Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54830
題名: 駐美國臺北經濟文化代表處(TECRO)與美國在臺協會(AIT)特權與豁免之研究
A study of the privilege and immunity of TECRO and AIT
作者: 祝立宏
Chu, Li Hung
貢獻者: 陳純一
Chen, Chun I
祝立宏
Chu, Li Hung
關鍵詞: 北美事務協調委員會
駐美國臺北經濟文化代表處
美國在臺協會
外交
特權
豁免
CCNAA
TECRO
AIT
diplomacy
privilege
immunity
日期: 2011
上傳時間: 30-十月-2012
摘要: 1979年1月1日,美國與我國斷絕外交關係後,為因應新的外交關係發展,美國依其「臺灣關係法」成立「美國在臺協會」處理對臺事務,我國也相應成立「北美事務協調委員會」做為對口單位,雙方並互派駐代表機構,建立了有別於傳統國際法的準外交關係;同時,另依據雙方協定及各自的國內法,賦予對方派駐機構及人員享有相當於政府間國際組織的特權與豁免。此種非邦交國及不被承認政府之準外交代表機構的特權與豁免,經過多年的實踐,其結果如何?為本論文研究與探討的重點。\n 雖然就協定的內容,我國與美方派駐機構及人員僅享有相當於在美國政府間國際組織的特權與豁免。然經由本研究發現,由於兩國各自的國內法及執行面的因素,雙方派駐機構及人員享有之特權與豁免,在實踐上是有差距的,我駐美館處及人員享有的特權與豁免並不及「美國在臺協會」駐華機構及人員。此外,是否給予不被承認國家派駐之外交代表機構特權與豁免及給予其主張國家豁免的權利,也完全是國家基於政治考量之主權行為,而非國際法之規範;同時,給予一個不被承認國家派駐外交代表機構相當程度的特權與豁免或給予主張國家豁免的權利,也並不會因此就造成國際法上國家或政府承認的情形。由於現今時空環境與國際情勢已有很大的變化,與當年兩國斷交時之氛圍,實不可同日而語。據此,本文亦依研究所得,綜整幾點淺薄意見,以供相關單位及人員參考,期能提升雙方派駐機構及人員的特權與豁免地位,並有效維護我國家及人民的權益。
In recognizing the People’s Republic of China as the government of China in January 1979, the United States derecognized the government on Taiwan, “the Republic of China,” previously recognized as the government of China. As a matter of public international law, severance of diplomatic relations and derecognition of the government carried some potential important consequences to the ROC government including that it is not diplomatic and sovereign immunity in the US. However, the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) was enacted by the US Congress in April, 1979 to preserve and promote extensive, close, and friendly commercial, cultural, and other relations between the people of the US and the people on Taiwan. The TRA also created new, quasi-diplomatic agencies to enable the US government and the ROC government to communicate through a novel, non-diplomatic channel.\n Under the TRA, a Taiwanese official entity known as the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) – previously known as the Coordination Council for North American Affairs (CCNAA) – has been permitted to act as the unofficial instrumentality of the Taiwanese people, in Washington, D.C. Also the Washington–based TECRO has had an American counterpart in Taipei, named the “American Institute in Taiwan” (AIT), specifically established pursuant to the TRA as a non-profit, private corporation responsible for conducting or carrying out all US programs, transactions, and other relations with respect to Taiwan. Though it lacks official status, the AIT’s role in Taiwan closely resembles that of a diplomatic mission. Agreements between the two quasi-diplomatic agencies authorized by their respective government accord the two agencies and their staff the privilege and immunity similar to that of the public international organization.\n The purpose of this research is to analyze the privileges and immunities of the quasi-diplomatic agencies, and also give a detailed examination of the practice over thirty years on both sides. Through this research, we found that there are differences in practice between two sides due to different internal legal system and enforcement. On the other hand, we also found that the public international law and international circumstances give considerable latitude to the improvement of the privileges and immunities of the quasi-diplomatic agencies.
參考文獻: 壹、中文部份\nBurchill, Scott, Andrew Linklater, Richard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Terry Nardin, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit and Jacqui True。《國際關係理論》(Theory of International Relations),莊皓雲譯。臺北:時英,2010年。\n丁干城。〈探討改善我國駐美員眷簽證待遇問題〉。《外交部通訊》,第26卷第1期。2006年6月。\n中國國際法學會編著。《中國國際法與國際事務年報(第1卷)》。臺北:臺灣商務,1987年。\n中國國際法學會編著。《中國國際法與國際事務年報(第5卷)》。臺北:臺灣商務,1992年。\n中國國際法學會編著。《中國國際法與國際事務年報(第17卷)》。臺北:臺灣商務,2005年。\n中華民國司法院編。《司法院公報第(34卷1期)》。臺北:司法院祕書處,1992年。\n中華民國司法院編。《司法院公報(第36卷2期)》。臺北:司法院祕書處,1994年。\n中華民國外交部檔案資訊處編。《中國駐外公(大)使館歷任館長銜名年表》。臺北:臺灣商務,1989年。\n中華民國外交部禮賓司編。《駐中華民國使領館暨國際組織銜名錄》。臺北:外交部禮賓司,2011年12月。\n中華民國最高法院編。《最高法院民刑事庭會議決議暨全文彙編(下冊)》。臺北:最高法院,2003年。\n中華民國最高法院編輯。《最高法院判例要旨(民國 16-94年民事部分)》。臺北:最高法院,2007年。\n王玉民。《社會科學研究方法原理》。臺北:洪葉文化,1999年。\n王啟明。〈從涉外案件之案例談外交豁免權之研究〉。《警學叢刊》,第27卷,第2期,頁1-14。1996年9月。\n王鐵崖等。《國際法》。臺北:五南,1992年。\n丘宏達。〈美國國家主權豁免法中對外國國家或其官員或代理人的侵權行為之管轄問題〉。《中國國際法與國際事務年報》,第1卷,頁3-17。1987年。\n丘宏達。《現代國際法》,修訂二版。臺北:三民,2010年。\n丘宏達、陳純一。《現代國際法參考文件》,臺北:三民,1996年。\n朱浤源。《撰寫博碩士論文實戰手冊》,臺北:正中書局股份有限公司,1999年。\n李大維。《臺灣關係法立法過程----美國總統與國會間之制衡》。臺北:洞察,1988年。\n俞寬賜。《國際法新論》。臺北:啟英文化,2002年。\n姜皇池。《國際公法導論》。臺北:新學林,2006年。\n施啟揚。《民法總則》。臺北:三民書局,修訂5版,1993年12月。\n馬英九主編,陳榮傳助編。《國際法實例研究(上冊)》,臺北:司法官訓練所,1997年。\n許耀明。〈國際組織人員之外交豁免-IMF 前主席涉嫌性侵案〉。《月旦法學教室》,第107期,頁39-41。2011年8月。\n郭春源。〈從涉外案件處理與外交特權暨豁免權之探討〉。《警學叢刊》,第27卷,第2期,頁15-27。1996年9月。\n陳一新。《斷交後的中美關係》。臺北:五南,1995年。\n陳志奇。《美國對華政策三十年》。臺北:中華日報社,1981年。\n陳首翰。〈外國駐華大使館於我國法院之訴訟地位及管轄豁免—兼論台灣高等法院九十二年度上易字第八七五號判決〉。《中國國際法與國際事務年報》,第17卷,頁547-552。2005年。\n陳純一。〈美國有關外交代表和領事人員豁免的法律規範〉。《美歐月刊》,第9卷,第12期。頁130-144。1994年12月。\n陳純一。《國家豁免問題之研究》。臺北:三民,2000年。\n陳純一。〈臺灣關係法二十年:美國法院的見解與其意涵〉。《中國國際法與國際事務年報》,第13卷,頁3-19。2002年。\n陳純一。〈由「法輪功訴江澤民案」論美國法院有關「國家元首豁免」的實踐〉。《中華國際法與超國界法評論》,第1卷,第2期,頁383-404。2005年12月。\n陳純一。〈國家豁免主體問題之研究〉。《台北大學法學論叢》,第61期,頁111-134。2007年3月。\n陳純一。〈聯合國「國家及其財產管轄豁免公約」之研究〉。《政大法學評論》,第109期,頁59-111。2009年6月。\n\n陳榮傳。〈外國駐華外交人員的管轄豁免問題〉。《月旦法學教室》,第24期,頁24-25。2004年10月。\n游啟忠。《中美間條約與協定法律地位之研究:從中美兩國法院判決論1861年至1990年》。臺北:淡江大學出版部(初版),1991年。\n黃剛。《中美使領關係建制史(1786-1994)》。臺北:臺灣商務,1995年。\n黃剛。《文獻析述:中華民國/台灣與美國間關係運作之建制(1979-1999)》。臺北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心,2000年。\n黃剛。《國際事務論述集》。臺北:黃剛,2009年1月。\n蕭雄淋。〈大英百科全書官司攻防戰(五) - 第一審民事確認訴訟〉。《律師通訊》,第147期,頁45-52。1991年12月。\n謝笠天,〈台灣於美國法院之法律地位〉。《台灣國際法季刊》,第6卷,第2期,頁58-60。2009年6月。\n蘇義雄。〈論外國管轄豁免—英美兩國之實踐〉。《中興法學》,第31期,頁29-77。1990年11月。\n貳、英文部份\nAmerican Law Institute. Restatement of the Law: the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. 3rd ed., 2 Vols., 1987.\nBadr, Gamal M. State Immunity: An Analytical and Prognostic View. The Hague: Nijhoff Publishers, 1984.\nBankas, Ernest K. The State Immunity Controversy in International Law. New York: Springer Berline Heidelberg, 2005.\nBishop, William W. Jr., International Law, 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971.\nBuergenthal, Thomas and Sean D. Murphy. Public International Law, 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 2007.\nClarkson, Kenneth W., Roger Leroy Miller, Gaylord A. Jentz, and Frank B. Cross. Business Law: Text and Cases, 11th ed. Mason: South-Western Cengate Learning, 2009.\nCohen, Jerome A., and Hungdah Chiu. People’s China and International Law: A Documentary Study, Vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974.\nDickey, John Sloan. ”Our Treaty Procedure v. Our Foreign Policies.” Foreign Affairs (April, 1947).\nEvans, Malcolm, and Patrick Capps. International Law, Second Series, Vol. 2. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2009.\nFischer, Thomas. Switzerland`s good offices: a changing concept, 1945-2002, No. 37. Center for International Studies (CIS), ETH Zurich, 2002.\nHiggins, Rosalyn. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It!. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.\nJennings, Robert and Arthur Watts. Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. 1, 9th ed., Introduction and Part 1. Harlow, Essex, England: Longmans Group UK Limited, 1992.\nScaros, Constantinos E. Learning about immigration law. New York: Thomson Delmar Learning Press, 2007.\nSchulz, Helena Lindholm and Juliane Hammer. The Palestinian Diaspora: Formation of Identities and Politics of Homeland. Routledge, 2003.\nShaw, Malcolm N. International Law, Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997.\nStarke, J. G. Introduction to International Law, 10th ed. London: Butterworths, 1989.\nU.S. National Security Strategy, May 2010.\nUnited States. Department of State. Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Diplomatic and Consular Immunity: Guidance for Law Enforcement and Judicial Authorities, Department of State Publication 10524, Revised July 2011.\nWalker, David M. Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford University Press, 1980.\n參、司法裁判\n美國法院判例\nAtlantic Mutual Insurance Co. et al. V. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 796 F.Supp. 1188 (E.D. Wisconsin 1992).\nBank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 104 F.Supp. 59 (N.D. Cal. 1952).\nBank of China v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 209 F.2d 467 (9th Cir. 1953).\nChairworks Taiwan Ltd. V. Candlertown Chairworks, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL. 1018818 (W.D.N.C., 2001).\nChang v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 506 F.Supp. 975 (N.D.Ill. 1980).\nChu v. Taiwan Tobacco & Wine Monopoly Bureau, 30 F.3d 139 (9th Cir. (Cal.) 1994).\nCoordination Council for North American Affairs v. Northwest Airlines, 891 F.Supp. 4 (D.D.C. 1995)\nDupont Circle Citizens Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 530, A.2d 1163 (D.C. 1987).\nIn re Luberg’s Estate, 19 AD2d 370 (1st Dept. 1963).\nIn re Schwinn Bicycle Co. et a.l v. AFS Cycle & Co., et al.,190 B.R. 599 (Bartcy. N.D. Ill. 1995).\nJoseph v. Office of the Consulate General of Nigeria, et al, 830 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1987)\nKao Hwa Shipping Co. v. China Steel Corp., 816 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).\nLee v. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, 716 F.Supp.2d 626 (S. D. Tex. 2009).\nLee v. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, No. 4:09-cv-0024, 2010 WL 2710661 (S.D. Tex. Jul. 6, 2010).\nLian Ming Lee v. Taipei Economic & Cult’l Rep. Office, No. 4:09-cv-0024, 2010 WL 786612 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2010).\nLiu v. Republic of China, 892 F.2d 1419 (9th Cir. 1988).\nMendaro v. World Bank, 717 F.2d 610 (C.A.D.C., 1983).\nMillen Industries, Inc. V. Coordination Council for North American Affairs, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1987 WL 8707 (D.D.C. 1987).\nMillen Industries, Inc. v. Coordination Council for North American Affairs, 855 F.2d 879 (D.C. Cir. 1988).\nMingtai Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. United States Parcel Serv., 177 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 1999).\nMurray v. The Charming Betsey, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64 (1804).\nNat’l Bank of Pakistan v. Int’l Commercial Bank of China, 150 AD2d 993 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 1989).\nNat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Rep. of China, 254 F.2d 177 (4th Cir. 1958).\nNew York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc. Not Reported in F.Supp., 1989 WL 22442 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).\nNew York Chinese TV Programs, Inc. v. U.E. Enterprises, Inc., 954 F.2d 847 (2nd Cir. 1992).\nOlson v. Republic of Singapore, 636 F.Supp. 885 (D.C. Dist. Col. 1986).\nRepublic of Vietmnam V. Pfizer Inc., 556 F.2d 892 (8th Cir. 1977).\nRussian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic v. Cibrario, 235 N.Y. 255 (N.Y. 1923).\nSalimoff Co. v. Standard Oil Of New York, 262 N.Y. 220 (1933).\nShih v. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, 693 F.Supp.2d 805 (N.D. Ill. 2010).\nSkeen v. Federative Republic of Brazil, 566F.Supp. 1414 (D.D.C. 1983).\nSokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 583 F.Supp.2d 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).\nSun v. Taiwan, 201 F.3d 1105 (C.A.9 Cal. 2000).\nSun v. Governmental Authorities on Taiwain, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2001 WL 114443 (N.D.Cal. 2001)\nSun v. Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, 34 Fed.Appx. 529 (9th Cir. 2002).\nSwarna v. Al-Awadi, 622 F. 3d 123 (2nd Cir. 2010).\nTaiwan et al v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Northern Dist. Of Cal., 128 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 1997).\nU.E. Enterprises, Inc. v. New York Chinese TV Programs, Inc.506 U.S. 27 (U.S. 1992).\nU.S. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 644 A.2d 995 (D.C. 1994).\nU.S. v. Kostadinov, 734 F.2d 905 (C.A.N.Y. 1984).\nU.S. v. Lumumba, 741 F.2d 12 (C.A.N.Y. 1984 ).\nUngar v. Palestine Liberation Organization, 402 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2005).\nUnited States v. 594, 464 Pounds of Salmon, 687 F.Supp. 525 (W.D. Wash. 1987).\nUnited States v. 594, 464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1989).\nWeidner v. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, 392 A.2d 508 (D.C., 1978).\nWulfsohn v. Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, 234 N.Y. 372 (1923).\n中華民國法院判例\n刑事:\n臺灣臺北地方法院71自字第870、879號刑事判決\n臺灣臺北地方法院80年度自字第1356號刑事判決\n臺灣高等法院72上訴字第806號刑事判決\n最高法院73年度臺非字第69號刑事判決\n最高法院81年臺非字第372號刑事判決\n民事:\n臺灣臺北地方法院90年度訴字第387號民事判決\n臺灣高等法院79年度上更(一)字第128號民事判決\n臺灣高等法院85年抗字第101號民事裁定\n臺灣高等法院87年抗字第2409號民事判決\n臺灣高等法院92年上易字第875號民事判決\n肆、條約及法規\n聯合國公約:\n「維也納外交關係公約」(Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)\n「維也納領事關係公約」(Vienna Convention on Consular Relations)\n「聯合國特權與豁免公約」(Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations)\n「專門機構特權與豁免公約」(Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies)\n「聯合國國家及其財產管轄豁免公約」(United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property)\n條約:\n「聯合國與美國關於聯合國總部的協定」(Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations)\n「北美事務協調委員會與美國在臺協會特權免稅暨豁免協定」(Agreement on Privileges, Exemptions and Immunities Between The Coordination Council For North American Affairs And The American Institute In Taiwan)\n美國法律:\n「美國憲法」(Constitution of the United States)\n「外交關係法」(Diplomatic Relation Act)\n「外國使節團法」(Foreign Missions Act)\n「美國國際組織豁免法」(United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945)\n「外國主權豁免法」(Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976)\n「臺灣關係法」(Taiwan Relations Act,TRA)\n中華民國法規:\n「中華民國憲法」\n「民法」\n「涉外民事法律適用法」\n「駐華外國機構及其人員特權暨豁免條例」\n「入出國及移民法」\n「入出國及移民法施行細則」\n「外國護照簽證條例」\n「外國護照簽證條例施行細則」\n「稅捐稽徵法」\n「所得稅法」\n「使用牌照稅法」\n「關稅法」\n「建築法」\n「外交部駐外代表機構組織規程」\n「北美事務協調委員會組織規程」\n「條約及協定處理準則」\n「聯合國各組織及人員在華應享受之特權及豁免辦法」\n「各國駐華使領館及駐華外國機構聘僱外國人許可及管理辦法」\n「駐台外交機構及其人員進口車輛處理要點」\n「警察機關處理涉外治安案件作業規定」\n「內政部審議行政院交議特種建築物申請案處理原則」\n伍、報刊\n聯合報\n世界日報\n陸、網路資源\n中華民國外交部網頁:http://www.mofa.gov.tw/ (accessed July 31, 2012)。\n中華人民共和國外交部網頁:\nhttp://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/pds/wjb/zwjg/zwsg/yz/ (accessed July 31, 2012)。\n美國國務院網頁:\nhttp://www.state.gov/misc/list/index.htm (accessed July 31, 2012)\nhttp://www.state.gov/documents/organization/164550.pdf(accessed July 31, 2012)。\n美國國務院外國使節團辦公室網頁:\nhttp://www.state.gov/ofm/property/construction/index.htm (accessed July 31, 2012)\nhttp://www.state.gov/ofm/resource/ile/index.htm(accessed July 31, 2012)。\n聯合國UN網頁:\nhttp://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/resins.htm (accessed July 31, 2012)。\n聯合國國際法網頁:\nhttp://treaties.un.org/Pages/ParticipationStatus.aspx (accessed July 31, 2012)\nhttp://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-1&chapter=3&lang=en#3 (accessed July 31, 2012)\nhttp://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=III-2&chapter=3&lang=en (accessed July 31, 2012)。\n中央社網頁:http://www.cna.com.tw/Views/Page/Search/hyDetailws.aspx?qid=201111170129&q=%e9%a7%90%e5%8f%b0%e4%ba%ba%e5%93%a1%e8%b1%81%e5%85%8d%e5%89%8d%e4%be%8b+%e5%a4%96%e4%ba%a4%e9%83%a8%e8%aa%8d%e5%ae%9a (accessed April 15, 2012)。\nGeneral Delegation of the PLO to the U.S.網頁:http://www.plomission.us/index.php?page=about-us (accessed July 31, 2012)
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
外交學系戰略與國際事務碩士在職專班
99922003
100
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099922003
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
200301.pdf4.98 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.