船旗國專屬管轄之外：非船旗國對海底電纜與管線破壞之刑事管轄

Beyond Exclusive Flag State Jurisdiction: Non-Flag States’Criminal Jurisdiction over Sabotage of Submarine Cables and Pipelines

本文旨在探討：沿海國就外國人於領海外之外國船舶蓄意破壞海底纜線或管線之行為，進行刑事起訴審判，是否違反「聯合國海洋法公約」第92條船旗國專屬管轄？以及是否受到第97條之限制？本文使用「規範管轄」與「執行管轄」作為分析框架，除參考相關重要學術文獻之外，也分析1927年蓮花號案、2019年Norstar案及2020年Enrica Lexie案中對相關規則之解釋適用。本文於結論指出：第一，船旗國專屬管轄原則上禁止非船旗國在公海對外國船舶行使執行管轄。然而在規範管轄方面，至多也僅禁止非船旗國對外國船舶公海合法活動主張管轄，而蓄意破壞海底纜線或管線之行為非屬公海上之合法活動，故沿海國對此等行為主張規範管轄不會侵害船旗國專屬管轄。第二，蓄意破壞行為嚴重偏離船舶正常航行之操作與移動，不符第97條「航行事故」之定義，故沿海國對該行為之刑事訴追並未受到禁止。

This article examines whether criminal prosecution and adjudication conducted by a coastal State within its territory regarding the intentional damage of submarine cables or pipelines by foreign nationals on foreign vessels beyond the territorial sea violates the exclusive flag State jurisdiction under Article 92 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), or is prohibited by UNCLOS Article 97. Employing“prescriptive jurisdiction”and“enforcement jurisdiction”as the analytical framework, this article analyzes the interpretation and application of relevant rules as discussed in the 1927 Lotus case, the 2019 Norstar case, and the 2020 Enrica Lexie case, as well as relevant scholarship.
The article concludes as follows: First, the principle of exclusive flag State jurisdiction generally prohibits enforcement jurisdiction over vessels exercised by non-flag States on the high seas. However, regarding prescriptive jurisdiction, the principle at most prohibits non-f lag States from asserting jurisdiction over foreign vessels’lawful activities on the high seas. Given that acts of intentional damage to submarine cables or pipelines are not lawful activities on the high seas, the coastal State’s prescriptive jurisdiction claim over these activities would not violate this principle. Second, acts of intentional damage to submarine cables or pipelines significantly deviate from the movement and maneuvering of normal navigation and, thus, cannot be regarded as an incident of navigation under Article 97; therefore, criminal prosecution and adjudication by the coastal State regarding such acts are not prohibited.