Senkaku Islands Dispute

The Senkaku Islands Dispute: Territorial Claims, Strategic Stakes, and Regional Tensions

The Senkaku Islands (known as the Diaoyu Islands by China and Diaoyutai Islands by Taiwan) represent one of East Asia’s most enduring territorial disputes. Located in the East China Sea approximately 330 kilometers from the Chinese coast, these five uninhabited small islands and surrounding rocks have become a flashpoint for competing claims of sovereignty among Japan, China, and Taiwan, with significant implications for regional stability and global great-power competition.

Geographic and Strategic Significance

The largest island, Uotsuri, covers only 1.4 square miles, yet these islands hold considerable strategic value. Located strategically in the East China Sea, they are believed to sit atop hydrocarbon (oil and natural gas) reserves, though these have not yet been extracted. More significantly, from a military perspective, control of the Senkakus would provide enhanced surveillance capabilities over the East China Sea and extend anti-ship and anti-air denial (A2/AD) reach, positioning them as strategically vital for regional military dynamics. The islands are situated within the U.S.-Japan security treaty framework, meaning that Article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security applies to them—obligating the United States to defend the islands if attacked.​

Historical Claims and Legal Arguments

The territorial dispute has deep historical roots tracing back to the First Sino-Japanese War and the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895). Japan’s position rests on surveys it conducted from 1885 onwards, culminating in a formal Cabinet Decision on January 14, 1895, to incorporate the islands into Okinawa Prefecture as terra nullius (land belonging to no one). Japanese authorities argue that the islands were uninhabited with no evidence of prior Chinese control, and that Japan maintained administrative continuity over them until the postwar period.​

China and Taiwan present a contrasting historical narrative. Both claim ownership dating back to the Ming Dynasty (approximately 600 years ago), asserting that the islands were historically controlled and used by Chinese authorities for navigation and administration. They argue that Japan’s 1895 incorporation of the islands was a consequence of Imperial Japanese expansion during the First Sino-Japanese War. Critically, both mainland China and Taiwan interpret postwar treaties—particularly the Potsdam Declaration (1945) and the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951)—as requiring Japan to renounce territory seized through aggression, and they contend that the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands should have reverted to China as part of Taiwan’s restoration.​

Evolution of the Dispute

Remarkably, China did not contest Japanese sovereignty over the islands for approximately 75 years following 1895. This changed fundamentally in the 1970s, when the discovery of potential petroleum reserves in the East China Sea sparked renewed interest. In 1971, following the Okinawa Reversion Agreement between the United States and Japan (which transferred administrative rights of Okinawa back to Japan), both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) formally objected to the islands being included in the reversion. In 1972, after the Okinawa reversion, China began issuing territorial claims.​

Current Policies and Positions

China’s Approach: China transformed its territorial posture significantly in response to Japan’s 2012 purchase of three of the islands from private Japanese owners—a move intended to prevent Tokyo’s more provocative then-governor Shintaro Ishihara from purchasing them. In response, Beijing declared territorial sea baselines around the islands in 2012, marking a decisive shift from de facto acceptance of Japanese administration to active contestation. The government issued its first-ever white paper on a territorial dispute and elevated the Senkakus to a “core interest,” signaling it would make no major concessions. Since 2008, China has deployed government ships to patrol the waters; by 2022, Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) operations had expanded to 336 days of activity in the contiguous zone around the Senkakus. Beijing prefers to deploy maritime law enforcement rather than military forces, using Coast Guard vessels for “rights enforcement patrols” to gradually shift the status quo in its favor without triggering direct military confrontation. As recently as November 2025, following statements by Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi defending Taiwan against potential Chinese military action, the China Coast Guard conducted patrol formations through the disputed waters in what it termed lawful rights-protection operations.​

Japan’s Policy: Japan maintains that it has valid, unambiguous sovereignty over the islands based on historical incorporation, continuous administration (except during U.S. postwar administration from 1945–1972), and principles of international law. Tokyo rejects the notion that a territorial dispute exists, viewing China’s actions since 2008 as attempts to unilaterally alter the status quo through coercion. Japan emphasizes that it does not recognize Chinese or Taiwanese claims and opposes any unilateral attempts to change the existing arrangements. In June 2020, Ishigaki City Council renamed the administrative area from “Tonoshiro” to “Tonoshiro Senkaku” to reinforce Japanese sovereignty claims, though this triggered protests from both Beijing and Taipei.​

Taiwan’s Position: Taiwan’s stance is complex and nuanced. As the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan claims the islands based on geographic location, geological structure, historical evidence, and international law, calling for them as part of its territory under the 1952 ROC-Japan Peace Treaty. However, Taiwan’s political evolution has affected its approach. In 2012, during Ma Ying-jeou’s presidency, Taiwan proposed the East China Sea Peace Initiative (ECSPI), advocating for peaceful dialogue, shelving of controversies, observance of international law, establishment of a code of conduct, and cooperative development of resources. This peace-oriented approach marked a shift away from confrontational tactics. Notably, when Japan signed a fishery agreement with Taiwan in April 2013—its first concession after 17 failed negotiation rounds—Taiwanese fishing vessels gained access to a 7,400-square-kilometer operational zone around the islands. More recently, Taiwan has emphasized peaceful resolution while maintaining its sovereignty claim, reflecting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s pro-Taiwan independence orientation, which historically has underscored Taiwan’s separate identity from mainland China. Taiwan has also declined to coordinate with mainland China on resolving the dispute, insisting on preserving its own distinct sovereignty position.​

United States Position: The U.S. position is carefully calibrated. While Washington acknowledges Japan’s administrative authority over the islands, it has historically avoided explicitly recognizing Japanese sovereignty to maintain flexibility. However, U.S. administrations have consistently reaffirmed that the Senkakus fall within Article V of the U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty, committing America to defend them against attack. Both the Obama and Biden administrations have stated opposition to unilateral attempts to change the status quo in the East China Sea. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and subsequent officials have reinforced these commitments, though some analysts argue that explicit U.S. recognition of Japanese sovereignty would provide greater strategic stability and deter Chinese assertiveness.​

Current Tensions and Recent Developments

The dispute remains volatile. As of November 2025, tensions have escalated following Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi’s statements regarding potential military support for Taiwan against Chinese aggression. China responded with diplomatic pressure, summoned Japan’s ambassador, issued travel warnings to Chinese students, and dispatched Coast Guard patrols as demonstrative gestures of sovereignty claims. A Chinese consul general even made threatening remarks on social media, prompting formal Japanese protests.​

Conclusion

The Senkaku Islands dispute exemplifies how historical grievances, strategic calculations, and contemporary great-power competition intersect in East Asia. Japan maintains administrative control and legal claims rooted in 19th-century international practice; China asserts historical ownership and views the islands as part of its territorial reconstruction following Imperial Japanese aggression; Taiwan claims sovereignty while advocating for peaceful resolution; and the United States provides security commitments to Japan while maintaining studied ambiguity on the sovereignty question. Without sustained dialogue, crisis management mechanisms, and adherence to international law, the dispute risks escalating from symbolic Coast Guard operations to more serious confrontation, with significant implications for regional stability and the U.S.-Japan alliance.

Ministry of Japan

The Hindu

SIMPLIFIED UPSC