打臉來打臉去，目前可確定菲律賓確實有拿姜皇池的文章來証明太平島的淡水不足。但我認為，第一，區區一篇報紙文章不會是作成判決的主要証據，否則太過可笑; 第二，要判斷是不是島，淡水足不足也不是重點。像小琉球也是淡水不足，直到1981年從牡丹水庫連接小琉球的海底水管鋪設完成，才解決水的問題。澎湖的淡水更缺，蓋了海水淡化廠才解決。
但不管怎麼判決，菲律賓都無法拿這個判決要台灣怎麼樣，所以，說誰賣國也都沒意義。
南海仲裁正熱門，半桶水政客想要騙讚也無可厚非。但瞎扯洗白也要有個限度。
苗博雅以為全台灣的人都像你一樣不查證也看不懂英文嗎？
菲律賓代表在聽證會上引用姜皇池教授的投書在這裡：
Day 4 Monday, 30th November 2015
Hearing on the Merits and Remaining Issues
of Jurisdiction and Admissibility
https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1550
p.35
Mr President, no further corroboration is needed, but there is more if you would like to see it. Professor Chiang Huang-chih, one of Taiwan's pre-eminent authorities on law of the sea, who teaches public international law and law of the sea at the National University of Taiwan, and is the author of International Law and Taiwan and Introduction to Public International Law and Law of the Sea, published an article in April 2015 which said this about Itu Aba: "There is no oil or food on the island. There used to be fresh water, but after decades of over-extraction there is nothing left and water must be imported from Taiwan. All necessities, except sunlight and air, have to be supplied from outside the island."[52]
[52] Chiang Huang-chih, "Itu Aba claim a distracting waste", Taipei Times (27 Nov. 2015), available at http://www.taipeitimes.com/…/editorials/archives/2015/04/02…, p. 1. Hearing on Merits, Annex 839.
哪裡沒有影響國家利益了？
這樣無腦護航不入流學者，也難怪台灣在國際法戰場上老是吃虧。
─
太平島變礁 菲大法官的論點居然用這個[影]
2016/07/13 19:34
http://www.cna.com.tw/news/firstnews/201607135015-1.aspx
南海仲裁案判決，把中華民國領土的太平島定位為礁、不是島，菲國大法官的論點說，台灣提出的3口井，其中2口已不再供水，且水很鹹，太平島雖然有井，但不是全年都有水喝。
─
太平島遭指水枯 4月學者登島飲水成反證
2016/07/13 22:01
http://www.cna.com.tw/news/aipl/201607130472-1.aspx
南海仲裁案中菲國主張太平島每年在4至5月淡水井即告枯竭，但中華民國政府4月15日曾邀多位知名國際法學者登島親嚐淡水，5月5日也安排多位前任首長前往，顯示淡水供應充沛。
─
朝聖請往這邊走：
苗博雅 MiaoPoya 2016年7月13日 22:40
https://www.facebook.com/…/a.83093017031…/1071452589600995/…
─
【後續：對一些護航文的破解】
李立民寫的《莫再牽拖姜皇池：你知道仲裁庭認為太平島上的淡水足夠支持人類生活嗎？》，拿了判決書內文想呼嚨英文差的人，其實也只是帶風向的護航文罷了。
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208714831884159
重點是姜皇池的這段：「There is no oil or food on the island. There used to be fresh water, but after decades of over-extraction there is nothing left and water must be imported from Taiwan. All necessities, except sunlight and air, have to be supplied from outside the island.」
菲律賓代表在聽證會上明確引用姜皇池的主張，雖然最後的仲裁文沒有再次提起姜皇池的名字，但根據的理由基本上是一樣的。
新聞稿（Press release，共11頁）
https://pca-cpa.org/…/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-En…
判決書（Award，共501頁）
https://pca-cpa.org/…/…/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Award.pdf
427. At the Hearing on the Merits, the Philippines summarised its view of the evidence concerning Itu Aba as follows:
(1) there is no fresh water on Itu Aba suitable for drinking or capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(2) there is no natural source of nourishment on the feature capable of sustaining a human settlement;
(3) there is no soil on Itu Aba capable of facilitating any kind of agricultural production that could sustain human habitation;
(4) there has never been a population on the feature that is indigenous to it;
(5) excluding military garrisons, there has never been human settlement of any kind on Itu Aba;
(6) there was not even a military occupation prior to World War II
(7) the Taiwanese troops that are garrisoned at Itu Aba are entirely dependent for their survival on supplies from Taiwan, and apart from sunlight and air, they derive nothing they need from the feature itself;
(8) no economic activity has been or is performed on Itu Aba.
也就是說，菲律賓早就打定採取姜皇池論點的策略，努力使得仲裁庭作成「太平島無淡水」的心證。
─
所幸，仲裁庭找到另外的歷史資料，指出太平島的淡水資源配合雨水收集，在過去可以支撐少數人的生活，故確認在自然條件下成立，無論在今日是否仍然維持。然而，這其實是仲裁庭對「太平島（現今）無淡水」的說法不置可否的意思。
584. Ultimately, the Tribunal notes that the freshwater resources of these features, combined presumably with rainwater collection, evidently have supported small numbers of people in the past (see paragraph 601 below) and concludes that they are therefore able to do so in their natural condition, whether or not that remains the case today.
別忘了，姜皇池正是主張：「太平島上別說是用油與食物，以往尚有淡水可供飲用，但經歷數十年不斷抽取，如今連用水都需從台灣運去。除陽光與空氣外，所有一切所需，均待外援。」來否定「太平島是島」的事實。
如果姜皇池用「我只是幫原告作偽證，但是最後判決書沒提我的名字，可見法官認定我一點都不重要啊！」這種理由狡辯，法律界人士吞得下去，我也是醉了。
