A more binding solution: This approach would employ similar logic but seek a more lasting resolution.
It would include six points:— Each side agrees to not challenge the right of the other to maintain its respective claims to full sovereignty over all the islands.— China agrees to accept that Japan will continue legally to have administrative rights over the islands.
() Representative dot plots from HT patient and healthy control are shown. We used isotype controls to determine the positive cells, and all the values are gated on the CD3 Figure 1 Cont.
Enhancement of Th17 cells in peripheral blood from HT patients.
For China, the status of the Diaoyu islands today constitutes a legacy of a period of Japanese aggression beginning in the late 19th century and continuing until 1945 for which Japan sometimes still fails to show proper repentance.
In Beijing’s eyes, standing up for what it views as its proper rights upholds the post-World War II international order, which dictates that Japan give up the territories that it took from China in the war of 1894-95.
All patrolling within the 12-mile zone bordering the islands would be done jointly.
The islands would be used solely for nonmilitary purposes such as ecological tourism, with all such activities fully regulated by the oversight board.— The two sides agree that their ongoing disagreements over their respective rights to sea and seabed resources in the broader western Pacific region will not be influenced or decided by any claims to the islands.
Nationalistic politics in both countries further compound the difficulty of finding a solution to the quarrel over islands that both sides claim in their entirety.
We are independent scholars from each of the key countries involved in this dispute. S., which professes no opinion on who owns the islands, but made many of the territorial decisions after World War II that produced the current situation, and which continues to support Japanese claims to be the rightful administrator of the islands today.