Стартира изпълнението на проекта за изграждане на Туристически информационен център в Ахелой

Във връзка с румънските териториални претенции към част от българската акватория:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
Article 3
Breadth of the territorial sea
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up
to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines
determined in accordance with this Convention.
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121
Regime of islands
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded by water,
which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of an
island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention
applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of
their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

Превод на точка 3: скали (скални образувания) които не могат да поддържат обитаването им от хора или които не могат да
поддържат икономически живот няма да имат ни (собствени) Изключителни икономически зони, ни (собствен) Континентален шелф.
Какво обаче означава поддържане не живот? Наличието на източници/извори от природна питейна вода ли? Ако отговорът е да,
тогава и Сингапур не е остров, а скално образуване (скала), понеже няма природни водни източници.
Има уреди/устройства за пречистване на вода, обаче такива могат да се сложат и на Змийски Остров.
Не само че Сингапур има териториални води (акватория), а е и спечелил международни дела против Малайзия.
Колко за икономически живот, Змийски Остров е подходящ за туризъм, може би и риболовство.
Така че румънците нямаха никакви аргументи когато спечелиха международното дело против Украйна, тоест спечелиха 9 700 кв.км. от украинска акватория.
Значи Междунардният Съд е сгрешил когато е отнел тази акватория от Украйна за да я даде на Румъния.
Понастоящем Румъния иска и част от българска акватория.
Litigiu româno-bulgar pentru un perimetru strategic de 17 kilometri pătraţi, în dreptul Cadrilaterului
30 Aprilie 2017
Румънско-български спор за СТРАТЕГИЧЕСКИ периметър (тоест акватория) от 17 км2 които се намират пред/отсреща "Кадрилатер-а"

(=Четириъгълника, румънско погрешно название на Южна Добруджа, първоначално означаващо територия между Силистра, Русе, Шумен

и Варна, от които Румъния успя да открадне само част, включително г. Силистра)
http://stiri.tvr.ro/litigiu-romano-bulgar-pentru-un-perimetru-strategic-de-17-kilometri-patrati--in-dreptul-

cadrilaterului_817130.html#view
Marţi, 02 Mai 2017
Pe lângă problema minorității române, litigiu româno-bulgar pentru un perimetru strategic de 17 kilometri pătrați, în dreptul

Cadrilaterului
http://www.rgnpress.ro/rgn_17/categorii/analize-interviuri/24643-2017-05-02-09-30-07.html?jjj=1515595901725&jjj=1535599611166

Singapore Has No Natural Water Supply, but the Country Isn’t Going Thirsty
http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/11/05/singapores-solution-water-crisis
Verdict la Haga: România a câştigat 9.700 km pătraţi de platou continental, 79% din suprafaţa disputată
https://www.antena3.ro/actualitate/verdict-la-haga-romania-a-castigat-9-700-km-patrati-de-platou-continental-79-din-

suprafata-disputata-63647.html
7 ani de la câştigarea procesului de la Haga. România şi-a extins drepturile de suveranitate prima oară din 1918
https://www.romaniatv.net/7-ani-de-la-castigarea-procesului-de-la-haga-romania-si-a-extins-drepturile-de-suveranitate-prima-

oara-din-1918_272049.html
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/06/01/world-court-drops-malaysia-singapore-territorial-dispute/
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/world/asia/15iht-singapore.4922379.html
https://www.quora.com/Does-Singapore-have-friendly-neighbors
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bu.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ro.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ri.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gr.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mk.html
http://www.fsmitha.com/world/singapore.htm

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Singapore
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/SINGAPORES-FOREIGN-POLICY/Key-Issues/Pedra-Branca
Pedra Branca
Proceedings before the ICJ
The ICJ's Judgment and Next Steps
Outcome of the Case
On 23 May 2008, the ICJ issued its judgment, in which it decided that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore,

sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia, and sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial

waters of which it is located.
In the case of Pedra Branca, the ICJ held that while the Sultanate of Johor had original title to Pedra Branca, sovereignty

over the island had passed to Singapore by 1980 (when the dispute crystallised). This was demonstrated by the concrete acts

of sovereignty conducted over the island by Singapore and its predecessors, taken together with the failure of Malaysia and

its predecessors to respond to these acts.
Post-Judgment
After the ICJ’s Judgment was released, both Singapore and Malaysia agreed to abide by the ICJ’s ruling. A ‘Malaysia-Singapore

Joint Technical Committee on the Implementation of the ICJ Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge’ (MSJTC)

was formed by both countries to implement the ICJ’s Judgment. Both countries have agreed that the next step would be for the

MSJTC to move into the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
On 2 February 2017, Malaysia filed an application for revision of the ICJ’s 2008 Judgment. Under Article 61 of the Statute of

the ICJ, an application for revision of a Judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such

a nature as to be a decisive factor, and which was, when the Judgment was given, unknown to the Court and the party claiming

revision, provided such ignorance was not due to negligence. Such an application must be made within ten years of the date of

the Judgment, and at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact. Singapore filed its Written Observations on

the admissibility of Malaysia’s revision application with the ICJ on 24 May 2017. Malaysia subsequently filed its Additional

Written Observations on 11 December 2017, following which Singapore filed its Written Comments on Malaysia's Additional

Written Observations on 12 February 2018.
On 30 June 2017, Malaysia filed a request for interpretation of the ICJ’s 2008 Judgment. Pursuant to Article 60 of the

Statute of the ICJ, if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the

request of any party. Malaysia’s request for interpretation was additional to, and separate from, its revision application.

Unlike a revision application which seeks to revise or alter judgment based on purported newly-discovered facts, an

interpretation application seeks to clarify a judgment. Singapore filed its Written Observations on Malaysia's request for

interpretation of the ICJ's 2008 Judgement with the ICJ on 30 October 2017. Malaysia subsequently filed its Written Comments

on Singapore's Written Observations on 15 February 2018. Thereafter, Singapore filed its Written Response to Malaysia's

Written Comments on 23 April 2018.
On 28 May 2018, Malaysia informed the ICJ that it would discontinue the proceedings for both the revision and interpretation

cases that it had initiated earlier. On 29 May 2018, Singapore informed the ICJ that it agreed with Malaysia's request for

discontinuance. On the same day, the ICJ informed Malaysia and Singapore that the Court had placed on record the

discontinuance, by agreement of the Parties, of both sets of proceedings instituted by Malaysia against Singapore, and

directed that the cases be removed from the Court's list.