要引要引全啊
判決全文的下載點 http://goo.gl/H7Uyeb 找Award 這篇就是
來看看文中怎麼寫的吧
PDF56頁
86.
The Philippines reported that it approved of the proposed appointments and had
no comments.
On 11 March 2016, the Philippines submitted its comments concerning additional
materials relating to (a) evidence relevant to Submissions No. 11 and 12(b)
on protection of the marine environment, and (b) materials relevant to the
status of features that may generate overlapping entitlements. Its comments
were accompanied by 30 new annexes, including two new expert reports, by
Dr. Ryan T. Bailey on “Groundwater Resources Analysis of Itu Aba” and by
Dr. Peter P. Motavalli on “Soil Resources and Potential Self-Sustaining
Agricultural Production on Itu Aba.”
菲律賓提交新材料
Dr. Peter P. Motavalli, Soil Resources and Potential Self-Sustaining
Agricultural Production on Itu Aba (9 March 2016)
Dr. Ryan T. Bailey, Groundwater Resources Analysis of Itu Aba
(9 March 2016)
Dr. Ryan T. Bailey, Supplemental Report on Groundwater Resources
Analysis of Itu Aba (20 April 2016)
87.
China did not comment on the proposed appointment of either expert candidate.
China did not respond to the Tribunal’s invitation to supply information
about environmental impact assessments and did not comment on the new
materials about Itu Aba.
中國沒派人自然沒人抗辯
89.
On 1 April 2016, the Tribunal sent three letters to the Parties:
(C)
The third letter invited the Parties’ comments on four new documents that had
come to the Tribunal’s attention, namely a “Position Paper on ROC South China Sea Policy,” the comments of the People’s Republic of China Foreign Ministry
Spokesperson in response to that Position Paper; a document published by the
“Chinese (Taiwan) Society of International Law” and some remarks of
Mr. Ma Ying-jeou, then President of the Taiwan Authority of China, at an
international press conference “regarding Taiping [Itu Aba] Island in Nansha
Islands.”
第三則是馬英九強調太平島的訊息
92.
On 25 April 2016, the Philippines filed its responses to the Tribunal’s
request for comments on additional materials regarding the status of Itu Aba.
While the Philippines considered that it would have been “within its rights
in requesting, and the Tribunal would be well-justified in finding, that these
materials should be disregarded,” it nevertheless “recognized the exceptional
difficulties China’s non-appearance has created for the Tribunal”and chose“
not to object to the Tribunal’s consideration of Taiwan’s most recent
materials should the Tribunal itself find itappropriate to do so.” 21 The
Philippines’ comments were accompanied by two revised translations and 21 new
annexes, including supplemental expert reports from Dr. Bailey and
Dr. Motavalli. The Philippines submitted that: (a) Taiwan’s newest materials“
must be treated with caution,” (b) “[n]o further attempts by Taiwan to
influence the Tribunal’s deliberations should be entertained,”
(c) “[i]n any event, Taiwan’s latest submissions only prove that Itu Aba has
never supported genuine, sustained human habitation or economic life of its
own” as explained in part by the “fact that Itu Aba lacks the freshwater and
soil resources to do so,”
92.下面就不引了，那是強調中國的九段線沒有意義
(C)特別強調要謹慎處理馬英九放出的訊息，上文引的新資料表示太平島的自然環境惡化
“fact that Itu Aba lacks the freshwater and soil resources to do so,”
接下來直接跳到Tomwalker版友引的那段吧，中間內容好長，沒心力處理
PDF262頁
584.
.......Ultimately, the Tribunal notes that the freshwater resources of these
features combined presumably with rainwater collection,
evidently have supported small numbers of people in the past (see paragraph
601 below) andconcludes that they are therefore able to do so in their natural condition, whether or not that
remains the case today.
601.
Taken as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the Spratly Islands were
historically used by small groups of fishermen. Based on the clear reference
from 1868, the Tribunal also accepts that some of these individuals were
present in the Spratlys for comparatively long periods of time, with an
established network of trade and intermittent supply. At the same time, the
overall number of individuals engaged in this livelihood appears to have been
significantly constrained.
過去不代表現在，法庭接受過去有小群體在此生活過，但現在受到顯著限制(判決文中
特別提到太平島機場造成環境的破壞)
菲律賓主張是過去的確太平島有南沙諸島最好的淡水資源，但已遭受破壞，從她引的
三篇新文章可以為證，馬政府所說法庭不要採信
我英文很爛，應該有不少翻錯，但從判決文本直接下手才是討論問題最好方法
歷史研究最後還是要回歸原始史料不是嗎？