A court in The Hague made a final decision about the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

海牙法院針對亞速海與刻赤海峽作出了最終裁決。

Ukraine went to court in 2016. Ukraine wanted the court to say the Kerch Strait is for all countries. Ukraine also wanted Russia to take down a big bridge and pay money for natural resources.

烏克蘭於2016年提起訴訟。烏克蘭希望法院判定刻赤海峽開放給所有國家使用。烏克蘭還要求俄羅斯拆除一座大橋，並就天然資源支付賠償金。

Five judges looked at the case. They said no to most of Ukraine's requests. Russia does not have to take down the bridge. Russia does not have to pay money.

五位法官審理了此案。他們拒絕了烏克蘭的大部分請求。俄羅斯不需要拆除該大橋，也不需要支付賠償金。

The judges found one problem. Russia did not check the environment well for some pipes and cables. But the judges did not order Russia to stop or pay.

法官發現了一個問題。俄羅斯在鋪設某些管道與電纜時，未對環境進行充分評估。但法官並未命令俄羅斯停止作業或支付賠償。

Russia is happy. Russian leaders say they won. They say the sea is now theirs. But the court did not say who owns the land of Crimea.

俄羅斯對此表示滿意。俄羅斯領導人聲稱他們獲勝，並表示該海域現在屬於他們。但法院並未就克里米亞的領土所有權做出判定。

The court said no to Ukraine's main requests, but it said Russia had some environmental problems.

法院拒絕了烏克蘭的主要請求，但指出俄羅斯在環境方面存在一些問題。

A legal tribunal in The Hague has delivered its final decision regarding the maritime disputes between Ukraine and Russia over the legal status of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

海牙的一個法律法庭已就烏克蘭與俄羅斯之間關於亞速海與克爾赤海峽法律地位的海事爭議，做出了最終決定。

The legal process began in 2016 when Ukraine used the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to challenge Russia's control over Crimea and its surrounding waters. Ukraine argued that the Kerch Strait should be treated as an international waterway and requested that the Crimean Bridge be removed because it blocked navigation. Additionally, Ukraine asked for financial compensation for the use of natural resources in these disputed areas.

法律程序始於 2016 年，當時烏克蘭利用《聯合國海洋法公約》（UNCLOS）挑戰俄羅斯對克里米亞及其周邊海域的控制權。烏克蘭主張克爾赤海峽應被視為國際水道，並要求拆除克里米亞大橋，因為該橋阻礙了航行。此外，烏克蘭還要求就在這些爭議地區利用天然資源獲得財務補償。

After reviewing the evidence, the five-member panel of judges rejected most of Ukraine's claims. This included the request for money and the demand to take down the bridge. However, the tribunal did find that Russia failed to properly assess the environmental impact of some infrastructure projects, such as gas pipelines. Despite this, the court decided that a formal statement of the facts was enough and did not order any payments or the stopping of projects.

在審查證據後，由五名法官組成的小組駁回了烏克蘭的大部分主張。這包括了索賠要求以及拆除大橋的要求。然而，法庭確實發現俄羅斯未能正確評估某些基礎設施項目（例如天然氣管道）的環境影響。儘管如此，法院決定一份正式的事實陳述已足夠，並未下令支付任何款項或停止項目。

Different parties have interpreted the result in very different ways. The Russian Foreign Ministry described the ruling as a clear victory, emphasizing that the court recognizes the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait as Russian domestic waters. Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, asserted that the decision proves international recognition of Russia's new borders. On the other hand, the ruling did not officially decide who owns the Crimean peninsula, which most of the international community still recognizes as Ukrainian territory.

不同方對結果的解讀截然不同。俄羅斯外交部將此次裁決描述為一次明顯的勝利，強調法院承認亞速海與克爾赤海峽為俄羅斯的內海。安全委員會副主席德米特里·梅德韋傑夫則斷言，該決定證明了國際社會對俄羅斯新邊界的認可。另一方面，該裁決並未正式判定克里米亞半島的歸屬，而國際社會的大多數國家仍將其視為烏克蘭領土。

In summary, the tribunal rejected Ukraine's main maritime claims and requests for money, although it did point out that Russia failed to meet certain environmental standards.

總結來說，法庭駁回了烏克蘭主要的海事主張與財務要求，儘管法庭確實指出俄羅斯未能達到某些環境標準。

A tribunal based in The Hague has issued a final ruling on maritime disputes between Ukraine and Russia concerning the legal status of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait.

一個位於海牙的法庭已就烏克蘭與俄羅斯之間關於亞速海與克里米亞海峽法律地位的海權爭議，做出最終裁決。

The legal proceedings, initiated by Ukraine in 2016 under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), sought to challenge Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the surrounding maritime zones. Ukraine contended that the Kerch Strait should be classified as an international waterway and requested the dismantlement of the Crimean Bridge, asserting that the structure impeded navigation. Furthermore, Ukraine sought reparations for the exploitation of natural resources in the contested regions.

此次法律程序由烏克蘭於2016年根據《聯合國海洋法公約》（UNCLOS）啟動，旨在挑戰俄羅斯對克里米亞及其周邊海域的主權。烏克蘭主張克里米亞海峽應被定義為國際水道，並要求拆除克里米亞大橋，認為該結構阻礙航行。此外，烏克蘭要求對在爭議地區開發天然資源的行為進行賠償。

Upon review, the five-member panel of arbitrators dismissed the majority of Ukraine's claims, including the request for financial compensation and the demand for the bridge's removal. While the tribunal identified procedural deficiencies regarding environmental impact assessments for infrastructure projects—including gas pipelines and power cables—it determined that declaratory relief was sufficient, thereby eschewing the imposition of reparations or cessation orders.

經過審查，由五名仲裁員組成的小組駁回了烏克蘭大部分的聲索，包括要求金錢賠償與拆除大橋的要求。雖然法庭發現基礎設施項目（包括天然氣管道與電纜）在環境影響評估方面存在程序缺陷，但認定宣告性救濟已足夠，因此不採取強制賠償或發布停止令。

Stakeholder interpretations of the verdict diverge significantly. The Russian Foreign Ministry characterized the outcome as a decisive victory, asserting that the ruling formally recognizes the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait as historic domestic waters. Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev posited that the decision constitutes an international recognition of Russia's revised territorial borders. Conversely, the ruling did not explicitly adjudicate the overarching sovereignty of the Crimean peninsula, which remains recognized as Ukrainian territory under broader international law.

相關持份者對裁決的解讀截然不同。俄羅斯外交部將結果形容為決定性的勝利，聲稱裁決正式承認亞速海與克里米亞海峽為歷史性內海。安全委員會副主席德米特里·梅德韋傑夫認為，此決定構成了國際社會對俄羅斯修訂後領土邊界的認可。相反，裁決並未明確判定克里米亞半島的整體主權，在更廣泛的國際法下，該地依然被視為烏克蘭領土。

The tribunal has rejected Ukraine's primary maritime claims and requests for reparations, while noting specific environmental assessment failures by Russia.

法庭駁回了烏克蘭主要的海權聲索與賠償要求，同時指出俄羅斯在環境評估方面存在特定失誤。