超级军网菲民众刊文 称黄岩岛确属中国（翻译转自境外网媒）
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 18:39:05
It belongs to China
The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).
By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.
But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?
So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?
In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.
All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.
But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.
On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.
Whom are we fooling?
Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.
Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.
Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com
(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)
菲律宾在黄岩岛海域与中国的对峙已经持续20多天。期间，菲方一再宣称黄岩岛是菲方领土。有媒体分析认为，菲方此举意在抢夺南海资源。然而，日前一位菲律宾民众在该国主流媒体上发文指出，有历史证明，黄岩岛自古以来就是中国领土。
这位署名为维克托阿奇斯的作者来自马尼拉的仙范市。他曾是一名投资家、商业银行家、注册会计师、经济学家。他于4月28日在菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》发表文章。内容摘要如下：
黄岩岛确实是属于中国，早在元朝1279年中国就已发现并将其画入地图。中国渔民，不管是大陆的，还是台湾的，从那时起就一直使用它。实际上，郭守敬（在蒙古统治者忽必烈汗手下工作的天文学家、工程师兼数学家）测绘了南海，测绘点就是作为中沙群岛一部分的黄岩岛（1983年更名为黄岩岛）。
相比之下，菲律宾外交部妄称拥有的同一块领土所依据的菲方“老地图”却仅画于1820年，或者说比中国绘制的地图晚了541年。令人惊讶的是参议员埃德?加多安加拉（据称还是有名的律师）竟宣称一个比人家晚了5个世纪又40年的地图却优先于中国早得多的地图。更震惊的是华金?贝尔纳神父，在4月 22日另外一份报纸上用1982年《联合国公约海洋法》作为他为“菲律宾领土”辩护的基础。
那么，在1946年，菲律宾从美国殖民地那里宣布独立时，我们确切的领土应该是什么？为什么1899、1935、1943、1973、1986 和1987年的历次宪法，黄岩岛都不在其中？而且，那些宪法也没有提到南沙群岛是菲律宾的领土。我们突然从何处、从谁哪一下子就得到了这些岛屿？难道这是凭空得到的？
上个世纪七十年代后期，中国组织了多次黄岩岛和附近地区的科学考察。实际上，中国于1980年在南礁中国立下一个石碑，上面写着“南海科学考察”。而在1997年未经允许，菲律宾又将块石碑拆除。
直到上个世纪九十年代，所有菲律宾官方发行的地图都不把南沙和黄岩岛包括在菲律宾的领土范围之内。1961年我们自己议会批准通过的共和国第 3046号法令阻止我们对上述岛屿的拥有。然而，经过了漫长的48年之后，在2009年3月10日，我们修改该法令，单方面地宣布拥有这些有争议的岛屿。
但是，有这样一个事实不置可否，其中有三个国际条约都支持中国对那些岛屿拥有主权。它们分别是：《1898年美西巴黎条约》、《1900年西美华盛顿条约》、《1930年英美条约》。它们都规定菲律宾领土边界限制在东经118度线。
另一方面，菲律宾主张对那些岛屿拥有主权的依据仅仅是1982年《联合国海洋法公约》。就我所知，这只是一个“公约”，它不能推翻或替代殖民者之间签订的条约或达成的协议。甚至，即使它真的被当成一个“法”，它也不能追溯生效并而改变从前事实。我们在糊弄谁呢？
It belongs to China
The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).
By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.
But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?
So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?
In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.
All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.
But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.
On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.
Whom are we fooling?
Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.
Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.
Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com
(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)
菲律宾在黄岩岛海域与中国的对峙已经持续20多天。期间，菲方一再宣称黄岩岛是菲方领土。有媒体分析认为，菲方此举意在抢夺南海资源。然而，日前一位菲律宾民众在该国主流媒体上发文指出，有历史证明，黄岩岛自古以来就是中国领土。
这位署名为维克托阿奇斯的作者来自马尼拉的仙范市。他曾是一名投资家、商业银行家、注册会计师、经济学家。他于4月28日在菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》发表文章。内容摘要如下：
黄岩岛确实是属于中国，早在元朝1279年中国就已发现并将其画入地图。中国渔民，不管是大陆的，还是台湾的，从那时起就一直使用它。实际上，郭守敬（在蒙古统治者忽必烈汗手下工作的天文学家、工程师兼数学家）测绘了南海，测绘点就是作为中沙群岛一部分的黄岩岛（1983年更名为黄岩岛）。
相比之下，菲律宾外交部妄称拥有的同一块领土所依据的菲方“老地图”却仅画于1820年，或者说比中国绘制的地图晚了541年。令人惊讶的是参议员埃德?加多安加拉（据称还是有名的律师）竟宣称一个比人家晚了5个世纪又40年的地图却优先于中国早得多的地图。更震惊的是华金?贝尔纳神父，在4月 22日另外一份报纸上用1982年《联合国公约海洋法》作为他为“菲律宾领土”辩护的基础。
那么，在1946年，菲律宾从美国殖民地那里宣布独立时，我们确切的领土应该是什么？为什么1899、1935、1943、1973、1986 和1987年的历次宪法，黄岩岛都不在其中？而且，那些宪法也没有提到南沙群岛是菲律宾的领土。我们突然从何处、从谁哪一下子就得到了这些岛屿？难道这是凭空得到的？
上个世纪七十年代后期，中国组织了多次黄岩岛和附近地区的科学考察。实际上，中国于1980年在南礁中国立下一个石碑，上面写着“南海科学考察”。而在1997年未经允许，菲律宾又将块石碑拆除。
直到上个世纪九十年代，所有菲律宾官方发行的地图都不把南沙和黄岩岛包括在菲律宾的领土范围之内。1961年我们自己议会批准通过的共和国第 3046号法令阻止我们对上述岛屿的拥有。然而，经过了漫长的48年之后，在2009年3月10日，我们修改该法令，单方面地宣布拥有这些有争议的岛屿。
但是，有这样一个事实不置可否，其中有三个国际条约都支持中国对那些岛屿拥有主权。它们分别是：《1898年美西巴黎条约》、《1900年西美华盛顿条约》、《1930年英美条约》。它们都规定菲律宾领土边界限制在东经118度线。
另一方面，菲律宾主张对那些岛屿拥有主权的依据仅仅是1982年《联合国海洋法公约》。就我所知，这只是一个“公约”，它不能推翻或替代殖民者之间签订的条约或达成的协议。甚至，即使它真的被当成一个“法”，它也不能追溯生效并而改变从前事实。我们在糊弄谁呢？
The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).
By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.
But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?
So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?
In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.
All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.
But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.
On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.
Whom are we fooling?
Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.
Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.
Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com
(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)
菲律宾在黄岩岛海域与中国的对峙已经持续20多天。期间，菲方一再宣称黄岩岛是菲方领土。有媒体分析认为，菲方此举意在抢夺南海资源。然而，日前一位菲律宾民众在该国主流媒体上发文指出，有历史证明，黄岩岛自古以来就是中国领土。
这位署名为维克托阿奇斯的作者来自马尼拉的仙范市。他曾是一名投资家、商业银行家、注册会计师、经济学家。他于4月28日在菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》发表文章。内容摘要如下：
黄岩岛确实是属于中国，早在元朝1279年中国就已发现并将其画入地图。中国渔民，不管是大陆的，还是台湾的，从那时起就一直使用它。实际上，郭守敬（在蒙古统治者忽必烈汗手下工作的天文学家、工程师兼数学家）测绘了南海，测绘点就是作为中沙群岛一部分的黄岩岛（1983年更名为黄岩岛）。
相比之下，菲律宾外交部妄称拥有的同一块领土所依据的菲方“老地图”却仅画于1820年，或者说比中国绘制的地图晚了541年。令人惊讶的是参议员埃德?加多安加拉（据称还是有名的律师）竟宣称一个比人家晚了5个世纪又40年的地图却优先于中国早得多的地图。更震惊的是华金?贝尔纳神父，在4月 22日另外一份报纸上用1982年《联合国公约海洋法》作为他为“菲律宾领土”辩护的基础。
那么，在1946年，菲律宾从美国殖民地那里宣布独立时，我们确切的领土应该是什么？为什么1899、1935、1943、1973、1986 和1987年的历次宪法，黄岩岛都不在其中？而且，那些宪法也没有提到南沙群岛是菲律宾的领土。我们突然从何处、从谁哪一下子就得到了这些岛屿？难道这是凭空得到的？
上个世纪七十年代后期，中国组织了多次黄岩岛和附近地区的科学考察。实际上，中国于1980年在南礁中国立下一个石碑，上面写着“南海科学考察”。而在1997年未经允许，菲律宾又将块石碑拆除。
直到上个世纪九十年代，所有菲律宾官方发行的地图都不把南沙和黄岩岛包括在菲律宾的领土范围之内。1961年我们自己议会批准通过的共和国第 3046号法令阻止我们对上述岛屿的拥有。然而，经过了漫长的48年之后，在2009年3月10日，我们修改该法令，单方面地宣布拥有这些有争议的岛屿。
但是，有这样一个事实不置可否，其中有三个国际条约都支持中国对那些岛屿拥有主权。它们分别是：《1898年美西巴黎条约》、《1900年西美华盛顿条约》、《1930年英美条约》。它们都规定菲律宾领土边界限制在东经118度线。
另一方面，菲律宾主张对那些岛屿拥有主权的依据仅仅是1982年《联合国海洋法公约》。就我所知，这只是一个“公约”，它不能推翻或替代殖民者之间签订的条约或达成的协议。甚至，即使它真的被当成一个“法”，它也不能追溯生效并而改变从前事实。我们在糊弄谁呢？
It belongs to China
The Scarborough Shoal does belong to China which discovered it and drew it in a map as early as 1279 during the Yuan Dynasty. Chinese fishermen, from both the Mainland and Taiwan, have since used it. As a matter of fact, Guo Shoujing, (the Chinese astronomer, engineer and mathematician who worked under the Mongol ruler, Kublai Khan) performed surveying of the South China Sea, and the surveying point was the Scarborough Shoal which is considered part of the Zhongsha Islands (renamed Huangyan Island in 1983).
By contrast, the “old maps” being relied upon by our Department of Foreign Affairs in its spurious claim on the same territory were drawn up only in 1820, or 541 years after China’s. I am surprised that Senator Edgardo Angara—supposedly a renowned lawyer—can claim that a map drawn 5 centuries and 4 decades after, takes precedence over the much earlier map of China.
But I am all the more astonished that Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his April 22 article in another newspaper, being one of the main framers of the 1987 Constitution, uses the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as his basis to defend the Philippine claim. This, despite and after acknowledging the fact that, indeed, “the Scarborough Shoal is OUTSIDE THE LIMITS set by the Treaty of Paris for Philippine territory.” What kind of double-speak is that?
So, what exactly was the territory we declared independence from the US in 1946? Why is it that NONE of our constitutions, past and present, from 1899, 1935, 1943, 1973, 1986 and 1987, include either the Spratlys or the Scarborough Shoal within our declared national territory? Where, or from whom, did we, all of a sudden, acquire title to these? Out of thin air?
In the late 1970s, China organized many scientific expeditions in the Shoal and around that area. In fact, in 1980, a stone marker reading “South China Sea Scientific Expedition” was installed by China on the South Rock. This Chinese marker was removed, without authority, by the Philippines in 1997.
All official maps published by the Philippines until the 1990s excluded both the Spratlys and Scarborough Shoal from its territorial boundaries. Our own Republic Act No. 3046, passed by our Congress and approved in 1961, stopped us from our claim. Yet, we had the temerity to amend this law on March 10, 2009, after 48 long years, to unilaterally include the disputed territories.
But what takes the cake is the fact that China holds three international treaties in support of its claim over the territories in question—namely, the 1898 Treaty of Paris between the US and Spain, the 1900 Treaty of Washington between Spain and the US, and the 1930 Treaty between Great Britain and the US, all limiting Philippine territorial limits to the 118th degree meridian of longitude east of Greenwich.
On the other hand, the basis of the Philippine claim is restricted to proximity, relying solely on the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As far as I know, a mere “convention” cannot overturn or supersede a treaty or an agreement reached between colonial powers. And even if it were considered a “law”, it cannot be made to take effect retroactively.
Whom are we fooling?
Mr. Arches is from San Juan City. He is a retired investment and merchant banker, a retired Certified Public Accountant, and a retired economist who loves to dabble in history and political science, among many other interests.
Everyman is Manila Standard Today’s new column for citizens’ commentary on pressing issues in the Philippines and in the world. Anybody who feels he or she has something of value to add to the discussion on the pertinent issue is encouraged to contribute.
Articles must be between 600 and 800 words. Please send them in MS Word or any compatible format to adellechua@gmail.com or mst.lettertotheeditor@gmail.com
(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/April/28)
菲律宾在黄岩岛海域与中国的对峙已经持续20多天。期间，菲方一再宣称黄岩岛是菲方领土。有媒体分析认为，菲方此举意在抢夺南海资源。然而，日前一位菲律宾民众在该国主流媒体上发文指出，有历史证明，黄岩岛自古以来就是中国领土。
这位署名为维克托阿奇斯的作者来自马尼拉的仙范市。他曾是一名投资家、商业银行家、注册会计师、经济学家。他于4月28日在菲律宾《马尼拉标准今日报》发表文章。内容摘要如下：
黄岩岛确实是属于中国，早在元朝1279年中国就已发现并将其画入地图。中国渔民，不管是大陆的，还是台湾的，从那时起就一直使用它。实际上，郭守敬（在蒙古统治者忽必烈汗手下工作的天文学家、工程师兼数学家）测绘了南海，测绘点就是作为中沙群岛一部分的黄岩岛（1983年更名为黄岩岛）。
相比之下，菲律宾外交部妄称拥有的同一块领土所依据的菲方“老地图”却仅画于1820年，或者说比中国绘制的地图晚了541年。令人惊讶的是参议员埃德?加多安加拉（据称还是有名的律师）竟宣称一个比人家晚了5个世纪又40年的地图却优先于中国早得多的地图。更震惊的是华金?贝尔纳神父，在4月 22日另外一份报纸上用1982年《联合国公约海洋法》作为他为“菲律宾领土”辩护的基础。
那么，在1946年，菲律宾从美国殖民地那里宣布独立时，我们确切的领土应该是什么？为什么1899、1935、1943、1973、1986 和1987年的历次宪法，黄岩岛都不在其中？而且，那些宪法也没有提到南沙群岛是菲律宾的领土。我们突然从何处、从谁哪一下子就得到了这些岛屿？难道这是凭空得到的？
上个世纪七十年代后期，中国组织了多次黄岩岛和附近地区的科学考察。实际上，中国于1980年在南礁中国立下一个石碑，上面写着“南海科学考察”。而在1997年未经允许，菲律宾又将块石碑拆除。
直到上个世纪九十年代，所有菲律宾官方发行的地图都不把南沙和黄岩岛包括在菲律宾的领土范围之内。1961年我们自己议会批准通过的共和国第 3046号法令阻止我们对上述岛屿的拥有。然而，经过了漫长的48年之后，在2009年3月10日，我们修改该法令，单方面地宣布拥有这些有争议的岛屿。
但是，有这样一个事实不置可否，其中有三个国际条约都支持中国对那些岛屿拥有主权。它们分别是：《1898年美西巴黎条约》、《1900年西美华盛顿条约》、《1930年英美条约》。它们都规定菲律宾领土边界限制在东经118度线。
另一方面，菲律宾主张对那些岛屿拥有主权的依据仅仅是1982年《联合国海洋法公约》。就我所知，这只是一个“公约”，它不能推翻或替代殖民者之间签订的条约或达成的协议。甚至，即使它真的被当成一个“法”，它也不能追溯生效并而改变从前事实。我们在糊弄谁呢？
菲佣版jy，佣人这言论还真自由
这货不会是间谍吧？或者是佣人在钓鱼执法？？
是不是我们的国安在菲请的写手啊？
bigeyeer 发表于 2012-5-4 18:32 ![]()
菲佣版jy，佣人这言论还真自由
这娃得小心了，说不定就突然失踪了
菲佣版jy，佣人这言论还真自由
这娃得小心了，说不定就突然失踪了
《马尼拉标准今日报》的文章