論島嶼制度之法理與實踐：以中國大陸南沙島礁填礁建島為例

島嶼制度自1982年《海洋法公約》立約通過至今，始終是國際海洋法中一個頗受爭論的議題。因島嶼制度不僅牽涉島礁本身所享有的法律地位，且涉及沿海國與相鄰或相向國家間海洋區域的劃分，尤以200海里專屬經濟海域制度的建立，益使島礁的法律地位倍受各國重視。2012年4月，菲律賓與中國大陸於黃岩島軍事對峙事件後，引發菲律賓提起「南海仲裁案」，希冀藉由強制仲裁對中國大陸產生遏制效應。然該案最具爭議處，即是臨時仲裁庭意圖將島嶼制度原本保有的模糊空間予以明確化、具體化，對島嶼制度條文的重新定義。而其做法非但無益於解決現存的島嶼制度爭端，反而衍生更多紛爭。本論文試圖以島嶼制度之立法過程、各重要時期之會議及重要討論事項為立基點，著重探討島嶼制度規範模糊處，並綜整各家論述，兼論中國大陸於南沙所屬島礁填礁建島、臨時仲裁庭重新定義島嶼制度所蘊含之法律意涵及面臨之挑戰，最後輔以案例研究，期能勾勒出一條較為周全的理路，作為修約之討論。

關鍵字

填礁建島；岩礁；南海仲裁案；島嶼制度

並列摘要

Since United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was adopted in 1982, the regime of islands has been a considerable subject of debate in international law of the sea. Not only the regime of islands involves the legal status of the island (or reef) itself, but also involves the division of the marine area between the coastal state and the adjacent or opposite States. Especially the establishment of the regime of the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 nautical miles, countries around the world are keeping close eye on the legal status of the island (or reef). In April 2012, after the military confrontation between the Philippines and China on Scarborough Shoal, Philippines initiated a “South China Sea Arbitration Case”, which hoped to have a containment effect on mainland China through compulsory arbitration. The most controversial issue of the case is the Provisional Arbitration Tribunal’s intent to clarify the fuzziness of the original regime of islands and give more specific and precise definition of the regime of islands provision. Rather than solving the existing regime of islands disputes, these efforts had raised more disputes instead. This thesis attempts to adopt the legislative process of the regime of islands, and the important timeline of meetings and discussions as basis; examines in-depth focus on the ambiguity of the regime of islands norms; provides comprehensive views and perspectives, including the land reclamation of the Chinese mainland in the Spratlys, and the legal implications and challenges based on Provisional Arbitral Tribunal’s new definition of the regime of islands. Lastly, supplemented case studies to map a more comprehensive rationale as reference to amend the convention in the future.