Here's the things about "disputed" territorial claims, national rights, sovereignty and such: They are not real. There is no objective basis for resolving them.

Here's the things about "disputed" territorial claims, national rights, sovereignty and such: They are not real. There is no objective basis for resolving them. Borders, maritime boundaries the existence of such a thing as "Chinese," "Scottish" or "Kurdish" is only given substance by people believing it and acting as if it were real. Every piece of land in the world has been competed for and disputed many times. Sometimes identities such as "Chinese," "Scottish" or "Kurdish" are created or hardened specifically to serve that dispute. Other times they are dissolved by the outcome of the dispute. I'm not trying to make some grand claim that "It's all an illusion." China is disputing Japan's ownership of these islands. The ownership of these islands is in dispute. We can either have some sort of lawful (or otherwise peaceful) way of resolving these disputes or we can go back to the traditional method of war and intimidation. Our international legal systems were put in place in politically difficult circumstances to prevent world wars. They have definitions of territorial claims and some shambles of a system for resolving them and (theoretically) enforcing them. But this system (being a shambles) get very little respect. They are ignored by major power, minor powers and sometimes by upstarts (ISIS declared the border between Iraq & Syria dissolved and implemented that declaration).