論南海仲裁案中台灣的國際法地位：以新港／政策法學派為中心

On Taiwan’s Legal Status in the South China Sea Arbitration from the Perspective of New Haven / Policy Oriented School

本文旨在從國際法的新港/政策法學派的理論，分析台灣在菲中南海仲裁案的國際法地位。2016年7月12日海牙常設仲裁庭在仲裁判斷中，大部分是以「中國台灣當局」指稱台灣。不能否認者，仲裁判斷對台灣的總體國際地位有一定的衝擊，但這並不表示仲裁庭完全無視台灣在國際法上所具有一定程度的地位。新港/政策法學派的國際法主體理論認為，國家並不是國際法上唯一的主體，而是任何可以有效影響國際法內涵的主體。本文基於上述理論發現，台灣在仲裁審理期間所提出有關太平島的資訊性證據價值，均顯示了台灣在南海仲裁案中，仍享有一定參與者地位的原因。最後，本文在結論中指出，從仲裁庭言詞審理的前後脈絡、有關國際法上特殊實體的法理、以及仲裁庭本身並非以處理台灣地位作為訴訟標的之情況來看，台灣的國際法地位爭議不可能在一個《南海仲裁案》中即被確定。 This article aims to analyze Taiwan’s legal status based on the international legal theory of New Haven / policy-oriented school. The South China Sea Arbitration Award issued by the Tribunal on July 12, 2016 referred Taiwan as ＂Taiwan Authority of China＂, which to certain extent has impact on Taiwan’s legal status. However, that does not necessarily suggest that the Tribunal thoroughly disregards Taiwan’s legal status in international law. New Haven School argues that nation is not the only actor in international law, but any actor who could effectively influence the development of international law. Based on such theory, the author argues that because Taiwan provides some evidences regarding the status of Taiping Islands in the public sphere, which resulted in responses coming from both Tribunal and the Philippines Government, arguably, Taiwan does enjoy some kinds of in legal actor status in the Arbitration. In the end, the author suggests that in terms of the context of Tribunal’s hearing on the merits, the jurisprudence of entity sui generis and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the disputes of Taiwan’s legal status cannot be finalized in the Arbitration.