再訪釣魚台主權爭端：以法律哲學與語言分析哲學的觀點深化對國際法之理解

The Dispute over the Diao-yu Island Revisited: Deepening the Understanding of the International Law Through Legal Philosophy and Language Analysis

對於釣魚台主權的討論，長年來難以擺脫民族主義情緒的影響，這樣的研究容易流於偏見，對釐清問題亦無助益，特別會導致對文獻的偏頗、選擇性使用，即：只凸顯能支持自己所預設的結論之資料，而將不符合期待的資料掩藏或棄置。
本文不是要重複上述這種動機的論述，而是要借助法律哲學及語言分析哲學的方法，首先檢視歷年來涉及主張釣魚台主權的主要命題是否成立。再來檢視中國的主張在面對日本始於1895年的實際控制的事實之下可否成立。最後則探討為什麼兩岸中國直到1971年以前都不做抗議與索討、這是否有理由能自我辯護、這對中國爭取釣魚台的主權有何影響？
在結論中則指出：那些議題才是爭論的關鍵點、也是爭論所應聚焦之處，以及中方未來應設法補強的證據。

T The dispute concerning the Diao-yu Island has long been dominated as well as interfered by the nationalistic sentiment. This kind of research is neither impartial nor constructive. A biased start always leads to the misuse of the literature, namely emphasizing the data that could support the anticipated conclusion and entirely ignoring intentionally the ones that contradict the wishes.
In opposition to the above-mentioned inadequate approach this essay intends to analyze this subject by means of legal philosophy and language analysis. First, the traditional reasons for or against the Chinese sovereignty over this island will be examined. Second, this essay will investigate whether there would be reasons based on that China could make a justified claim on the ownership of Diao-yu Island, especially against the backdrop of the Japanese effective control of this island since 1895. Third, it will be investigated why China, be it PRC or ROC, never protested against all dispositions on this island before 1971? And what will this silence effect?
At the end this essay tries to point out: which points should be the key ones related to this issue, if the disputing parties in the future want to continue their claims.