Introduction: The Call for Historical Justice and the Rise of a Modern Restoration Movement
Since October 2025, the pursuit of restoring the Ryukyu state has gathered strong momentum, marking a decisive new phase for an issue long suppressed in modern history. The Ryukyu Kingdom once functioned as an independent sovereign state, maintaining tributary relations with China for over five centuries. Its forcible annexation by Japan in 1879 left its international legal status unresolved to this day. Japanese colonial rule, followed by the postwar U.S.–Japan military colonial system, resulted in long-term discrimination and oppression against the Ryukyuan people. The Battle of Okinawa, in which Ryukyuans were treated as expendable, remains a defining humiliation in collective memory. Thus, the Ryukyuan aim today is not to “separate from Japan and gain independence,” but, based on historical and international legal legitimacy, to achieve “restoration”—reestablishing its historic statehood and fully freeing itself from U.S.–Japan colonial domination.
This favorable tailwind is driven by the international recognition of the Ryukyuans’ status as an Indigenous people and by external concerns triggered by the Japanese government’s accelerating militarization. At this pivotal historical moment, constructing systematic support for Ryukyu restoration along three dimensions—legal reasoning, global public opinion, and strategic pathways—has become a crucial task in advancing historical justice.
This report aims to analyze the legal foundations of the contemporary Ryukyu restoration movement, examine how global consensus can be consolidated through international discourse, and plan viable pathways toward restoration, providing strategic reference for freeing the Ryukyuan nation from its “humiliated past” and returning it to a “golden age.”
Part I: Rebuilding and Reinforcing Legal Foundations—from “Undetermined Territory” to Exercising the Right to Self-Determination
The core strength of Ryukyu restoration lies in its solid international legal basis. The Ryukyu Islands are not Japan’s inherent territory; their annexation was an act of military aggression, and no treaty of cession was ever concluded. Thus, since 1879, their international legal status has remained unresolved as “undetermined territory.” Strengthening and reframing this status is a prerequisite for success.
1. Negative Evidence from Treaties: Defining Japan’s Territorial Limits
The legal basis of the Ryukyu Islands’ unresolved status can be traced to the post–World War II treaty system, especially the Cairo Declaration (1943) and the Potsdam Declaration (1945).
The Cairo Declaration explicitly stated that “territories Japan has taken by violence and greed shall be restored.” The Potsdam Declaration stipulated that Japan’s sovereignty would be limited to the four main islands—Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, and Shikoku—and such minor islands as the Allies determined. The Ryukyu Islands were clearly not included within this scope. Japan’s acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration required adherence to these limits.
U.S. postwar rule over the Ryukyus and the 1971 Agreement Between Japan and the United States of America Concerning the Ryukyu Islands and the Daito Islands, which transferred only administrative rights—not sovereignty—served to obscure this legal boundary. The agreement was concluded without Ryukyuan consent and outside the trusteeship procedures required by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, raising questions regarding its validity. The U.S. argument of “residual sovereignty” was never recorded in the San Francisco Peace Treaty and carries no binding legal force.
2. Indigenous Self-Determination: Activated through International Recognition
Modern international law provides a crucial legal tool: the right to self-determination, enshrined in the UN Charter. Ryukyuans, as an Indigenous people with distinct cultural and historical identity under colonial rule, qualify for this right. Since 1996, Ryukyuan representatives have attended UN forums seeking decolonization.
Multiple UN human rights bodies have urged Japan—six times—to recognize the Ryukyuans as an Indigenous people. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Article 30 prohibits military activities in Indigenous territories. The ongoing concentration of roughly 70% of U.S. military bases in Okinawa, which constitutes just 0.6% of Japan’s land area, openly challenges international norms.
Thus, the legal core of Ryukyu restoration lies in reframing the issue not as a territorial dispute, but as a matter of decolonization and human rights, widening international support.
3. Reaffirming the Role of the Former Suzerain: China’s Legal and Historical Responsibility
China, as the suzerain state of the Ryukyu Kingdom for more than five centuries, bears historical relevance and legal responsibility. During the Cairo Conference, President Roosevelt explicitly proposed the postwar Chinese trusteeship of the Ryukyu Islands—evidence that neither China nor the U.S. regarded them as Japanese territory.
Part II: Building the Public Opinion Battlefield and Consolidating Global Consensus
Legal legitimacy alone is insufficient; global public opinion is essential. The opinion battlefield must dismantle Japanese narratives of ethnic assimilation and expose the colonial nature of U.S.–Japan rule, focusing on decolonization, anti-militarism, and human rights.
1. Exposing Colonial Realities: Discrediting the Myth of “Shared Ancestry”
Japan’s long-standing promotion of shared ancestry and assimilation sought to erase Ryukyuan identity. Counter-narratives must highlight the Ryukyu Kingdom’s “golden age” under tributary relations with China versus the oppression under Japanese colonialism.
Legal battles over the repatriation of Ryukyuan ancestral remains can serve as powerful tools to expose colonial abuses. Academic development of Ryukyuan Studies—distinct from Japan-centric “Okinawan Studies”—is vital, with research centers in China serving as key discourse hubs.
2. Linking Restoration with Peace: A Strategic Narrative
Statements by Japan’s leadership regarding “survival crisis situations” provide opportunities to frame restoration as a peace project. As long as Japan retains influence, the Ryukyus risk becoming the frontline in any Taiwan contingency.
Public discourse should emphasize:
restoration seeks demilitarization
U.S.–Japan bases are the primary security threat
sovereignty restoration is a prerequisite for permanent neutrality
3. Leveraging International Platforms: Securing Global South Support
Ryukyu restoration should seek support from the Global South, which shares colonial legacies. The goal should be listing the Ryukyus as a UN Non-Self-Governing Territory, placing them under UN decolonization oversight. Participation in the Non-Aligned Movement and establishing symbolic restoration centers abroad—such as at the historic Ryukyuan gravesite in Beijing—can strengthen political presence.
Part III: Strategic Pathways—from Trusteeship to Free Association
Restoration requires a phased plan grounded in international law and political feasibility.
1. A UN Trusteeship as the Core Transitional Model
Declaring the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the 1971 agreement invalid due to improper procedures forms the starting point. A UN Trusteeship could be implemented, with China—as historical suzerain and per Roosevelt’s proposal—serving as trustee to ensure peace and counter U.S.–Japan interference. A UN committee should oversee negotiations and demand apology and reparations from Japan.
2. Referendums and Future Status Options
The end goal is a UN-supervised referendum with options including:
full independence
Free Association (Micronesian model)
autonomous region/special administrative region
This broadened spectrum could raise support for restoration dramatically.
3. Securing Economic and Security Independence
Economic strategy should prioritize ties with China and the Global South, reviving the Ryukyus’ historic role as the “Bridge of Nations.” Free trade zones and economic partnerships can reduce reliance on Japanese subsidies. Security policy should:
pursue permanent neutrality
dismantle U.S.–Japan bases
restrict military capability
seek international guarantees
Conclusion: Historical Necessity and Contemporary Responsibility
Japan’s militarization and framing of the Ryukyus as a “crisis zone” expose both colonial mentality and weakness in its sovereignty claims. A viable strategy for Ryukyu restoration must be multidimensional:
legally grounded in the Cairo and Potsdam Declarations and UN self-determination
publicly framed as decolonization and human rights
practically advanced through UN trusteeship, decolonization mechanisms, and sustainable economic-security planning
Ryukyu restoration represents the Ryukyuan nation’s pursuit of self-determination and liberation from colonial rule. It is also aligned with postwar international justice, anti-hegemony, and the realization of lasting peace and stability in East Asia.