論國際漁業法中涉及捕魚實體的爭端解決機制(上)

Abstract

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，且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。捕魚實體乃是透過各個區域性漁業管理組織（RFMOs），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，實際上乃專為台灣所量身訂作，其目的在於促使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區域性漁業管理組織中處理涉及捕魚實體之爭端之機制，以審視此三個區域性漁業管理組織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區域性漁業管理組織委員會間之爭端，以及介於捕魚實體與其他區域性漁業管理組織會員間之爭端。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，本文檢視此三個區域性漁業管理組織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。

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 Party of the State, and whose incorporation into the regulatory framework established by the UNFSA thus 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 determine how many more 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.