法學期刊.
  • 社群分享
論著名稱: 論國際漁業法中涉及捕魚實體的爭端解決機制(上)(Dispute Settlement Regimes for Solving the Disputes involving Fishing Entities under International Fishery Law)
編著譯者: 高聖惕
出版日期: 2007.02
刊登出處: 台灣/政大法學評論第 95 期 /229-264 頁
頁  數: 19 點閱次數: 2302
下載點數: 76 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 高聖惕
關 鍵 詞: 捕魚實體區域性漁業管理組織(RFMO)一九九五年跨界魚種協定(UNFSA)一九八二年聯合國海洋法公約(UNCLOS)常設仲裁法院(PCA)國際海洋法法庭(ITLOS)南方黑鮪保育委員會(CCSBT)美洲熱帶鮪魚委員會(IATTC)中西太平洋鮪魚委員會(WCPFC)大西洋鮪類國際保育委員會(ICCAT)與印度洋鮪類委員會(IOTC)爭端解決安地瓜公約(Antigua Convention)台灣合作非締約方實體或捕魚實體
中文摘要: 一九九五年之 UNFSA 乃第一個囊括捕魚實體之用語及概念之多邊條約,UNFSA 之規範準用於捕魚實體。由於捕魚實體無法成為 UNFSA 之締約國,是以欲將捕魚實體整合至 UNFSA 之規範架構中,即必須採取間接之方式。捕魚實體乃須藉由與各個區域性漁業管理組織(RFMOs)合作,方能依其遵守養護及管理措施之程度,享受漁捕及其他利益與權利。捕魚實體之概念,乃為台灣所量身訂作,其目的在於將台灣整合進入國際漁業管理之規範架構中。台灣以不同地位參與五個區域性漁業管理組織之工作,即 CCSBT、IATTC、WCPFC、ICCAT 及 IOTC。前三個區域性漁業管理組織為了執行 UNFSA,已經完成其組織文件之修改或草擬。本文即在透過檢視此三個 RFMO 處理涉及捕魚實體之爭端之機制,以審視此三個 RFMO 之組織文件如何將捕魚實體加以整合、以及整合之程度。本文探討之爭端,包括介於捕魚實體與 RFMO 委員會間之爭端,以及介於捕魚實體與其他 RFMO 會員間之爭端。本文首先介紹由 UNFSA 及 UNCLOS 所創設之爭端解決機制,並將重點放在捕魚實體能夠受利於此等機制之程度。以此簡介作為出發點,本文檢視此三個 RFMO 就涉及捕魚實體之爭端而言,發展出了多少種其他爭端解決規則。藉由此類問題之探討,吾人將可評估:在十年前 UNFSA 首次提出將捕魚實體整合至國際漁業管理體制之想法後,此等想法在今日被執行之程度。
英文關鍵詞: Fishing entitiesRegional Fishery Management Organization (RFMO)1995 UNFSA1982 UNCLOSPermanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)ITLOSCCSBTIATTCWCPFCICCATIOTCDispute SettlementAntigua ConventionTaiwanCooperating Non-Contracting PartyEntity or Fishing Entity
英文摘要: The incorporation of the term and concept of fishing entities in a multilateral treaty was first done in the 1995 UNFSA, which applies mutatis mutandis to fishing entities. The UNFSA denies access to fishing entities to become a Contracting Party. Hence, the incorporation of Fishing Entities into the regulatory framework established by the UNFSA has to follow an indirect track. It is through the Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) that fishing entities may receive benefits, the right to fish and other rights which are commensurate with their commitment to comply with conservation and management measures with respect to the fish stocks. The concept of fishing entities is actually tailor-made to facilitate the incorporation of Taiwan into the regulatory framework of international fisheries governance. Taiwan has participated with different statuses in the functioning of five RFMOs, namely CCSBT, IATTC, WCPFC, ICCAT, and IOTC. The first three RFMOs have gone through a process of amending or drafting its constituent instruments for the purposes of implementing the UNFSA. The author intends to review how and to what extent these three RFMOs have been incorporating fishing entities into such constituent instruments by examining the various mechanisms for settling disputes involving fishing entities. The disputes between a fishing entity and the RFMO Commission and between a fishing entity and other RFMO Members are both discussed in this paper. The paper starts with an introduction of the dispute settlement regime established by the UNFSA and the UNCLOS, focusing on the degree to which fishing entities can benefit from such a mechanism. Using such an introduction as the point of departure, the author sets out to assess how many additional rules those three RFMOs have developed to solve disputes involving a fishing entity. Such an examination may assist us in evaluating the implementation of the ideas to incorporate fishing entities in the international fisheries governance, initiated by the UNFSA a decade ago.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、UNFSA 為捕魚實體提供爭端解決之機制
一、UNFSA「第 VIII 部分下之爭端」與捕魚實體
二、國際法院(ICJ)
三、仲裁庭及特別仲裁庭
四、國際海洋法法庭(ITLOS)
五、調解
參、南方黑鮪保育委員會公約及相關決議下之爭端解決機制
一、台灣以捕魚實體之身分,作為延伸委員會之會員
二、處理發生於 CCSBT 會員間之爭端的解決機制
三、解決 CCSBT 會員與具有延伸委員會會員地位的捕魚實體間爭端之機制
四、仲裁作為處理發生於 CCSBT 會員與具有延伸委員會會員地位之「台灣捕魚實體」間之爭端解決方式
五、國際法院(ICJ)無權審理涉及台灣捕魚實體之爭端
六、以國際海洋法法庭(ITLOS)解決發生於捕魚實體與 CCSBT 會員間之爭端
(以上刊載本期)
(以下待續)
肆、一九四九年美洲熱帶鮪魚委員會公約及二○○三年安地瓜公約下之爭端解決機制
一、美洲熱帶鮪魚委員會(IATTC)之演進
二、一九四九年 IATTC 公約下之爭端解決機制
伍、中西太平洋高度洄游魚類種群養護管理公約下之爭端解決機制
一、「中華台北捕魚實體」作為中西太平洋漁業委員會之會員
二、WCPFC 公約第20(6)條及附件 Ⅱ 下之審查小組
三、WCPFC 公約第31條下之和平解決爭端
四、依據 WCPFC 公約附件 I 第 3 段所設置的強制性仲裁
陸、結論與分析

相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
    相關論著:
      返回功能列