“Two Histories, One Sea: The Conflicting Claims in the East China Sea”

Maria Asad is a graduate of BS International Relations with research interests, focused on great power rivalry in the Asia-Pacific. Her undergraduate thesis investigated the China-US competition in the South China Sea and its implications on regional stability. She continues to examine evolving dynamics and strategic development in East Asia.

http://linkedin.com/in/mariaasad

Introduction

The East China Sea is home to eight uninhabited islands and rocks that have become one of Asia’s most volatile flashpoints, known as the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan. These islands have become the symbol of nationalist pride and historical grievances for both China and Japan. [1] The modern day tensions mostly involve coast guard vessel standoffs and nationalist provocations but the dispute’s intractable nature stems from fundamentally incompatible understandings of the past. 

This article examines how China and Japan deploy ancient records, cartographic evidence and competing interpretations of twentieth-century treaties to construct historical justifications for their positions and why this clash of narratives makes the conflict particularly resistant to resolution. 

The Historical Foundations of Competing Claims 

China’s Historical Narrative 

China’s claim to the Diaoyu Islands is based on assertions of ancient discovery and continuous administration. Historical records indicate that the islands were discovered as early as the eleventh century and began serving as navigation aids for Chinese envoys travelling to the Liuqiu Kingdom (Present day Okinawa) from the fourteenth century. [2] Under the Sino-centric tributary system that governed regional order for centuries, Chinese imperial authorities developed their own concepts of sovereignty and boundary demarcation. The islands fell within China’s maritime sphere as defined by this traditional world order, where formal territorial markers were less important than hierarchical relationships among states. [2]

Beijing maintains that these historical ties established prior to sovereignty, arguing that the islands were Chinese territory long before Japan’s claims emerged. This narrative emphasizes unbroken historical connection, presenting the islands as inherent parts of Chinese territory that were temporarily lost during periods of national weakness and internal strife. [3] 

Japan’s Historical Counter Narrative

Japan’s position rests on different historical foundations. Tokyo asserts that the islands were terra nullius prior to 1895, when it formally incorporated them after careful confirmation that China held no claim. [4]  Recent archival diplomacy illustrates how Japan deploys historical evidence to support this view. In November 2025, the Japanese government announced plans to display records at the National Museum of Territory and Sovereignty, including an 1889 report by a Qing Dynasty official and a 1950 Chinese Foreign Ministry document. [4] 

Significantly, the 1950 document reportedly referred to the islands by their Japanese name “Senkaku” rather than the Chinese “Diaoyu”, and described them as part of the Ryukyus (Okinawa Prefecture). The 1889 and 1895 documents similarly indicate that the Qing government did not recognise the islands as part of Chinese territory during that period. [4] In response, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson challenged Japan’s narrative and dismissed Japan’s claims on islets as illegal. 

Treaty Interpretation and the Post-War Order

The dispute extends into competing interpretations of 20th century treaties that shaped the post-war order. Japan administered the islands as part of the Ryukyu chain from 1895 until 1945, when Allied forces occupied Okinawa. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, which formally ended World War ll with Japan, placed the Ryukyus under US administration but left sovereignty ambiguous. China, being excluded from the treaty negotiations, has never recognised its provisions as binding.

When the US returned Okinawa to Japan in 1972, the Diaoyu/ Senkaku Islands were included in the reversion agreement. China immediately protested and asserted that the islands were historically Chinese and should have been returned separately. [1] This moment crystallised the competing narratives, as Japan sees the US reversion as affirming its sovereignty, while China views it as an illegal transfer of Chinese territory by a third party.

The Resource Dimension and Historical Timing

Understanding the dispute’s evolution requires acknowledging the role of natural resources. Until 1969, the islands held little strategic or economic value. The trigger for the modern confrontation came when United Nations surveys suggested potential oil and gas deposits beneath the East China Sea. Between 1969 and 1970, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan staked claims to eleven seabed petroleum blocks based on the 1958 Convention on the Continental Shelf. [5] 

China’s vocal claim emerged precisely during this period in 1971, that lead Japan to argue that Beijing’s historical assertions were retroactively constructed to secure resource rights. The timing created enduring suspicions. Japan views China’s historical narrative as resource-driven, while China sees Japan’s resource exploitation as illegal encroachment on historically Chinese territory. 

Fundamentally Different Historical Frameworks 

People living in different periods and places can possess fundamentally different concepts of territorial space. The Sino-centric tributary system operated on principles distinct from Westphalian sovereignty. The sudden and sometimes violent transition from the Sino-centric order to the Western state system undermined the legitimacy of International Law in the region. [6] China and Japan thus evaluate historical evidence through incompatible conceptual lenses, China through traditional hierarchical relationships, Japan through modern territorial sovereignty.

National Identity and Legitimacy

Territorial claims have become intertwined with national identity and domestic legitimacy. The 2012 crises, when the Japanese government purchased three islands from a private owner to prevent nationalist Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara from doing so, triggered massive Chinese protests and demonstrated how territorial issues mobilise populations. For both governments, compromising in historical narratives risks appearing weak before domestic audiences.

Missed Opportunities and Mistrust 

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the joint resource exploration might have been possible, but Japan later sent misleading signals about its commitment to economic interests while China’s growing assertiveness including declaring territorial sea baselines around the islands in 2012, further deepened mistrust. [7] Each side interprets this history through its own narrative; Japan sees Chinese assertiveness as expansionism, China sees self-defence of inherent rights.

The Contemporary Issues

The historical clash creates concrete danger today. Both nations have witnessed growing nationalist sentiment, energy security concerns and geo-strategic interest that fuels the original dispute. Chinese coast guard vessels regularly patrol near the islands, leading to tense standoffs with Japanese counterparts. Mechanisms for communication and de-escalation remain poorly developed while mistrust is further increasing.

China’s position as a near peer competitor with the US adds another dimension. Unlike weaker parties to maritime disputes, China possesses the option to unilaterally pursue its claims. Furthermore Japan’s alliance with the US including major bases in Okinawa, means any confrontation risks drawing in great powers. [8] 

The Taiwan factor also fuels the dispute. For China, Taiwan is its faraway island on which it cannot compromise and Taiwan’s proximity to the disputed islands creates interlocking flashpoints. When any Japanese official makes statements about Taiwan’s status, historical grievances over Japan’s colonial rule on Taiwan (1895-1945) resurfaces alongside the territorial disputes.

Conclusion

The China-Japan Dispute in the East China Sea is fundamentally a conflict between incompatible historical worldviews. China’s narrative emphasises ancient discovery and continuous association within a Sin-centric regional order. Japan’s narrative emphasis on post war treaties and consistent administration. Both nations deploy documentary evidence, ancient records, imperial maps to construct their exclusive historical truths.

In conclusion, as long as China and Japan interpret their shared history through fundamentally different frameworks, the East China Sea will remain what it is; a stage where past and present collide with consequences for regional stability.

Works Cited

[1] Lunn, J. (2025, January 8). The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands: tension between Japan and China in the East China Sea. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06475/

[2] Unryu, S. (1996). Historical justification of sovereign right over territorial space of the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: Irredentism and Sino-Japanese relations. In Fcu.edu.tw. hthttps://doi.org/10.1017/S1557466012033074tps://innopac.lib.fcu.edu.tw/search~S9*cht?/aSugar%2C+Bert+Randolph/asugar+bert+randolph/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CE/frameset&FF=asuganuma+unryu&1%2C1%2C

[3] Ho, N. (2021). A Logical Study on the Diaoyu Islands Sovereignty in the Two Countries, China and Japan and Ieo Island. Korean-Chinese Social Science Studies, 10(2), 1–30. https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART001656923

[4] Japan to display old Chinese records showing China didn’t own Senkakus. (2025, November 8). Philippines News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php/articles/1262860

[5] Bronicki, K. (2014). Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Seabed Oil and Gas Resources in the East China Sea. Cambridge Core, 97–110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/china-at-the-beginning-of-the-21st-century/sinojapanese-dispute-over-the-seabed-oil-and-gas-resources-in-the-east-china-sea/130DBD9FCB9140AD4B77D811ECDD7FF4

[6] Midford, P., & Østhagen, A. (2024). The East China Sea: A Case of Ocean Geopolitics and Maritime Conflict. East Asia, 41(223-255). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-024-09426-y

[7] Drifte, R. (2009). Territorial Conflicts in the East China Sea – From Missed Opportunities to Negotiation Stalemate. Asia-Pcific Journal, 7(22). https://doi.org/10.1017/S1557466009024048

[8] McCormack, G. (2012). Troubled Seas: Japan’s Pacific and East China Sea Domains (and Claims). Asia-Pacific Journal, 10(36), e4 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1557466012033074