論克赤海峽事件所涉部分國際法議題

On Certain International Legal Issues Relating to the Kerch Incident

2018年11月25日，三艘烏克蘭軍艦尚未進入「克赤海峽」，航經由克里米亞所延伸領海之際，在該海域附近遭俄羅斯武裝攻擊並扣留。此事件引發國際社會對「克赤海峽」之關注，因此本文檢視「克赤海峽」及「亞速海」之法律地位、所適用之通行制度及俄羅斯開火並扣船行為之合法性。就「克赤海峽」與「亞速海」之法律地位而言，本文認為烏克蘭與俄羅斯承繼蘇聯「歷史性海灣權源」，因此得主張「克赤海峽」與「亞速海」具備該兩國「共同內水」之法律地位，成為國際海洋法中自成一類之規範體系。就所適用之通行制度，本文檢視《海洋法公約》第35條及第37條之規定，認為「克赤海峽」不適用《海洋法公約》過境通行制度。進一步言，基於1992年國際法院《陸地、島嶼與海域邊界爭端案》對於「方色佳灣」應適用通行制度之認定，認為此種特殊內水規範體系之具體權利與義務內容，主要取決於兩國之實踐與主觀意願。至於俄羅斯武力使用行為合法性，考量到本案尚不涉及武裝衝突，而應適用和平時期海洋法規定，據此不論俄羅斯2014年是否取得克里米亞領土主權，甚至假設事實發生在俄羅斯之領海或內水，俄羅斯之行為都顯然侵害烏國軍艦的豁免權，而違反一般國際法及海洋法規則。 On November 25, 2018, three Ukrainian warships were attacked and detained byRussian Federation gunboats. When the warships were under attack, theyhaven't entered into the Kerch Strait, but were at, or near at, the territorial sea extended from Crimea area. In light of the great concerns among international community, this article examines the legal status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov, the applicable passage regime in these waters and the legalityof the use of armed forces and detentions employed byRussian authorities. With respect to the legal status of the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov, this article argues Russia and Ukraine succeeded the USSR to the maritime claim of historical bays; hence the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are internal waters subject to the condominium or co-ownership of these two States and are governed bya legal regime of sui generis nature under the law of the sea. Moreover, concerning the applicable regimes of passage, this articles argues, according to article 35 as well as article 37 of the UNCLOS, the transit passage regime under Part III of the UNLOS does not applyto the Kerch Strait. Further, the rationale of the 1992 ICJ judgment, the Land, Island and Maritime Frontiers Dispute Case, where the ICJ addressed the rights of passage applicable to the Gulf of Fonseca, is applicable in the present case. Given the Kerch Strait and the Sea of Azov are also governed bya special and particular régime, practices and intentions of these two States principallydefine the specific content of this regime. As far as the legalityof the use of force is concerned, this article, bytaking facts happened from 2014 to 2018 into account, argues that the present case should be examined in the eyes of rules of international law in peace time, rather than the ones during armed conflicts. This article concludes that it is so obvious that Russia violated immunities enjoyed by Ukrainian warships. Therefore, no matter Russia legallypossess the territorial sovereigntyof Crimea or not, and no matter the incident occurred in the Russia territorial sea or in Russia internal waters, Russia's use of force, nevertheless, did not consist with rules of general international and the law of the sea.