琉球主權之歸屬，雖於歷史、政治與經貿的角度之研究甚少，但其在國際政治與法律地位的層面上之關係卻不單純。首先，基於歷史傳統面向探討之，可知琉球雖自明朝為我國藩屬國，卻於「分島政約」協議不成後日本廢藩改縣而告亡國，及「馬關條約」更使日本對琉球之佔領事實已告歷史主權而確立。再者，就政治現實面向探討，可知二次戰後美國「託管」琉球群島，但美日間亦有默契，使得美國以日本對琉球保有「剩餘主權（residual sovereignty）」為由而預留日後依主權歸還原則（the principle of return）移轉予日本之伏筆；另一方面，我國於「中日和平條約」亦未對琉球自治或獨立有所主張，使得此後無法再於琉球主權歸屬議題上據理力爭。最後，毋寧由國際地位與國際法面向探討，可知我國對琉球主權地位以難能置喙，而國際法上日本藉由「征服（conquest）」手段取得琉球領土主權亦為合法，在無其他國家反對之時，已逐漸建立其正當性，職是之故，在臺灣的中華民國不應對琉球群島主權爭議上做無謂的爭執，而以交流發展多方合作為是。

The research of the Okinawa’s sovereignty from the stands of the historical political and trade has not too much, while its relationship between the international political and legal status is so complicated. Firstly, based on the traditional history, Okinawa was a vassal state in the Ming Dynasty. However, Japan terminated its vassal state status and established County status under “the Discrete Islands” agreement, and eventually the islands became the Japanese historical sovereignty under “the Shimonoseki Treaty” with Japan’s occupation fact. Secondly, in terms of the political practice, the United States, which enjoyed the residual sovereignty, transferred the Okinawa’s sovereignty to Japan in accordance with the principle of return in international law. On the other hand, the ROC did not claim the Okinawa’s sovereignty which belongs to whom. Finally, the ROC, therefore, is quite hard to claim the Okinawa’s sovereign status in the international legal principle, while Japan legimately enjoys the Okinawa’s territorial sovereignty by means of the conquest rule without objection by other states. Currently, the Republic of China of Taiwan seems to have no legal status of Okinawa. Therefore, it is significant that Taiwan should establish the mutual cooperation in many fields with the Okinawa islands.