期刊內容 Issue content

回列表
「漁捕實體」概念在區域漁業管理組織實踐之研究:以我國已成為會員之組織為例
Analysis on the Practice of ‘Fishing Entities’ Concept in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Special References on Organizations that Taiwan Has Become Members
魏仲伶(Chung-Ling Wei)高世明(Shih-Ming Kao)
即將出版 下載檔案
60卷4期(2021/12/01)

我國身為遠洋漁捕大國,但受限於國家身分不被聯合國及大多數國家承認,無法參與或加入大多數的國際組織,包括區域漁業管理組織在內。為此,「1995年聯合國魚群協定」遂創造了「漁捕實體」一詞,為我國開啟參與國際組織的一個機會之窗。雖是如此,我國以「漁捕實體」之身分參與區域漁業管理組織所適用之程序及享有之權利,在不同組織與不同時期均有所差異。在早期中西太平洋漁業委員會(WCPFC)及美洲熱帶鮪類委員會(IATTC)中,「漁捕實體」所適用之程序及享有之權利幾乎與國家之「締約方」相當。然而,在近期成為會員之組織中,我國在北太平洋漁業委員會(NPFC)雖然在美國力助下,勉強維持與WCPFC一樣的水準,但在南太平洋區域漁業管理組織(SPRFMO)中,「漁捕實體」所適用之程序與享有之權利則很明顯地不如前面三個組織。除了在協商過程中只能以「特別觀察員」之地位與會外,「公海登檢」之條款也只適用於締約方而不包括漁捕實體。由此觀之,漁捕實體在區域漁業管理組織內所適用之程序及享有的權利在近期似乎越來越受到限縮,也與締約方間漸行漸遠。對身為漁捕大國的我國而言,此一發展勢必影響我國未來參與新的RFMOs時所享有之權利,值得政府高度關注。

 

As one of the distant water fishing nations (DWFNs) in the world, Taiwan is not able to participate in or access the works of many international organizations, including regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), due to the fact that Taiwan’s statehood is not recognized by the United Nations and most States. The term “Fishing Entities” was created in the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), in which it has also opened a window of opportunity for Taiwan in the participation of international organizations. However, both procedures applicable to and rights enjoyed by Taiwan under the capacity of a “Fishing Entity” vary in different time periods and RFMOs.

After analysis, in the early stage procedures applied to and rights enjoyed by a Fishing Entity and a Contracting Party are almost the same in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-American Tropic Tuna Commission (IATTC). However, in RFMOs that Taiwan has just recently become Members, Taiwan continues to enjoy rights and procedures similar to those of WCPFC in the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) because of the strong assistance from the United States. But in the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (SPRFMO), procedures applied to and rights enjoyed by a Fishing Entity are significantly less and restricted than those in the previous three organizations. In addition, Taiwan was only allowed to participate as a “Special Observer” when negotiating in the SPRFMO Convention, in which high seas boarding and inspection (HSBI) procedures also only apply to Contracting Parties.

In conclusion, procedures applied to and rights enjoyed by Fishing Entity in RFMOs seem more and more restricted recently, and the gap between a Fishing Entity and a Contracting Party gradually moves further apart. As a strong DWFN, such developmental tendency will inevitably affect rights enjoyed by Taiwan when participating in new RFMOs in the future, and should thus be worthy of continued attention.


 

 

top