65. Third, Nansha Qundao is not “trust territory” either. The Philippines claims that after the Second World War, Nansha Qundao became “trust territory”, the sovereignty over which was undetermined. This claim finds no support in law or reality. The post-War trust territories were all specifically listed in relevant international treaties or the documents of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. Nansha Qundao was never included in them and was thus not trust territory at all.
66. 第四,“地理邻近”和“国家安全”都不是领土取得的国际法依据。世界上许多国家的部分领土远离其本土,有的甚至位于他国近岸。美国殖民统治菲律宾期间,就菲律宾群岛附近一座岛屿的主权与荷兰产生争端,美国以“地理邻近”为由提出的领土主张被判定为没有国际法依据。以所谓“国家安全”为由侵占他国领土更是荒谬的。
66. Fourth, neither “contiguity or proximity” nor national security is a basis under international law for acquiring territory. Many countries have territories far away from their metropolitan areas, in some cases even very close to the shores of other countries. When exercising colonial rule over the Philippines, the United States had a dispute with the Netherlands regarding sovereignty over an island which is close to the Philippine Archipelago, and the United States’ claim on the basis of contiguity was ruled as having no foundation in international law. Furthermore, it is just absurd to invade and occupy the territory of other countries on the ground of national security.
【国新办发表中菲南海争议白皮书(双语对照)】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15