|
|
发表于 13-4-2019 11:03 AM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah04 于 13-4-2019 12:45 PM 编辑
要你回答最基礎的問題, 你都避而不答:
這個仲裁庭是合法的嗎?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 09:49 AM
|
显示全部楼层
发生了什么事,为何status变成用户被禁止发言?难道真的自己按照自己之前说的话一刀斃命了?
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 09:54 AM
|
显示全部楼层
当然是合法的啦!只有你自己接受不了现实而已,不过你不是一刀斃命了吗?死人是不能说话的,要安静的安息,不要吵到隔壁坟墓,ok?
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 01:04 PM
|
显示全部楼层
錯, 依那條UNCLOS條文? 根本查不到.....所以它是不合法滴!
你不敢翻譯了嗎? 你縮沙了????? 作賊心虛了嗎?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 02:21 PM
|
显示全部楼层
又再要人spoon feed!
UNCLOS Annex VII cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA Since the 1982 Convention came into force in 1994, the PCA has acted as registry in 12 cases that have been arbitrated under Annex VII of UNCLOS. The cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA include the following:
- The Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v. São Tomé and Príncipe), instituted in October 2013 and still pending
- The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (the Netherlands v. the Russian Federation), instituted in October 2013 and still pending
- The Atlanto-Scandian Herring Arbitration (Denmark in respect of the Faroe Islands v. the European Union), instituted in August 2013 and terminated by a tribunal order issued in September 2014, following an agreement between the Parties reached in August 2014
- The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China, instituted in January 2013 and decided by an award rendered on July 12, 2016.
- The "Enrica Lexie" Incident (Italy v. India), instituted in June 2015 and still pending
- The Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), instituted in December 2010 and decided by a final award rendered on March 18, 2015
- The Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration (Bangladesh v. India), instituted in October 2009 and decided by a final award rendered on July 7, 2014
- The ARA Libertad Arbitration (Argentina v. Ghana), instituted in October 2012 and terminated by a tribunal order issued in November 2013 following an agreement between the Parties reached in September 2013
- Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, instituted in February 2004 and decided by a final award rendered on April 11, 2006
- Guyana v. Suriname, instituted in February 2004 and decided by a final award rendered on September 17, 2007
- Malaysia v. Singapore, instituted in July 2003 and terminated by an award on agreed terms rendered on September 1, 2005
- The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. United Kingdom), instituted in November 2001 and terminated through a tribunal order issued on June 6, 2008
你不敢翻譯了嗎? 你縮沙了????? 作賊心虛了嗎?
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 03:11 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah04 于 14-4-2019 03:25 PM 编辑
tuaceng 发表于 14-4-2019 02:21 PM
又再要人spoon feed!
UNCLOS Annex VII cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA Since the 1982 Convention came into force in 1994, the PCA has acted as registry in 12 cases that have been arbi ... UNCLOS Annex VII cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA Since the 1982 Convention came into force in 1994, the PCA has acted as registry in 12 cases that have been arbitrated under Annex VII of UNCLOS. The cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA include the following:
你貼這個作啥, PCA 都說它只提供registry services 而己.
看清楚:
....only provided registry services to the South China Sea arbitral tribunal
你看不懂嗎? 有關仲裁的裁定, PCA是沒有介入,
PCA是提供registry services而己......
在UNCLOS 有清楚定義誰可以作仲裁哦.....非UN,
非PCA的仲裁庭有何資格?
....It's Not A PCA Ruling....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 03:13 PM
|
显示全部楼层
tuaceng 发表于 14-4-2019 02:21 PM
又再要人spoon feed!
UNCLOS Annex VII cases arbitrated under the auspices of the PCA Since the 1982 Convention came into force in 1994, the PCA has acted as registry in 12 cases that have been arbi ...
那你以下的翻出來了沒?
Before a dispute can be made the subject of an action at law,
its subject matter should have been clearly defined by diplomatic negotiations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 05:52 PM
|
显示全部楼层
你要表达什么?
本来都是这样运作的,都是按照UNCLOS annex Vii的程序做,所以仲裁当然合法!
所以到现在都不知道你在反对什么?
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 05:56 PM
|
显示全部楼层
你可以翻译给我看,句子里面那一句有硬性规定:解决争端必须先通过谈判?
这句是你引用出来的,而且是你宣称:硬性规定解决争端必须先通过谈判,所以你现在就要证实你说的话是有根据的
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 06:14 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本来都是这样运作的,都是按照UNCLOS annex Vii的程序做,所以仲裁当然合法!
所以到现在都不知道你在反对什么?
Annex VII 可沒有說允許阿里不打的仲裁庭作仲裁哦......你在打臉你自己嗎?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 06:18 PM
|
显示全部楼层
句子里面那一句有硬性规定:解决争端必须先通过谈判?
句子沒規定嗎? 能採法律行動前, 本應先把內容要旨透過外交談判界定清楚
Before a dispute can be made the subject of an action at law,
its subject matter should have been clearly defined by diplomatic negotiations.
have been 就讓它消失....你的芭樂英文是很可笑滴!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:14 PM
|
显示全部楼层
是你自己看不懂而已,这次仲裁我看不到违反annex vii之处,所以是你自己搞错了.
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:17 PM
|
显示全部楼层
tuaceng 发表于 14-4-2019 07:14 PM
是你自己看不懂而已,这次仲裁我看不到违反annex vii之处,所以是你自己搞错了.
你之前说的:
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Vol ... 是你自己看不懂而已,这次仲裁我看不到违反annex vii之处
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:17 PM
|
显示全部楼层
能採法律行動前, 本應先把內容要旨透過外交談判界定清楚
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:29 PM
|
显示全部楼层
无缘无故又跳到仲裁官人選?
你还是没有指出,该仲裁倒底违反了annex vii那一条法律.
所以请问该仲裁违反了annex vii那一条法律?
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:34 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah04 于 14-4-2019 07:39 PM 编辑
是本来应该,而不是本来必须,所以谢谢你自己承认这不是硬性规定,承认你英文烂,所以你又在自己打自己的脸!
本來應該和應該是不一樣的, 你怎能混成一談呢......
本來應該 ==> 你必須作, 但你沒作, 所以你條件不足!!!!
Before a dispute can be made the subject of an action at law,
its subject matter should have been clearly defined by diplomatic negotiations.
should have been => 本來應該, 你確實得作, 不然前面的條件不成立.
為啥用should + have + p.p. 而不用should?
不就是為了讓你這種爛英文的人不會胡說八道
Its subject matter should clearly define by diplomatic negotaions.
==> 這個確實是非強制
Its subject matter should have been clearly defined by diplomatic negotiations
==> 這個就明確指出如不作, 則滿足不了前面(Before...)的條件要求了
你還有啥可辯解啊? 芭樂英文????
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:36 PM
|
显示全部楼层
所以, 你根本沒有熟讀..........這個阿里不打的仲裁庭合法嗎?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:41 PM
|
显示全部楼层
所以是你英文烂,你之前强调是硬性规定,现在又非强制,不就是你的英文烂咯!
我们之前讨论了那么多页,就是:解决争端,是否必须一定要先通过谈判这个方法.
如今不须先通过谈判也可以,那么不就符合我的理解:喜欢就跟,不喜欢就不跟!
你之前说的:
我等你讓我一刀斃命, 舉証拿出link來就對了.....
结果如今拿出来了:
https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
The Philippines’ Memorial – Volume VI (Annexes 158-221)
download | 30 March 2014 | English | filesize missing
黑纸白字的,大大个字的写"Records of Discussion"(会议记录)!!!
所以,谢谢你实现之前的诺言,在清明节的这个礼拜一刀斃命!每年的今天,我们都会来拜你的!
RIP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:50 PM
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 SuperKedah04 于 14-4-2019 07:52 PM 编辑
所以是你英文烂,你之前强调是硬性规定,现在又非强制,不就是你的英文烂咯!
我们之前讨论了那么多页,就是:解决争端,是否必须一定要先通过谈判这个方法.
如今不须先通过谈判也可以,那么不就符合我的理解:喜欢就跟,不喜欢就不跟!
哈, 以上英文不就是捨棄should, 用了should have been了嗎, 那這明確了,
要界定要旨, 還是要通過外交談判了. 有了外交談判, 界定的內容要旨,
才可以通過法律程序.....雖沒有說明強制, 但這和強制有差嗎?
你得作某件事來滿足條件, 但沒有強制你, 你不滿足條件, 當然你不能合格.
這和強制有啥差別?
你再硬拗又有何用?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
发表于 14-4-2019 07:57 PM
|
显示全部楼层
所以是你英文烂,你之前强调是硬性规定,现在又非强制,不就是你的英文烂咯!
只用should與 should have been的差別, 老兄,
你英文爛到出濃吔!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 本周最热论坛帖子
|
4491 
101
