content/anti-japan-protests-spread-to-hong-kong/1509165.html|archive-date=17 September 2012|url-status=live}} and the United States.CNA, 18 September 2012, [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/regional-news/2012/09/18/354675/ROC-PRC.htm ROC, PRC flags fly together at anti-Japan protest in NY] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120920041650/http://chinapost.com.tw/asia/regional-news/2012/09/18/354675/ROC-PRC.htm |date=20 September 2012 }}, China Post There were also protests on Taiwan.{{Rp|page=67}} In many cases, these protests included anti-Japanese violence, vandalism, and arson.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/china-japan-idUSL3E8KG02T20120916?type=marketsNews|title=China struggles to curb anger as protesters denounce Japan|access-date=17 September 2012|work=Reuters|date=16 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120916043619/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/16/china-japan-idUSL3E8KG02T20120916?type=marketsNews|archive-date=16 September 2012|url-status=live}}{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/anti-japan-protests_n_1886427.html|title=Anti-Japan Protests in China Swell, Turn Violent|access-date=17 September 2012|work=The Huffington Post|date=15 September 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050324/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/15/anti-japan-protests_n_1886427.html|archive-date=4 March 2016|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://sg.news.yahoo.com/photos/demonstrators-hold-chinese-flags-banners-beside-overturned-car-photo-094258536.html|title=Xi'an Protesters Overturn Cars|access-date=17 September 2012}}{{dead link|date=May 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

During the 2012 flare-up of the dispute, the Chinese government instituted a media campaign focused on an anti-fascist theme and remembrance of the Japanese invasion of China in the Second Sino-Japanese War as opposed to the territorial conflict itself.{{Cite book |last=Wang |first=Frances Yaping |title=The Art of State Persuasion: China's Strategic Use of Media in Interstate Disputes |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2024 |isbn=9780197757512 |doi=10.1093/oso/9780197757505.001.0001}}{{Rp|page=32}}

{{see also|Air Defense Identification Zone (East China Sea)}}

File:JADIZ and CADIZ and KADIZ in East China Sea.jpg

China decided to implement an "Air Defense Identification Zone" around the islands and the broader region in order to "guard against potential air threats," according to the defence ministry. Japan reacted to the news by calling the move "very dangerous." On 23 November 2013, China then sent air force jets, including fighter planes, to carry out a patrol mission.{{cite news |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/japan-protests-new-china-air-defence-zone-2013112313117557543.html |title=Japan protests new China 'air defence zone' |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=23 November 2013 |access-date=14 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131126000800/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/japan-protests-new-china-air-defence-zone-2013112313117557543.html |archive-date=26 November 2013 |url-status=live }} According to CNN, most of the zone was north of the islands.{{cite web|last1=Park|first1=Madison|title=Why China's new air zone incensed Japan, U.S.|url=http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/|website=CNN|date=26 November 2013 |access-date=21 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160930035710/http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/|archive-date=30 September 2016|url-status=live}} On 26 November 2013, declaring the area international waters and airspace, the United States flew two B-52 bomber aircraft through the zone without incident. A spokesman for the United States military stated that "The U.S. military will continue conducting flight operations in the region, including with our allies and partners.... We will not register a flight plan, we will not identify our transponder, our radio frequency and logo."{{cite news |last=Dilanian |first=Ken |date=26 November 2013 |title=U.S. defies China, sends bombers into disputed East China Sea zone |url=http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-china-bombers-20131126,0,1293537.story |newspaper=Los Angeles Times |access-date=26 November 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131127064635/http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-us-china-bombers-20131126,0,1293537.story |archive-date=27 November 2013 |url-status=live }}

Since the imposition, U.S. B-52 aircraft and South Korean and Japanese military aircraft have violated it.{{cite news |author=Agencies |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/japan-south-korea-china-air-defence-zone |title=Japan and South Korea defy Chinese air defence zone |work=The Guardian |date=28 November 2013 |access-date=14 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131208195603/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/japan-south-korea-china-air-defence-zone |archive-date=8 December 2013 |url-status=live }} The U.S. also warned its commercial airlines to be cautious about the area.{{cite news |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/us-cautions-airlines-crossing-china-air-zone-2013112855025443906.html |title=US cautions airlines crossing China air zone |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=28 November 2013 |access-date=14 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131206001354/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/us-cautions-airlines-crossing-china-air-zone-2013112855025443906.html |archive-date=6 December 2013 |url-status=live }} China then sent fighter jets on patrol duty in the area{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/world/asia/japan-south-korea-fly-military-planes-in-zone-set-by-china.html | work=The New York Times | first1=Jane | last1=Perlez | first2=Martin | last2=Fackler | title=China Patrols Air Zone Over Disputed Islands | date=28 November 2013 | access-date=12 February 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630110823/http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/29/world/asia/japan-south-korea-fly-military-planes-in-zone-set-by-china.html | archive-date=30 June 2017 | url-status=live }} as a "defensive measure."{{cite news |url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/china-fighter-jets-fly-through-disputed-zone-2013112822037144214.html |title=China fighter jets fly through disputed zone |publisher=Al Jazeera |date=29 November 2013 |access-date=14 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131212212132/http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/11/china-fighter-jets-fly-through-disputed-zone-2013112822037144214.html |archive-date=12 December 2013 |url-status=live }}

According to a 2012 poll jointly conducted by mainland-based Global Times and Taiwan-based China Times, residents of Taiwan differ from their mainland counterparts in terms of willingness to ultimately resort to military means, with 91% of mainland residents saying warfare should not be ruled out versus only 41% on the island.Joe Hung (23 July 2012), [http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/joe-hung/2012/07/23/348538/Will-there.htm Will there be war over the Tiaoyutais?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131214095230/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/joe-hung/2012/07/23/348538/Will-there.htm |date=14 December 2013 }} China Post

To assist in the intruders detection in Senkaku Islands region, since 28 March 2016, Japan has operated a radar station at Yonaguni island, resulting in a furious Chinese response.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-china-eastchinasea-idUSKCN0WT0QZ|title=Japan opens radar station close to disputed isles, drawing angry...|first=Nobuhiro|last=Kubo|date=2016-03-28|newspaper=Reuters|access-date=2 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170624195735/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-china-eastchinasea-idUSKCN0WT0QZ|archive-date=24 June 2017|url-status=live}}{{cite web|url=http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/japan-builds-radar-on-yonaguni-angering-china|title=Japan Builds Radar on Yonaguni, Angering China|website=maritime-executive.com|access-date=9 June 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160423023632/http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/japan-builds-radar-on-yonaguni-angering-china|archive-date=23 April 2016|url-status=live}}

On 1 February 2021, the People's Republic of China passed a new law that authorized the Chinese Coast Guard to use lethal force in response to violations of "national sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction".{{cite news |last1=Brimelow |first1=Benjamin |title=China's ships are getting bigger and more aggressive, and Japan is scrambling to keep up |url=https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-ships-getting-bigger-more-140353543.html |access-date=28 February 2021 |publisher=Business Insider |date=25 February 2021 |archive-date=27 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210227024348/https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinas-ships-getting-bigger-more-140353543.html |url-status=live }} The law received condemnation from Japan and the United States and generated tensions because it would apply to disputed waters claimed by China, including around the Senkaku Islands. Coast guards from some other countries also operate under similar policies, and the Chinese Coast Guard had already been using force prior to the law. Rand Corporation researcher Timothy Heath indicated that the law could help prevent misunderstandings by providing "some degree of clarification and standardization of procedures," but also noted that the law could embolden military officers by clearly and officially approving the use of force. On February 6, 2021, Chinese Coast Guard vessels entered Japanese-administered waters near the Senkaku Islands for the first time after the law was passed.{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Jesse |title=Chinese ships near Senkakus for first time since new law allowing use of arms |url=https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/02/06/national/china-senkakus-coast-guard-law/ |access-date=28 February 2021 |publisher=The Japan Times |date=February 6, 2021 |archive-date=2 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210302114347/https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/02/06/national/china-senkakus-coast-guard-law/ |url-status=live }}

On 30 June 2022, the Japan Ministry of Defense announced the construction of 12 offshore patrol vessel (OPV) by Japan Marine United Corporation (JMU) for the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) at a cost of ¥ 9 billion ($66 million USD) per ship. The purpose of this OPV program is to provide enhanced maritime security, particularly around the southwestern Ryukyu Islands, including the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, by boosting JMSDF patrol activities in the region. These vessels are highly automated and configurable to meet a wide range of missions involving “enhanced steady-state intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) in the waters around Japan.” Under the contract, JMU is charged with delivering the 12 vessels to the JMSDF from fiscal year 2023, which starts on 1 April 2023.{{Cite web |date=2 July 2022 |author=Kosuke Takahashi |title=Japan Awards Contract to Shipbuilder JMU for 12 New Offshore Patrol Vessels |url=https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/japan-awards-contract-to-shipbuilder-jmu-for-12-new-offshore-patrol-vessels/ |website=The Diplomat |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-date=15 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315102336/https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/japan-awards-contract-to-shipbuilder-jmu-for-12-new-offshore-patrol-vessels/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |date=July 14, 2022 |author=Jr Ng |title=Japan Marine United selected to build JMSDF's next-gen OPV |url=https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2022/07/japan-marine-united-selected-to-build-jmsdfs-next-gen-opv/ |website=Asia Military Review |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-date=8 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208134552/https://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/2022/07/japan-marine-united-selected-to-build-jmsdfs-next-gen-opv/ |url-status=live }}

In 2014, the PRC complained about Japanese plans to teach students about ownership of the islands.{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/japan-teachers-call-senkaku-takeshima-island-japanese-territory |title=Japan: teachers to call Senkaku and Takeshima islands Japanese territory |last1=McCurry |first1=Justin |date=28 January 2014 |newspaper=The Guardian |access-date=28 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140129074051/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/japan-teachers-call-senkaku-takeshima-island-japanese-territory |archive-date=29 January 2014 |url-status=live }}

• In April 2014, Lieutenant General John Wissler, commander of the US III Marine Expeditionary Force stated that his forces were ready and able to defend the Senkaku Islands if they were attacked by the PRC. China responded in English on the People's Liberation Army (PLA) website, saying that the PLA was able to take and hold the islands at any time and requesting that Wissler, "Please learn lessons from your old superiors. Don't be so ready to make threats with forces. Please pay some respect to Chinese armed forces, which defeated your armed forces in the Korean War."Wang Hongguang, (edited by Zhang Tao), "[http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-04/17/content_5868740.htm PLA Lt. Gen.: Wissler should pay respect to Chinese military] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422231657/http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/china-military-news/2014-04/17/content_5868740.htm |date=22 April 2014 }}", China Military Online, 17 April 2014. Retrieved 21 April 2014
• On 9 June 2016, three Russian warships and a Chinese Navy frigate sailed just off the edge of the 12 nautical miles territorial zone around the Senkaku Islands for a few hours. Japan promptly summoned a Chinese ambassador in Tokyo with demand for the warship to leave. This was the first time a Chinese Navy was involved in the dispute. Previous incidents have seen the involvement of the China Coast Guard (see China Coast Guard Senkaku-related incidents) or civilian vessels only.{{cite news|agency=Reuters|date=9 June 2016|title=Japan protests after Chinese warship sails near disputed islands|newspaper=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/09/japan-protests-after-chinese-warship-sails-near-disputed-islands|url-status=live|access-date=7 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160609095421/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/09/japan-protests-after-chinese-warship-sails-near-disputed-islands|archive-date=9 June 2016}}{{cite web|url=http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/China-sends-message-to-US-Japan-with-frigate-near-Senkaku?page=2|title=China sends message to US, Japan with frigate near Senkaku|website=nikkei.com}}{{Dead link|date=May 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}{{cite web|date=2016-06-09|title=Japan protests as China's PLA Navy sails near disputed Diaoyu Islands in East China Sea|url=http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1970375/japan-protests-chinas-pla-navy-sails-near-disputed|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160612083419/http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1970375/japan-protests-chinas-pla-navy-sails-near-disputed|archive-date=12 June 2016|access-date=7 November 2021|website=scmp.com}}
• On 11 August 2016, a Chinese fishing vessel was sunk {{convert|65|km|mi|sp=us}} from Uotsuri island after colliding with a Greek freighter.{{cite web|title=Chinese fishing boat sinks after colliding with freighter near Senkakus|url=http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/chinese-fishing-boat-sinks-after-colliding-with-freighter-near-senkakus|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160817162025/http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/chinese-fishing-boat-sinks-after-colliding-with-freighter-near-senkakus|archive-date=17 August 2016|access-date=7 November 2021|website=japantoday.com}} Out of the boat's 14 crew members, 6 were rescued by the Japan Coast Guard, while 8 men were unaccounted for. In a statement by the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the Chinese side "expressed appreciation" for the Japanese operation.{{cite news|last=Wanklyn|first=Alastair|date=11 August 2016|title=Beijing thanks Tokyo for rescue after Chinese fishing boat collides with freighter near Senkakus|newspaper=The Japan Times Online|url=http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/11/national/beijing-thanks-tokyo-for-rescue-after-chinese-fishing-boat-collided-with-freighter-near-senkakus/|url-status=live|access-date=7 November 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160814041935/http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/11/national/beijing-thanks-tokyo-for-rescue-after-chinese-fishing-boat-collided-with-freighter-near-senkakus|archive-date=14 August 2016}}

The issue of sovereignty has been carefully circumvented in bilateral fishing agreements. In the 1997 fishing agreement, the Senkaku Islands were officially excluded from China's exclusive economic zone, but in a letter of intent Japan explained that Japan would not prevent Chinese boats from fishing there. Some Chinese sources have subsequently argued that this letter constitutes a waiver of Japan's claim to exclusive fishing rights.[http://blogos.com/article/46928/ 【佐藤優の眼光紙背】1997年11月11日付の小渕書簡があるため日本政府は尖閣諸島周辺の中国漁船を取り締まることができない（眼光紙背） – BLOGOS（ブロゴス）] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120918211226/http://blogos.com/article/46928/ |date=18 September 2012 }}. Blogos.com.

In 2014, Taiwan and Japan came to an agreement on fishing in the waters around the islands.{{cite web |url=http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/AJ201401250058 |title=Japan, Taiwan agree on fishing rules in waters around Senkakus |last1=UKAI |first1=SATOSHI |date=25 January 2014 |website=Asahi Shimbun |publisher=The Asahi Shimbun Company |access-date=23 January 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160309052149/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/AJ201401250058 |archive-date=9 March 2016 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}

• Action Committee for Defending the Diaoyu Islands, a Hong Kong Chinese activist group
• Baodiao movement, a Chinese activist group
• China Federation for Defending the Diaoyu Islands, a mainland Chinese activist group
• East China Sea EEZ disputes
• Ganbare Nippon, a Japanese activist group
• List of territorial disputes
• Territorial disputes of Japan

{{reflist|3}}

• Curtis, Gerald, Ryosei Kokubun and Wang Jisi. (2010). Getting the Triangle Straight: Managing China-Japan-US Relations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. {{ISBN|9784889070804}}; [http://www.worldcat.org/title/getting-the-triangle-straight-managing-china-japan-us-relations/oclc/491904160#similar OCLC 491904160]
• Shaw, Han-yi. (1999). The Diaoyutai/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Its History and Analysis of the Ownership Claims of the P.R.C., R.O.C., and Japan. Baltimore, Maryland: University of Maryland School of Law. [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/608151745 OCLC 608151745]
• Lee, Seokwoo, Shelagh Furness and Clive Schofield. (2002). Territorial disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham: University of Durham, [http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/ International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU)]. {{ISBN|9781897643501}}; [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/249501645 OCLC 249501645]
• Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. (2000). International Organizations and the Law of the Sea. London : Graham & Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff. [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/16852368 OCLC 16852368]
• O'Hanlon, Michael E.. The Senkaku Paradox: Risking Great Power War Over Small Stakes (Brookings Institution, 2019) [http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=55868 online review]
• Pan, Junwu. (2009). Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. {{ISBN|9789004174283}}; [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/282968950 OCLC 282968950]
• Suganuma, Unryu. (2000). Sovereign Rights and Territorial Space in Sino-Japanese Relations. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. {{ISBN|9780824821593}}; {{ISBN|9780824824938}}; [https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/170955369 OCLC 170955369]

{{Commons category|Senkaku Islands dispute}}

• [https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/ryodo/kenkyu/senkaku/index.html Senkaku Islands Research and Commentary Site] (by Cabinet Secretariat (Japan) )
• [http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/senkaku.html Basic View on Senkaku] (by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan) )
• [http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/senkaku/qa_1010.html Q&A on the Senkaku Islands] (by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan) )
• >{{cite journal |last1=Togo |first1=Kazuhiko |title=Japan's Territorial Problem: The Northern Territories, Takeshima, and the Senkaku Islands |journal=Commentary |date=6 May 2012 |url=http://www.nbr.org/research/activity.aspx?id=247 |publisher=The National Bureau of Asian Research (NBR) |language=en}}
• [http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/diaohist.html Article by Kiyoshi Inoue] Professor of History department Kyoto University, and [http://www.mahoroba.ne.jp/~tatsumi/dinoue0.html original text and maps in Japanese] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140626064957/http://www.mahoroba.ne.jp/~tatsumi/dinoue0.html |date=26 June 2014 }}
• [http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=newsifs&tab=news&q=Senkaku&go.x=31&go.y=16 Senkaku @BBC]
• {{cite web|url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm |publisher=Globalsecurity.org |title= Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands}}
• [http://www.diaoyuislands.org/islands/hollysoil.html Diaoyutai History (in Chinese)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080705203507/http://www.diaoyuislands.org/islands/hollysoil.html |date=5 July 2008 }}
• {{Google maps|date=|access-date=|title=Satellite image of Senkaku Islands|url=https://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Taiwan&ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=25.732024,123.500919&spn=0.103453,0.134239&z=13}}
• "[https://web.archive.org/web/20100222122739/http://www-ibru.dur.ac.uk/resources/docs/senkaku.html The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute]:", Durham University, 18 October 1996. Dzurek, Daniel.
• {{cite journal |last1=Ramos-Mrosovsky |first1=Carlos |title=International Law's Unhelpful Role in the Senkaku Islands |journal=University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law |date= 2008 |volume=29 |issue=4 |pages=903 |url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1174&context=jil |issn=1086-7872|publisher= University of Pennsylvania |s2cid=152713408 }}
• {{cite news |title=琉球群岛人民反对美国占领的斗争 |url=http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/pubvp/2005/04/200504162322.shtml |work=人民日報 (People's Daily) |date=8 January 1953 |via=news.boxun.com |trans-title=Ryukyu Islands, the struggle of peoples against U.S. occupation |language=Chinese}}
• {{cite news |title=China's Diaoyu Islands Sovereignty is Undeniable |url=http://en.people.cn/200305/25/eng20030525_117192.shtml |work=People's Daily Online |date=26 May 2003}}
• [http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/76d6334a-a66f-11e1-9453-00144feabdc0.html "Wrong to dispute Japan's sovereignty of Senkaku"] by Hiroshi Suzuki, director, Japan Information and Cultural Centre Minister, Embassy of Japan, London., Financial Times, Letters, 28 May 2012.
• {{cite web|last=Vutz|first=Cornelia|title=The East China Sea territorial dispute. Senkaku, Diaoyu, or Tiaoyutai Islands?|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/bibliotheque/briefing/2013/130617/LDM_BRI(2013)130617_REV1_EN.pdf|work=Library Briefing|publisher=Library of the European Parliament|access-date=29 July 2013}}

{{Territorial disputes in East and South Asia}}

{{Cross-Strait relations}}

{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Senkaku Islands Dispute}}

Category:Disputed islands of Asia

Category:Senkaku Islands

Category:Territorial disputes of Japan

Category:Territorial disputes of China

Category:Territorial disputes of the Republic of China

Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan

Category:Anti-Japanese sentiment in China