Yahoo奇摩 網頁搜尋

搜尋結果

  1. 2021年4月3日 · H&M is said to agree to re-publish an online map with the U-shaped nine-dash line in the South China Sea (Bien Dong Sea) unilaterally drawn by China. April 03, 2021 | 11:16.

  2. 2021年4月4日 · Swedish fashion retailer H&M is facing strong opposition and called for a boycott of Vietnamese consumers as soon as it published an image of China with the illegal nine-dash line. Hannah Nguyen. ngminhphuong26@gmail.com April 04, 2021 | 08:42. China says H&M agreed to publish online map with “nine-dash line”.

  3. 2020年6月9日 · Five significant aspects of the ruling. At the court (Source: BBC) The article cited five points that made clear about unreasonable China’s claims of China on the South China Sea. First, the Ruling asserted that Beijing’s claims on the entire area in the nine-dashed line in the South China Sea (SCS) are illegal.

  4. 2021年4月5日 · Following H&M, a chain of world's big fashion brands such as Gucci, Chanel, Louis Vuitton, YSL, Uniqlo, Zara,.. also posted the map showing China's illegal nine-dash line on their Chinese website.

  5. 2021年9月17日 · The controversial scene in 'Forever and ever 2021'. Photo: thanhnien. On September 15, the Chinese movie 'Forever and ever 2021' streaming on the Vietnam iQiyi platform included a scene featuring the 'nine dash line' in its 13 episode. Accordingly, an image of a map with China's "nine-dash line" covering the entire Bien Dong Sea only ...

  6. 2020年7月16日 · One of the nine pages showed a map which featured China’s illegal nine-dash line, an artificial boundary drummed up by China to claims 90 percent of the 3.5-million-square-kilometer East Sea, known internationally as South China Sea. In 2019, ...

  7. 2020年10月2日 · Chin a claims almost all of the South China Sea based on a so-called nine-dash line. In a landmark ruling on July 12, 2016, The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration found no legal basis for China to claim historic rights to a “nine-dash line” in the South China Sea and that Beijing had breached the sovereign rights of the Philippines, which brought the case.