ZT:脸墙够强

防空识别区方向不错,但实施细节上完全没有章法。防空识别区是自由飞行区, 你可表明自己单方面的行动, 通常不能强制别人服从。
国防部的通告里面那些要求别人必须做到的东东,完全没有道理。即便国际法可以忽略不计,在没有航母的情况下,陆基航空根本无法有效管理这么大的区域

不能有效管理就该放弃?
 
不能有效管理就该放弃?

老向,能力有限还什么都要干的结果会是什么?

量力而为,拣重要的干,对手也会尊重,国家、企业、个人都应该讲究“有所为、有所不为”吧!
 
老向,能力有限还什么都要干的结果会是什么?

量力而为,拣重要的干,对手也会尊重,国家、企业、个人都应该讲究“有所为、有所不为”吧!


这么多国家都声称对北极的资源有所有权,他们都有效管理了吗?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole

Territorial claims to the North Pole and Arctic regions[edit]
Main article: Territorial claims in the Arctic
Under international law, no country currently owns the North Pole or the region of the Arctic Ocean surrounding it. The five surrounding Arctic countries, Russia, Canada, Norway, Denmark (via Greenland), and the United States (via Alaska), are limited to a 200-nautical-mile (370 km; 230 mi) exclusive economic zone around their coasts, and the area beyond that is administered by the International Seabed Authority.
Upon ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, a country has a ten-year period to make claims to an extended continental shelf beyond its 200 mile exclusive economic zone. If validated, such a claim gives the claimant state rights to what may be on or beneath the sea bottom within the claimed zone.[67] Norway (ratified the convention in 1996[68]), Russia (ratified in 1997[68]), Canada (ratified in 2003[68]) and Denmark (ratified in 2004[68]) have all launched projects to base claims that certain areas of Arctic continental shelves should be subject to their sole sovereign exploitation.[69][70]
In 1907 Canada invoked a "sector principle" to claim sovereignty over a sector stretching from its coasts to the North Pole. Although this claim has not been relinquished, neither has it been consistently pressed.[71]
 
后退
顶部