Changes

The entire series of meetings, negotiations, debates and plans regarding the Ryûkyû situation in the 1870s played out against a background of the clash between traditional East Asian conceptions of international relations, and "modern"/Western forms of international law and diplomatic relations. Japan's relationship with Ryûkyû<ref>As well as its relations with every other state or nation in the region, and their relations with one another, e.g. China's relationship with Ryûkyû.</ref> had for centuries been understood and articulated in terms of the conceptions, and terminology, of the [[Sinocentric world order|traditional East Asian world order]]. Yet, now, in order for its actions in Ryûkyû and its overall disposition in international relations to play out in a manner which Western powers would acknowledge, respect, and consider appropriate in terms of international law, all of this had to be re-articulated.

The entire series of meetings, negotiations, debates and plans regarding the Ryûkyû situation in the 1870s played out against a background of the clash between traditional East Asian conceptions of international relations, and "modern"/Western forms of international law and diplomatic relations. Japan's relationship with Ryûkyû<ref>As well as its relations with every other state or nation in the region, and their relations with one another, e.g. China's relationship with Ryûkyû.</ref> had for centuries been understood and articulated in terms of the conceptions, and terminology, of the [[Sinocentric world order|traditional East Asian world order]]. Yet, now, in order for its actions in Ryûkyû and its overall disposition in international relations to play out in a manner which Western powers would acknowledge, respect, and consider appropriate in terms of international law, all of this had to be re-articulated.

Throughout the early 1870s, in negotiations with China regarding the disputes over both Taiwan and Ryûkyû, terminology was employed in which Japanese sovereignty in the modern/Western sense was asserted over territories and peoples which had been considered "subjects," "vassals," or "belonging"<ref>''Zokkoku'' 属国 and ''zokumin'' 属民, most literally meaning "country which belongs" and "people which belongs," respectively, were used to refer to Ryûkyû and to the [[Ainu]] as "subject state" or "vassal people."</ref> to Japan under the traditional East Asian system.

Throughout the early 1870s, in negotiations with China regarding the disputes over both Taiwan and Ryûkyû, terminology was employed in which Japanese sovereignty in the modern/Western sense was asserted over territories and peoples which had been considered "subjects," "vassals," or "belonging"<ref>''Zokkoku'' 属国 and ''zokumin'' 属民, most literally meaning "country which belongs" and "people which belongs," respectively, were used to refer to Ryûkyû and to the [[Ainu]] as "subject state" or "vassal people."</ref> to Japan under the traditional East Asian system. More specifically, international law as it stood at the time permitted, or condoned, possession and control of lands if it could be demonstrated or argued that "effective rule" was in place. Attempting to reconcile traditional East Asian conceptions of the world order with the terminology and technical categories of international law as defined by the Western powers, Japan argued that Ryûkyû's "subject state" (属国, ''zokkoku'') status under Satsuma han since [[1609]] constituted "effective rule". We cannot know whether Japanese officials truly believed this conflation of the two concepts to be legitimate, or if they recognized that Japan had not exercised "effective rule" according to Western legal definitions and were merely trying to twist the terminology in order to justify their intentions.

As a result of having taken this stance, and in order to maintain that assertion, Ôkubo Toshimichi rejected suggestions from French diplomatic & legal advisor [[Gustave Emile Boissonade]] that Ryûkyû be administered more indirectly, like a colony.

As a result of having taken this stance of asserting Japanese administrative and territorial rights over Ryûkyû, and in order to maintain and defend that position, Ôkubo Toshimichi rejected suggestions from French diplomatic & legal advisor [[Gustave Emile Boissonade]] that Ryûkyû be administered more indirectly, in a more colonial fashion. Even so, [[Uemura Hideaki]] argues that, in the end, given the way the annexation of the Ryukyus took place, and the way it was administered, the term "colony" should be used to refer to Okinawa.<ref>Uemura. p122.</ref>

==Overthrow and Annexation==

==Overthrow and Annexation==