論南海仲裁庭對UNCLOS第121(3)條相關法律解釋與適用之影響

The Impact of the South China Sea Arbitral Tribunal’s Interpretation and Application of UNLCOS Article 121(3)

2013年設立的南海（菲律賓v.中國）仲裁庭是第一個決定對UNCLOS第121條第3項關於島嶼制度中的「岩礁」（rock）規定進行解釋的國際法律裁判機構。仲裁庭對第3項以地物本身能否「維持人類定居或經濟生活」的概念來區別享有200海浬EEZ及大陸礁層的「島」和不具有這些權利的「礁」，採取了非常嚴格的解釋，並用以檢視黃岩島及南沙群島中較大的地物。最後，仲裁庭宣判黃岩島為岩礁，且南沙群島中沒有一座島。仲裁庭對第121(3)條的解釋以及對太平島法律屬性的判定已受到部分學者的批評。本文首先討論第121(3)條在南海仲裁案中的重要性，並進一步分析為何仲裁庭對該條文相關法律見解，不論對解決菲、中雙邊爭端或整個南海爭端，抑或是第121條第3項習慣法規則之發展，其影響力在近期的未來或恐不如預期。 The South China Sea (Philippines v. China) Arbitral Tribunal established in 2013 was the first international judiciary that decided to take on the interpretation of UNCLOS Article 121(3) concerning the classification of ＂rock＂ under the concept of Regime of Islands. The Tribunal adopted very strict and nuanced interpretations for a feature's own capacity to ＂sustain human habitation or economic life＂, so as to differentiate between an ＂island＂ entitled to a 200-nautical-mile EEZ and continental shelf and a ＂rock＂ that is not. It then applied them to the Scarborough Shoal and the largest Sprtaly islets, including Taiping Island (Itu Aba), and declared that Scarborough Shoal to be a rock, whereas none of the Spratly features were islands. Some scholars have criticized the Tribunal's interpretation of Article 121(3) and its determination of the legal status Aba. This article began by discussing the significance of Article 121(3) in the South China Sea arbitration. It concludes that despite the Tribunal's painstaking effort in resolving the ambiguities contained in Article 121(3), its effects on how Philippines and China settle their relevant disputes, or its contributions to the South China Sea dispute settlement more broadly as well as to the development of more generally acceptable customary rules in relation to Article 121(3), may be more limited than hoped for in the foreseeable future.