要引要引全啊
判决全文的下载点 http://goo.gl/H7Uyeb 找Award 这篇就是
来看看文中怎么写的吧
PDF56页
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.”
菲律宾提交新材料
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.
中国没派人自然没人抗辩
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.”
第三则是马英九强调太平岛的讯息
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，那是强调中国的九段线没有意义
(C)特别强调要谨慎处理马英九放出的讯息，上文引的新资料表示太平岛的自然环境恶化
“fact that Itu Aba lacks the freshwater and soil resources to do so,”
接下来直接跳到Tomwalker版友引的那段吧，中间内容好长，没心力处理
PDF262页
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.
过去不代表现在，法庭接受过去有小群体在此生活过，但现在受到显著限制(判决文中
特别提到太平岛机场造成环境的破坏)
菲律宾主张是过去的确太平岛有南沙诸岛最好的淡水资源，但已遭受破坏，从她引的
三篇新文章可以为证，马政府所说法庭不要采信
我英文很烂，应该有不少翻错，但从判决文本直接下手才是讨论问题最好方法
历史研究最后还是要回归原始史料不是吗？