四川新闻网首页
四川 | 原创| 国内| 国际| 娱乐| 体育| 女性| 图片| 太阳鸟时评| 市州联播| 财经| 汽车| 房产| 旅游| 居家| 教育| 法制| 健康| 食品| 天府新区| 慢耍四川
您当前的位置:四川新闻  >  本网原创

乌鲁木齐冰点去毛多少钱飞管家养生在线昆玉疤痕修复多少钱

2018年12月13日 15:13:44
来源:四川新闻网
飞度新闻云专家

iii. The Philippines also has territorial pretensions on China’s Huangyan Dao(三)菲律宾企图染指中国黄岩岛107. The Philippines also has territorial pretensions on China’s Huangyan Dao and attempted to occupy it illegally.107. 菲律宾还对中国黄岩岛提出领土要求并企图非法侵占。108. Huangyan Dao is China’s inherent territory, over which China has continuously, peacefully and effectively exercised sovereignty and jurisdiction.108. 黄岩岛是中国固有领土,中国持续、和平、有效地对黄岩岛行使着主权和管辖。109. Before 1997, the Philippines had never challenged China’s sovereignty over Huangyan Dao, nor had it laid any territorial claim to it. On 5 February 1990, Philippine Ambassador to Germany Bienvenido A. Tan, Jr. stated in a letter to German HAM radio amateur Dieter L#246;ffler that, “According to the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, the Scarborough Reef or Huangyan Dao does not fall within the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines.”109. 1997年之前,菲律宾从未对黄岩岛属于中国提出异议,从未对黄岩岛提出领土要求。1990年2月5日,菲律宾驻德国大使比安弗尼多致函德国无线电爱好者迪特表示:“根据菲律宾国家地图和资源信息局,斯卡伯勒礁或黄岩岛不在菲律宾领土主权范围以内。”110. A “Certification of Territorial Boundary of the Republic of the Philippines”, issued by the Philippine National Mapping and Resource Information Authority on 28 October 1994, stated that “the territorial boundaries and sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines are established in Article III of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898”, and confirmed that the “Territorial Limits shown in the official Map No. 25 issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources through the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority, are fully correct and show the actual status”. As described above, the Treaty of Paris and other two treaties define the territorial limits of the Philippines, and China’s Huangyan Dao clearly lies outside those limits. Philippine Official Map No. 25 reflects this. In a letter dated 18 November 1994 to the American Radio Relay League, Inc., the Philippine Amateur Radio Association, Inc. wrote that, “one very important fact remains, the national agency concerned had stated that based on Article III of the Treaty of Paris signed on December 10, 1898, Scarborough Reef lies just outside the territorial boundaries of the Philippines”.110. 菲律宾国家地图和资源信息局1994年10月28日签发的《菲律宾共和国领土边界明书》表示,“菲律宾共和国的领土边界和主权由1898年12月10日签署的《巴黎条约》第3条确定”,并确认“菲律宾环境和自然资源部通过国家地图和资源信息局发布的第25号官方地图中显示的领土界限完全正确并体现了真实状态”。如前所述,《巴黎条约》和另外两个条约确定了菲律宾的领土界限,中国黄岩岛明显位于这一界限以外。第25号官方地图反映了这一事实。在1994年11月18日致美国无线电协会的信中,菲律宾无线电爱好者协会写道,“一个非常重要的事实是,(菲律宾)有关政府机构申明,基于1898年12月10日签署的《巴黎条约》第3条,斯卡伯勒礁就是位于菲律宾领土边界之外。”111. In April 1997, the Philippines turned its back on its previous position that Huangyan Dao is not part of the Philippine territory. The Philippines tracked, monitored and disrupted an international radio expedition on Huangyan Dao organized by the Chinese Radio Sports Association. In disregard of historical facts, the Philippines laid its territorial claim to Huangyan Dao on the grounds that it is located within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone claimed by the Philippines. In this regard, China made representations several times to the Philippines, pointing out explicitly that Huangyan Dao is China’s inherent territory and that the Philippines’ claim is groundless, illegal and void.111. 1997年4月,菲律宾一改其领土范围不包括黄岩岛的立场,对中国无线电运动协会组织的国际联合业余无线电探险队在黄岩岛的探险活动进行跟踪、监视和干扰,甚至不顾历史事实,声称黄岩岛在菲律宾主张的200海里专属经济区内,因此是菲律宾领土。对此,中国曾多次向菲律宾提出交涉,明确指出,黄岩岛是中国固有领土,菲律宾的主张是无理、非法和无效的。112. On 17 February 2009, the Philippine Congress passed Republic Act No. 9522. That act illegally includes into the Philippines’ territory China’s Huangyan Dao and some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao. China immediately made representations to the Philippines and issued a statement, reiterating China’s sovereignty over Huangyan Dao, Nansha Qundao and the adjacent waters, and declaring in explicit terms that any territorial claim over them made by any other country is illegal and void.112. 2009年2月17日,菲律宾国会通过9522号共和国法案,非法将中国黄岩岛和南沙群岛部分岛礁划为菲律宾领土。就此,中国即向菲律宾进行交涉并发表声明,重申中国对黄岩岛和南沙群岛及其附近海域的主权,任何其他国家对黄岩岛和南沙群岛的岛屿提出领土主权要求,都是非法的、无效的。113. On 10 April 2012, the Philippines’ naval vessel BRP Gregorio del Pilar (PF-15) intruded into the adjacent waters of China’s Huangyan Dao, illegally seized Chinese fishermen and fishing boats operating there and treated the fishermen in a grossly inhumane manner, thus deliberately causing the Huangyan Dao Incident. In response to the Philippines’ provocation, China immediately made multiple strong representations to Philippine officials in Beijing and Manila to protest the Philippines’ violation of China’s territorial sovereignty and harsh treatment of Chinese fishermen, and demanded that the Philippines immediately withdraw all its vessels and personnel. The Chinese government also promptly dispatched China Maritime Surveillance and China Fisheries Law Enforcement vessels to Huangyan Dao to protect China’s sovereignty and rescue the Chinese fishermen. In June 2012, after firm representations repeatedly made by China, the Philippines withdrew relevant vessels and personnel from Huangyan Dao.113. 2012年4月10日,菲律宾出动“德尔#8226;皮拉尔”号军舰,闯入中国黄岩岛附近海域,对在该海域作业的中国渔民、渔船实施非法抓扣并施以严重非人道待遇,蓄意挑起黄岩岛事件。中国即在北京和马尼拉多次对菲律宾提出严正交涉,对菲律宾侵犯中国领土主权和伤害中国渔民的行径表示强烈抗议,要求菲律宾立即撤出一切船只和人员。与此同时,中国政府迅速派出海监和渔政执法船只前往黄岩岛,维护主权并对中国渔民进行救助。2012年6月,经中国多次严正交涉,菲律宾从黄岩岛撤出相关船只和人员。114. The Philippines’ claim of sovereignty over China’s Huangyan Dao is completely baseless under international law. The illegal claim that “Huangyan Dao is within the Phlippines’ 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone so it is Philippine territory” is a preposterous and deliberate distortion of international law. By sending its naval vessel to intrude into Huangyan Dao’s adjacent waters, the Philippines grossly violated China’s territorial sovereignty, the Charter of the ed Nations and fundamental principles of international law. By instigating mass intrusion of its vessels and personnel into waters of Huangyan Dao, the Philippines blatantly violated China’s sovereignty and sovereign rights therein. The Philippines’ illegal seizure of Chinese fishermen engaged in normal operations in waters of Huangyan Dao and the subsequent inhumane treatment of them are gross violations of their dignity and human rights.114. 菲律宾对中国黄岩岛提出的非法领土要求没有任何国际法依据。所谓黄岩岛在菲律宾200海里专属经济区内因而是菲律宾领土的主张,显然是对国际法蓄意和荒唐的歪曲。菲律宾派军舰武装闯入黄岩岛附近海域,严重侵犯中国领土主权,严重违背《宪章》和国际法基本原则。菲律宾鼓动并怂恿菲方船只和人员大规模侵入中国黄岩岛海域,严重侵犯中国在黄岩岛海域的主权和主权权利。菲律宾非法抓扣在黄岩岛海域正常作业的中国渔民并施以严重的非人道待遇,严重侵犯中国渔民的人格尊严,践踏人权。iv. The Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration is an act of bad faith(四)菲律宾单方面提起仲裁是恶意行为115. On 22 January 2013, the then government of the Republic of the Philippines unilaterally initiated the South China Sea arbitration. In doing so, the Philippines has turned its back on the consensus reached and repeatedly reaffirmed by China and the Philippines to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes in the South China Sea and violated its own solemn commitment in the DOC. Deliberately packaging the relevant disputes as mere issues concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS while knowing full well that territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS and that maritime delimitation disputes have been excluded from the UNCLOS compulsory dispute settlement procedures by China’s 2006 declaration, the Philippines has wantonly abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. This initiation of arbitration aims not to settle its disputes with China, but to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea. This course of conduct is taken out of bad faith.115. 2013年1月22日,菲律宾共和国时任政府违背中菲之间达成并多次确认的通过谈判解决南海有关争议的共识,违反其在《宣言》中作出的庄严承诺,在明知领土争议不属于《公约》调整范围,海洋划界争议已被中国2006年有关声明排除的情况下,蓄意将有关争议包装成单纯的《公约》解释或适用问题,滥用《公约》争端解决机制,单方面提起南海仲裁案。菲律宾此举不是为了解决与中国的争议,而是企图借此否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益。菲律宾的行为是恶意的。116. First, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated its standing agreement with China to settle the relevant disputes through bilateral negotiation. In relevant bilateral documents, China and the Philippines have agreed to settle through negotiation their disputes in the South China Sea and reaffirmed this agreement many times. China and the Philippines made solemn commitment in the DOC to settle through negotiation relevant disputes in the South China Sea, which has been repeatedly affirmed in bilateral documents. The above bilateral documents between China and the Philippines and relevant provisions in the DOC are mutually reinforcing and constitute an agreement in this regard between the two states. By this agreement, they have chosen to settle the relevant disputes through negotiation and to exclude any third party procedure, including arbitration. Pacta sunt servanda. This fundamental norm of international law must be observed. The Philippines’ breach of its own solemn commitment is a deliberate act of bad faith. Such an act does not generate any right for the Philippines, nor does it impose any obligation on China.116. 第一,菲律宾单方面提起仲裁,违反中菲通过双边谈判解决争议的协议。中菲在有关双边文件中已就通过谈判解决南海有关争议达成协议并多次予以确认。中国和菲律宾在《宣言》中就通过谈判解决南海有关争议作出郑重承诺,并一再在双边文件中予以确认。上述中菲两国各项双边文件以及《宣言》的相关规定相辅相成,构成中菲两国之间的协议。两国据此选择了以谈判方式解决有关争端,并排除了包括仲裁在内的第三方方式。“约定必须遵守”。这项国际法基础规范必须得到执行。菲律宾违背自己的庄严承诺,是严重的背信弃义行为,不为菲律宾创设任何权利,也不为中国创设任何义务。117. Second, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has violated China’s right to choose means of dispute settlement of its own will as a state party to UNCLOS. Article 280 of Part XV of UNCLOS stipulates: “Nothing in this Part impairs the right of any States Parties to agree at any time to settle a dispute between them concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention by any peaceful means of their own choice.” Article 281 of UNCLOS provides: “If the States Parties which are parties to a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention have agreed to seek settlement of the dispute by a peaceful means of their own choice, the procedures provided for in this Part apply only where no settlement has been reached by recourse to such means and the agreement between the parties does not exclude any further procedure”. Given that China and the Philippines have made an unequivocal choice to settle through negotiation the relevant disputes, the compulsory third-party dispute settlement procedures under UNCLOS do not apply.117. 第二,菲律宾单方面提起仲裁,侵犯中国作为《公约》缔约国自主选择争端解决方式的权利。《公约》第十五部分第280条规定,“本公约的任何规定均不损害任何缔约国于任何时候协议用自行选择的任何和平方法解决它们之间有关本公约的解释或适用的争端的权利”;第281条规定,“作为有关本公约的解释或适用的争端各方的缔约各国,如已协议用自行选择的和平方法来谋求解决争端,则只有在诉诸这种方法仍未得到解决以及争端各方间的协议并不排除任何其他程序的情形下,才适用本部分所规定的程序”。由于中菲之间已就通过谈判解决争议作出明确选择,《公约》规定的第三方强制争端解决程序不适用。118. Third, by unilaterally initiating arbitration, the Philippines has abused the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures. The essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration initiated by the Philippines is an issue of territorial sovereignty over some islands and reefs of Nansha Qundao, and the resolution of the relevant matters also constitutes an integral part of maritime delimitation between China and the Philippines. Land territorial issues are not regulated by UNCLOS. In 2006, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, China made an optional exceptions declaration excluding from the compulsory dispute settlement procedures of UNCLOS disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation, historic bays or titles, military and law enforcement activities. Such declarations made by about 30 states, including China, form an integral part of the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. By camouflaging its submissions, the Philippines deliberately circumvented the optional exceptions declaration made by China and the limitation that land territorial disputes are not subject to UNCLOS, and unilaterally initiated the arbitration. This course of conduct constitutes an abuse of the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedures.118. 第三,菲律宾单方面提起仲裁,滥用《公约》争端解决程序。菲律宾提起仲裁事项的实质是南沙群岛部分岛礁的领土主权问题,有关事项也构成中菲海洋划界不可分割的组成部分。陆地领土问题不属于《公约》的调整范围。2006年,中国根据《公约》第298条作出排除性声明,将涉及海洋划界、历史性海湾或所有权、军事和执法行动等方面的争端排除在《公约》争端解决程序之外。包括中国在内的约30个国家作出的排除性声明,构成《公约》争端解决机制的组成部分。菲律宾通过包装诉求,恶意规避中方有关排除性声明和陆地领土争议不属《公约》调整事项的限制,单方面提起仲裁,构成对《公约》争端解决程序的滥用。119. Fourth, in order to push forward the arbitral proceedings, the Philippines has distorted facts, misinterpreted laws and concocted a pack of lies:119. 第四,菲律宾为推动仲裁捏造事实,曲解法律,编造了一系列谎言:— The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern China’s territorial sovereignty in the South China Sea, and that territorial issue is not subject to UNCLOS, deliberately mischaracterizes and packages the relevant issue as those concerning the interpretation or application of UNCLOS;——菲律宾明知其仲裁诉求涉及中国在南海的领土主权,领土问题不属于《公约》调整的事项,却故意将其曲解和包装成《公约》解释或适用问题;— The Philippines, fully aware that its submissions concern maritime delimitation, and that China has made an declaration, pursuant to Article 298 of UNCLOS, excluding disputes concerning, among others, maritime delimitation from the UNCLOS third-party dispute settlement procedures, intentionally detaches the diverse factors that shall be taken into consideration in the process of a maritime delimitation and treat them in an isolated way, in order to circumvent China’s optional exceptions declaration;——菲律宾明知其仲裁诉求涉及海洋划界问题,且中国已根据《公约》第298条作出声明,将包括海洋划界在内的争端排除出《公约》规定的第三方争端解决程序,却故意将海洋划界过程中需要考虑的各项因素抽离出来,孤立看待,企图规避中国有关排除性声明;— The Philippines deliberately misrepresents certain consultations with China on maritime affairs and cooperation, all of a general nature, as negotiations over the subject-matters of the arbitration, and further claims that bilateral negotiations therefore have been exhausted, despite the fact that the two states have never engaged in any negotiation on those subject-matters;——菲律宾无视中菲从未就其仲裁事项进行任何谈判的事实,故意将其与中国就一般性海洋事务与合作进行的一些磋商曲解为就仲裁事项进行的谈判,并以此为借口声称已穷尽双边谈判手段;— The Philippines claims that it does not seek a determination of any territorial issue or a delimitation of any maritime boundary, and yet many times in the course of the arbitral proceedings, especially during the oral hearings, it denies China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea;——菲律宾声称其不寻求判定任何领土归属,或划定任何海洋边界,然而在仲裁进程中,特别是庭审中,却屡屡否定中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益;— The Philippines turns a blind eye to China’s consistent position and practice on the South China Sea issue, and makes a completely false assertion that China lays an exclusive claim of maritime rights and interests to the entire South China Sea;——菲律宾无视中国在南海问题上的一贯立场和实践,子虚乌有地声称中国对整个南海主张排他性的海洋权益;— The Philippines exaggerates Western colonialists’ role in the South China Sea in history and denies the historical facts and corresponding legal effect of China’s longstanding exploration, exploitation and administration in history of relevant waters of the South China Sea;——菲律宾刻意夸大西方殖民者历史上在南海的作用,否定中国长期开发、经营和管辖南海相关水域的史实及相应的法律效力;— The Philippines puts together some remotely relevant and woefully weak pieces of evidence and makes far-fetched inferences to support its submissions;——菲律宾牵强附会,拼凑关联性和明力不强的据,强撑其诉讼请求;— The Philippines, in order to make out its claims, arbitrarily interprets rules of international law, and resorts to highly controversial legal cases and unauthoritative personal opinions in large quantity.——菲律宾随意解释国际法规则,大量援引极具争议的司法案例和不具权威性的个人意见撑其诉求。120. In short, the Philippines’ unilateral initiation of arbitration contravenes international law including the UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism. The Arbitral Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration established at the Philippines’ unilateral request has, ab initio, no jurisdiction, and awards rendered by it are null and void and have no binding force. China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea shall under no circumstances be affected by those awards. China does not accept or recognize those awards. China opposes and will never accept any claim or action based on those awards.120. 简言之,菲律宾单方面提起仲裁违反包括《公约》争端解决机制在内的国际法。应菲律宾单方面请求建立的南海仲裁案仲裁庭自始无管辖权,所作出的裁决是无效的,没有拘束力。中国在南海的领土主权和海洋权益在任何情况下不受仲裁裁决的影响。中国不接受、不承认该裁决,反对且不接受任何以仲裁裁决为基础的主张和行动。 /201607/454526新疆省整形美容医院激光祛痘手术多少钱Being overweight in middle-age makes the brain age by 10 years, research by the University of Cambridge has found.据剑桥大学的一项研究发现,中年肥胖者的大脑会比他们实际年龄老10岁。The study, which scanned 473 brains, found changes in the brain structure of overweight people which are normally seen in those far older.通过对473个人进行脑部扫描,这项研究发现,超重人士,尤其是那些年老人士的大脑结构有所变化。The volume of white matter - the tissue that connects areas of the brain and allows information to be communicated between regions - shrunk far more in those with a Body Mass Index above 25. Shrinkage of parts of the brain is associated with a higher risk of cognitive decline and dementia.对于那些身体质量指数在25以上的人,脑白质(连接大脑各区域的组织,并允许各区域之间进行信息的传递)萎缩的更严重。而大脑的收缩,意味着具有认知衰退和痴呆的高风险。The Cambridge Study found no differences in cognitive skills when participants underwent IQ tests. But the men and women will be scanned as they get older, to check for changes which indicate mental decline.剑桥大学研究团队对参与者进行了智商测试,没有发现他们有认知能力下降的迹象。不过,随着他们变老,将会再次扫描大脑以检测智力是否有下降。Human brains naturally shrink with age, but scientists are increasingly recognising that obesity - aly linked to conditions such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease - may also affect the onset and progression of brain ageing.我们的大脑自然地随着年龄的增长而萎缩,但科学家们越来越认识到,肥胖除了已知与如糖尿病、癌症和心脏疾病等多种疾病相关之外,也可能影响大脑老化的发生与进展。In the study of people aged between 20 and 87, researchers looked at the impact of obesity on brain structure across the adult lifespan.在对一组20岁到87岁的参与者的研究中,科学家观察了在整个成人寿命期限内,肥胖对大脑结构的影响。Researchers divided the groups into two categories: lean and overweight, depending on whether their BMI was above or below 25. They found striking differences in the volume of white matter. Overweight individuals had a widesp reduction in white matter compared with lean people.依据身体质量指数高于或低于25,研究员将参与者分成了两组:偏瘦组和超重组。他们发现两组的脑白质含量有惊人的区别。与偏瘦组相比,超重组的脑白质含量普遍都比较低。The team then calculated how white matter volume related to age across the two groups. They discovered that an overweight person at 50 had a comparable white matter volume to a lean person aged 60.之后,研究人员计算了两组人员中脑白质含量和年龄的相关性。他们发现,一个50岁超重的人,他的大脑白质和一个60岁偏瘦的人的大脑白质数量是一样的。Researchers only observed these differences from middle-age onwards, suggesting that brains may be particularly vulnerable during this period of ageing.研究人员只是从中年个体中发现了这些差异,这意味着随着人们年龄增长,大脑会变得越来越脆弱。 /201608/460991双河市抽脂多少钱乌鲁木齐整形美容医院激光祛斑

新疆省妇幼保健院修眉多少钱伊宁打玻尿酸多少钱乌鲁木齐市友谊医院瘦腿针多少钱乌鲁木齐达坂城区大腿激光脱毛多少钱

分页 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

返回
顶部