ARTICLE

SENKAKU ISLAND DISPUTE BILATERAL DISPUTE IN TRILATERAL FRAMEWORK

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

04 Pages : 26-33

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gfpr.2021(IV-II).04      10.31703/gfpr.2021(IV-II).04      Published : Jun 2021

Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework

Abstract

    This Research aims to examine the ongoing dispute between China and Japan over the barren Islands present in the East China Sea.  This study will proceed with a brief explanation of historical claims made by both parties and policy considerations made in history. The provoking act of Japan by nationalizing the islands has made China and Japan act aggressively. It tries to analyze all the major parties involved in the dispute and their policies toward each other. It highlights most of the applicable theories of IR and tries to evaluate the calculations, perceptions, and risk of armed conflict involved in the dispute.  Recommendations are made with conclusive findings.

    Senkaku Islands, Bilateral Dispute, Trilateral Framework, Territorial Sovereignty, Geopolitical Tensions

    (1) Yousma Gul
    Candidate MS, International Relations, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Bader, J, A. (2016). A framework for US policy toward China. Foreign Policy at Brookings. 

  • Blanchard, J. (2000). The U.S. Role in the SinoJapanese Dispute over the Diaoyu (Senkaku) 

  • Christensen, T. (1999). China. US-Japan Alliance, and the security dilemma in East 

  • Cox, R. (2014). The Pivot to Asia and the

    Senkaku/Diaoyu Island Dispute. American Journal of Chinese Studies

  • Fravel, M. T. (2010). "Explaining stability in the Senkaku (Diaoyu) Islands dispute." Getting the Triangle Straight: Managing China– Japan-US Relations, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution 159. 

  • Garlicki, M. (2003). The Sinkaku/Diaoyu Island dispute: History and current development. 

  • Ishii, L, J. (3013).  The US Imperative on the 

  • Senkaku/Diaoyu Territorial Dispute. Army War College Carlisle Barracks Pa Strategic Studies Institute. 

  • Keating, J. (2012). Why the Japan-China island dispute is an American problem. Foreign Policy Journal.

  • Pan, Z, (2007) "Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The pending controversy from the Chinese perspective." Journal of Chinese Political Science 12(1), 

  • Pan, Z, (2007) "Sino-Japanese dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The pending controversy from the Chinese perspective." Journal of Chinese Political Science 12(1),

  • Shea,     P.     (2012).     "Sovereignty     and        the 

  • Sneider, D. (2013).  "Drinking from the Poisoned Well." The International Economy 27(1), 40. 

  • Togo, K. (2014). Japan-China-US Relations and the Sinkaku/Diaoyu Islands Dispute: Perspective from International Relations Theory. Asian Perspective, 38(2). 

  • Valencia, M, J. (2014). "The East China Sea Disputes: History, Status, and Ways Forward." Asian Perspective 38(2), 183-218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43738086

Cite this article

APA

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Gul, Yousma. 2021. "Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework." Global Foreign Policies Review, IV (II): 26-33 doi: 10.31703/gfpr.2021(IV-II).04

HARVARD

    HARVARD : GUL, Y. 2021. Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework. Global Foreign Policies Review, IV, 26-33.

MHRA

    MHRA : Gul, Yousma. 2021. "Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework." Global Foreign Policies Review, IV: 26-33

MLA

    MLA : Gul, Yousma. "Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework." Global Foreign Policies Review, IV.II (2021): 26-33 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Gul, Yousma (2021), "Senkaku Island Dispute: Bilateral Dispute in Trilateral Framework", Global Foreign Policies Review, IV (II), 26-33

TURABIAN