中共東海防空識別區之法條依據分析

Analyzing the Legal Terms of the PRC East China ADIZ

2013年11月23日大陸劃設東海防空識別區，曾經引據其國內法條，發表政府聲明。發布聲明後，中共國防部則公告規範東海防空識別區航空器識別細則。本文首將探討該政府聲明與識別規則公告文字意涵，淺論防空識別區國際法地位，引述大陸相關論述，掌握大陸對此基本認識，再考證前揭法規是否明確定義與授權劃設防空識別區，再依法條屬地管轄權限討論授權合法性，其識別細則法源是否充分，以及前揭法規可否衍生前述劃設作為與識別規範。本文續以防空識別區對比前揭中共法規所設立空域，期掌握異同處。最後討論劃設防空識別區，在無國際法規為前提，設立國內法源為依據作為結語。經考證比對後，發現大陸劃設東海防空識別區，曾引據早已失效法條，更在法條上充滿疑義，無適當法制基礎。實難支持劃設該防空識別區，若日後未補強法制，勢將授人以柄。 The People’s Republic of China has defined the East China Sea AirDefense Identification Zone(ADIZ)on November 23, 2013 based on itsthree domestic legal decrees. Subsequently, another announcement of theaircraft identification rules for this ADIZ was immediately issued by the PRCDefense Ministry.This paper first reviews the literatures ever published by the PRCscholars on this issue before further examining the contents of the threedecrees for exploiting whether existed specific authorization of defining airdefense identification zone and the principle of ratione loci may properlysupport the jurisdiction of such an action. Was the legal basis for aircraftidentification rules of the ADIZ sufficient? Can these aforesaid decrees bethe proper legal basis to define the ADIZ and directing the identification rules?Contents within these decrees for establishing other airspaces are alsoreviewed in this paper for confirming that there is no basis to define ADIZ.This paper eventually discusses the necessity to establish domestic legal basisto define such airspace.This paper concludes that the dates of the three decrees noted by thePRC government statements actually indicated that the editions have alreadyexpired. And there is no legal basis for the PRC to define the East China SeaADIZ and the subsequent identification rules attached. Further efforts oflegislation are needed in order to prevent political controversy.

The People’s Republic of China has defined the East China Sea AirDefense Identification Zone（ADIZ）on November 23, 2013 based on itsthree domestic legal decrees. Subsequently, another announcement of theaircraft identification rules for this ADIZ was immediately issued by the PRCDefense Ministry.This paper first reviews the literatures ever published by the PRCscholars on this issue before further examining the contents of the threedecrees for exploiting whether existed specific authorization of defining airdefense identification zone and the principle of ratione loci may properlysupport the jurisdiction of such an action. Was the legal basis for aircraftidentification rules of the ADIZ sufficient? Can these aforesaid decrees bethe proper legal basis to define the ADIZ and directing the identification rules?Contents within these decrees for establishing other airspaces are alsoreviewed in this paper for confirming that there is no basis to define ADIZ.This paper eventually discusses the necessity to establish domestic legal basisto define such airspace.This paper concludes that the dates of the three decrees noted by thePRC government statements actually indicated that the editions have alreadyexpired. And there is no legal basis for the PRC to define the East China SeaADIZ and the subsequent identification rules attached. Further efforts oflegislation are needed in order to prevent political controversy.