評「南海仲裁案」有關太平島法律地位之審議與見解

2016年7月12日，審議「南海仲裁案」（the Republic of the Philippines v. the People's Republic of China）的仲裁庭發布裁決書（Award），其中作出南沙群島之最大島－太平島（英文稱為Itu Aba）－是「礁岩」（rock）的見解，基此，認定太平島無權主張劃設兩百浬專屬經濟區或大陸礁層。對此仲裁結果，台灣表無法接受。台灣認為太平島不但可以維持人類居住，也有其自經濟生活，當然是一個「島嶼」（island），絕非菲律賓所稱係1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》第121條第3項所指之「礁岩」。台灣主張太平島有權劃設兩百浬專屬經濟區或大陸礁層。「南海仲裁案」之判斷衍生以下幾個重要問題：（一）仲裁庭所作有關島礁地位之認定與宣告是否出現瑕疵或越權疑義？（二）台灣如何駁斥仲裁庭所作太平島是「礁岩」此認定？（三）台灣又如何提出合理、具說服力之法理論述，證明太平島是一個「全權島嶼」（fully entitled island），而非「礁岩」，因此，有權主張兩百浬專屬經濟區或大陸礁層？本文主要目的在評論「南海仲裁案」仲裁庭就太平島法律地位的審議過程與所作最終見解。在文章架構上，全文共有九個部分。繼第一部分前言後，第二部分說明仲裁庭審議太平島法律地位之經過。第三部分介紹台灣因應仲裁案有關太平島地位之審議。第四部分討論菲律賓是如何答覆仲裁庭所提回應台灣論述之要求。第五部分敘述中國大陸有關太平島地位之表態。第六部分說明仲裁庭有關太平島地位之審議與所作結論。第七部分評論仲裁庭認定太平島是「礁岩」所出現之瑕疵或越權疑義問題。第八部分探討仲裁庭所作太平島是「礁岩」此見解之意涵與可能影響。第九部分提出本文結論。

關鍵字

南海仲裁；太平島；島嶼；礁岩；台灣

並列摘要

On July 12, 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal that heard the arbitration case between the Republic of the Philippines and the People's Republic of China rendered its final award, in which it opinioned that Taiping Island (Itu Aba), the largest feature in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, is a ＂rock＂ and therefore not entitled the right to generate a 200-nautical-mile EEZ or continental shelf. Taiwan government responded to the award by announcing that the decision is not acceptable. It is Taiwan's position that not only Taiping Island is capable to sustain human habitation, but also has economic life of its own, and therefore the feature is truly a ＂fully entitled island＂ in accordance with Article 121 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, instead of being considered a ＂rock＂ as argued by the government of the Philippines in the case. Taiwan claims that Taiping Island is entitled the right to claim EEZ or continental shelf. The South China Sea arbitration case gives rise to a number of important issues, including: (1) Did the findings and declarations made by the Tribunal give rise to a question of flaws or acting in excess of its authority? (2) How should Taiwan refute the findings made by the Tribunal with respect to the legal status of Taiping Island as a ＂rock＂? and (3) How could Taiwan submit reasonable and convincing legal arguments in support of its position that Taiping is indeed a ＂fully entitled island＂, instead of a ＂rock＂ and therefore the island is entitled the right to generate a 200 nm EEZ or continental shelf? The purpose of this article is to analyze the Tribunal's deliberations and opinion in the South China Sea arbitration case with respect of the legal status of Taiping Island. It is consist of 9 parts. Following the introductory part, Part 2 describes the arbitral proceedings, focusing on the deliberation on the legal status of Taiping Island. Part 3 introduces Taiwan's response to the Tribunal's deliberation. This is followed by discussion of the Philippines' response to the questions raised by the Tribunal regarding Taiwan's arguments in Part 4. Part 5 gives an account of China's position and statements on Taiping Island's status. Part 6 addresses the Tribunal's deliberations of Taiping Island's status and the conclusion it reached. Part 7 comments on the flaws or action taken by the Tribunal in excess of its authority with respect to the legal status of Taiping Island as a ＂rock＂. Part 8 discusses the implication and possible impact of the Tribunal's finding that Taiping is a rock. In part 9, concluding remarks are given.