中文名称 | 英文名称 | CAS号 | 化学式 | 分子量 |
---|---|---|---|---|
2,4-二硝基苯胺 | 2,4-Dinitroanilin | 97-02-9 | C6H5N3O4 | 183.123 |
1,2,3,5-四硝基苯 | 1,2,3,5-tetranitrobenzene | 3698-53-1 | C6H2N4O8 | 258.104 |
N-甲基-2,4,6-三硝基苯胺 | N-methylpicramide | 1022-07-7 | C7H6N4O6 | 242.148 |
2-叠氮基-1,3,5-三硝基苯 | 2-azido-1,3,5-trinitro-benzene | 1600-31-3 | C6H2N6O6 | 254.118 |
—— | trinitrophenylnitramine | 4591-46-2 | C6H3N5O8 | 273.119 |
1,3,5-三硝基苯 | TNB | 99-35-4 | C6H3N3O6 | 213.106 |
2-硝基苯胺 | 2-nitro-aniline | 88-74-4 | C6H6N2O2 | 138.126 |
—— | N-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl)acetamide | 16400-86-5 | C8H6N4O7 | 270.158 |
—— | 2,4,N-trinitro-aniline | 20020-15-9 | C6H4N4O6 | 228.121 |
—— | N,N'-dipicryl-urea | 6305-08-4 | C13H6N8O13 | 482.236 |
—— | ethyl N-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl)carbamate | 6268-35-5 | C9H8N4O8 | 300.185 |
—— | 4-Amino-2,3,5,6-tetranitrotoluene | 84432-53-1 | C7H5N5O8 | 287.145 |
N,N'-二(2,4,6-三硝基苯基)草酸二酰胺 | N,N'-dipicryl-oxalamide | 29135-62-4 | C14H6N8O14 | 510.247 |
中文名称 | 英文名称 | CAS号 | 化学式 | 分子量 |
---|---|---|---|---|
—— | 2-amino-3,5-dinitrophenylamine | 3694-51-7 | C6H6N4O4 | 198.138 |
2,4,6-三硝基苯-1,3-二胺 | 1,3,5-trinitrobenzenediamine | 1630-08-6 | C6H5N5O6 | 243.136 |
—— | 1,3,5-triamino-2-nitroso-4,6-dinitrobenzene | 439614-66-1 | C6H6N6O5 | 242.151 |
1,3,5-三氨基-2,4,6-三硝基苯 | 2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene | 3058-38-6 | C6H6N6O6 | 258.15 |
1,2,3,5-四硝基苯 | 1,2,3,5-tetranitrobenzene | 3698-53-1 | C6H2N4O8 | 258.104 |
—— | 5-nitro-benzene-1,2,3-triyltriamine | 89533-32-4 | C6H8N4O2 | 168.155 |
氯苯那敏 | Dipikrylamin | 131-73-7 | C12H5N7O12 | 439.211 |
—— | trinitrophenylnitramine | 4591-46-2 | C6H3N5O8 | 273.119 |
—— | N-(2,4,6-trinitrophenyl)acetamide | 16400-86-5 | C8H6N4O7 | 270.158 |
The Saiga No. 2 case was the first judgment on the merits by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the final phase of a dispute with a complicated procedural history, using several of the provisions of Part XV of the LOS Convention. The case raised a number of procedural and evidentiary issues, relating to the presentation of witnesses, the burden of proof and the standard of proof. It clarified the meaning of "genuine link", confirmed the law on hot pursuit, settled the law on use of force in the arrest of foreign vessels, and made clear that coastal states did not enjoy customs jurisdiction in the EEZ, while leaving aside the question of jurisdiction over offshore bunkering. The Tribunal is to be commended for not permitting technical issues to prevent it from doing justice in the case.