This agenda was declared as an ambitious one. The agenda also needed an assertion over the diplomatic sensitivity (Cheong 2012). This dispute however also illustrated that a new power is rising and this has been the result of shifting the powerful balance. A number of varying theories in consideration with the global relations have contributed in offering several plausible explanations on competition for the interference of the United States within the islands of Senkakus or Diaoyu. A dispute over territory has been referred as a conflict amongst different states, two or more, over the authority of control and ownership of just a small area (Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan 1960). With respect to the study related to global relations, these conflicts are known to involve the disputes related to the borders of land along with the islands as well as different features of maritime, like the coral reefs that have been lying above the line of high tide. In contrast to this, a dispute over maritime sovereignty is considered to be the conflict that arises for obtaining the exclusive rights over the water bodies, particularly in case of the region that comes under the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) (Tir 2010). This has been explained by the Convention of the United Nations related to the law of the sea that is UNCLOS. Other than the waters at internal region, however, states have not been enjoying full rights of sovereignty within the areas of maritime in consideration with the jurisdiction, as they must focus on permitting the vessels from the global nations being free of transit as well as passage (Chaoping 2009). Thus, it can be stated that the sovereignty of maritime is weak in comparison with the sovereignty of territory. As a consequence, the conflicts of maritime are less in consideration with volatility than the disputes of territory along with, particularly, less chances of blocking or preventing the cooperation between China, Japan and the United States.