A |
B | 会议审议了接纳巴勒斯坦为联合国新会员国议题，通过了授予巴勒斯坦更多权利的决议。 
In 2025, two crude oil tankers collided at the eastern entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, 24 nautical miles off Fujairah, United Arab Emirates, media reported.
Owned by oil tanker operator Frontline, the Liberia-flagged vessel Front Eagle collided with the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged vessel Adalynn on the morning of June 17, 2025.
The Adalynn was damaged in the fire. While the Front Eagle was undergoing repairs in Shenzhen, South China's Guangdong Province, Global Shipping Holding Ltd., which owns the Adalynn, applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for its arrest. Frontline provided a cash security of 203 million yuan to release the arrest and applied to establish a limitation fund for maritime claims.
The court approved the application and allowed Frontline to establish the limitation fund, setting the amount of the fund at 168 million yuan.
Guangzhou Maritime Court held four pretrial conferences on October 11, 2025, January 12, May 6 and July 13, 2026 to complete preparations for evidence examination, technical investigations and reported the relevant pretrial arrangements to the provincial high court, the Global Times learned from the court.
The court held a public hearing for the case on July 14, 2026.
No government agency had conducted an investigation into the collision, and no official findings were issued after the accident. Taking into account the unique burden-of-proof challenges in maritime collision disputes, Guangzhou Maritime Court took measures to preserve key evidence when handling the vessel arrest, including navigation logs, AIS data, voyage data recorder (VDR) records and CCTV footage, the court told the Global Times in a statement on Sunday.
Under a process that involves exchanging evidence inventories, sealing materials simultaneously and jointly reviewing them after evidence submissions, the court helped ensure the authenticity of critical records and laid the groundwork for determining the facts of the case.
As the two sides and their respective maritime experts reached sharply different conclusions over liability, the court introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism, with the consent of both parties, allowing technical experts to participate throughout the proceedings. Drawing on the preserved evidence, investigators reconstructed the collision, assessed the vessels' encounter situation and clarified the parties' respective responsibilities.
Following the hearing, the court facilitated mediation, and the two parties reached a settlement agreement on July 27, 2026. On July 31, the court organized the distribution of the maritime liability limitation fund among creditors involved in the foreign vessel collision dispute and related charter-party disputes.
Representatives of the Adalynn traveled from overseas to the court to present a letter of appreciation and a commemorative banner in recognition of the court's efforts, according to the court statement.
After the Guangzhou Maritime Court accepted the case, both parties agreed to apply Chinese law to establish a maritime liability limitation fund and resolve their substantive dispute, breaking away from the long-standing reliance of international shipping disputes on European and US courts and legal systems.
Choice of justice
Bilov Viacheslav, a representative of Global Shipping Holding Ltd., told the Global Times that the main reason they chose a Chinese court to mediate the case is that "we want absolutely fair, unbiased approach to this issue. Because nowadays in this world, there are some countries which believe that they are authorized to give instruction to all others, which definitely is having influence on the decisions of the judge on the approach to the case."
Viacheslav gave the Chinese court's handling of the case a five-star rating, saying he had expected the dispute to take at least three years to resolve, but the Chinese court settled it within just one year. He also praised the judges and lawyers for their commitment to advancing the case throughout the proceedings.
"The judges and lawyers worked to advance the case with the same level of commitment as I did, even though the case directly concerned my own interests. This left a deep impression on me about litigation in China," Viacheslav said.
The case involved two foreign parties and a collision that occurred near the Strait of Hormuz, with no direct connection to China or Guangzhou Maritime Court initially. The fact that the parties chose to seek vessel arrest in China and agreed to apply Chinese law demonstrates the credibility and appeal of China's maritime judicial system, Wu Guining, vice president of the Guangzhou Maritime Court, who served as the presiding judge of the case, told the Global Times.
The court also introduced a maritime technical investigator mechanism in the case, an innovation aimed at addressing complex technical issues arising from vessel collision accidents, Wu said, noting that through technical investigations, the court was able to establish the facts of the case more efficiently, highlighting the integration of professional maritime investigation capabilities with China's specialized maritime adjudication system.
The case demonstrates China's ability to handle major, complex and cross-border maritime disputes with professional expertise, Wu said.
The handling of the collision between the two vessels is just one example of how Chinese courts have been dealing with a growing number of foreign-related maritime cases in recent years.
The Global Times learned from China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) in October last year that over the past 40 years, Chinese courts have handled a total of 88,000 foreign-related maritime cases involving parties from 146 countries and regions.
At a lecture held by the SPC on Friday, Shen Hongyu, director of the Fourth Civil Division of the SPC, told the Global Times that in recent years, Chinese courts have become more influential in participating in and promoting global ocean governance reform. Maritime justice serves as an important instrument for practicing the vision of a maritime community with a shared future and for advancing the reform of the global ocean governance system.
。
C | 美国、以色列等投票反对。
D |
该决议除了重申巴勒斯坦人民的自决权，包括建立独立巴勒斯坦国的权利，以及“两国方案”等内容外，还确认巴勒斯坦符合《联合国宪章》规定的会员国资格，建议安理会以此重新审议巴勒斯坦递交的“入联”申请——也就是说，巴勒斯坦“入联”问题被“打回”安理会重审。此外，决议决定授予巴勒斯坦更多联合国权利，包括了按照字母顺序就坐于会员国中，有权代表集团提案并介绍提案，参与联合国大会及其委员会主席团席位等。但决议明确表示，巴勒斯坦没有投票权，也不能成为联合国机构席位候选国。联大决议对会员国没有约束力，而是国际意愿的表达，但会得到联合国机构执行。
E | 巴勒斯坦2011年9月就曾递交“入联”的正式申请，但未获安理会通过。2012年11月29日，联大通过决议，给予巴勒斯坦联合国观察员国地位。
中方欢迎联大通过历史性决议中国常驻联合国代表傅聪在表决后的发言中表示，中方欢迎这一历史性的决议。
F | 独立建国是巴勒斯坦人民的长期夙愿，正式加入联合国是这一历史进程中的关键一步。巴勒斯坦应该享有与以色列同等的地位，巴勒斯坦人民应该享有与以色列人民同等的权利。支持和推进巴勒斯坦独立建国进程，为落实“两国方案”、实现中东持久和平提供有力保障，是国际社会的共同责任。今人遗憾的是，巴勒斯坦国成为联合国正式会员国的申请于4月18日被美国在安理会无情否决。美国在巴以问题上一再使用否决权,无理阻挠国际社会为解决巴勒斯坦长期遭受历史不公所作出的努力，不符合一个负责任大国的担当。
傅聪表示，紧急特别联大以压倒性多数通过决议，重申巴勒斯坦人民拥有包括独立建国在内的自决权，确认巴勒斯坦国符合成为联合国正式会员国的资格，建议安理会重新积极审议巴勒斯坦国加入联合国的申请。中方欢迎这一历史性的决议，这反映了国际社会的人心所向。中方参加了这项决议的共提。中方支持安理会根据联大决议的要求，尽快重新审议巴勒斯坦国的申请，期待有关国家对此不要再继续拖延、设置障碍。
G |
傅聪说，决议对巴勒斯坦国参与联合国活动和有关会议作出进一步安排，赋予巴勒斯坦国新的权利和特权。中方理解，这些是在无可奈何、别无选择情况下的特殊安排，是对巴勒斯坦长期遭受历史不公的补救，是对美国滥用否决权的纠偏。中方认为，在《联合国宪章》允许的范围内作出这些特殊安排，有助于让国际社会更充分地听取巴勒斯坦的呼声，有助于巴勒斯坦在相对平等的地位上同以色列进行对话和谈判。决议明确，有关安排属于例外，不构成先例。中方相信，有关安排不会是永久的，总有一天巴勒斯坦国将成为联合国正式会员国，将在联合国同其他会员国一样享有充分、平等的权利。傅聪强调，巴以问题久拖不决的症结在于“两国方案”没有得到落实。多年来以色列作为占领方不断侵蚀“两国方案”的基础，当前已持续7个多月的冲突更可能彻底葬送“两国方案”的前景。中方敦促以色列停止对加沙民众的集体惩罚，停止推进对拉法的军事进攻，切实消除对人道物资进入加沙的一切限制。在约旦河西岸，以色列应该停止一切定居点活动，切实遏制愈演愈烈的定居者暴力。中方将继续发挥建设性作用，为推动立即停火、重振“两国方案”，早日实现巴以双方和平共处、中东长治久安作出不懈努力。
H |
Current article:http://al3zhd.feizengbubaipeirangnalouchuo.sbs/n0rcjd4/aatv.html
Published on:11:58:17
