|Abstract: ||2001年4月1日，美軍所屬之EP-3偵察機於海南省上空進行偵察任務時與中國殲-8戰機發生擦撞意外，進而開啟兩國針對美方軍機於沿海國專屬經濟區上空從事軍事活動是否違反國際法及沿海國國內法之法律爭辯。有關專屬經濟區從事軍事活動之適法性究係為何，兩國法律見解之所以分歧，關鍵點在於《聯合國海洋法公約》第58條規定並未明文規範、界定，且國家實踐不一，加上專屬經濟區為第三次聯合國海洋法會議妥協下所產生之新制，難免各有其論點。而從EP-3事件兩國交鋒之過程觀之，中美顯然各自基於國家利益之考慮而作出有利於己之表述。也因雙方對於專屬經濟區內從軍事活動之法律歧見無法消彌，因而，EP-3事件後，美中雙方間所存在之法律爭端並未因而休止。 美國雖非南海周邊國家或聲索國，然而，從該國近年來以其所謂國家利益為名，對外宣稱重返亞太、亞太再平衡策略觀之，加上對於南海議題之關切日益頻繁且內容越見犀利，美軍為確保其所謂國際水域、空域之航行與飛越自由，更是不惜以派遣機艦進入中國專屬經濟區或其上空進行所謂例行性巡弋之具體行動，直接挑戰中國越權之海域主張，以致美中海空相遇事件不斷重複上演著。 而值得注意的是，中美長期以來對於專屬經濟區從事軍事活動之適法性，於法律上之解讀縱有歧異，然而，EP-3事件發生後，也促使兩國進行一系列海上軍事談判，以避免兩軍意外事件再發生。該次撞機事件凸顯出中美軍事互信機制之重要性，兩國均肯認透過海上與空中相遇之安全機制之執行，應可管控危機與防止衝突一再發生。事實上，兩國逐步建立軍事海事安全諮商機制，如此不僅有助於緩解因美軍頻繁於中國專屬經濟區內「抵近偵察」所致生之緊張關係，亦能維護亞太地區海上形勢之和平與穩定，不失為中美間避免潛在衝突之良策。 本論文藉由事件分析法，從國際法觀點、國家實踐、中美關於專屬經濟區之主張與各方之論點，檢視專屬經濟區從事軍活動之適法性，進而探討中美對於專屬經濟區內越權海域主張之法理爭辯，希冀能釐清雙方爭點之所在，並研究該爭議可能之發展與對策。也因美國堅持於南海執行航行自由計畫，故近年來中美衝突事件多發生於該海域，2016年7月12日中菲南海仲裁結果作出後，臨時仲裁庭認定南沙群島中，並無任何符合《聯合國海洋法公約》第121條第3款規定所稱之島嶼，此一出乎意料之結論對於日後航行自由可能造成之衝擊，以及川普主政後，是否將延續美國過往之海洋政策，繼續以執行航行自由計畫之方式，挑戰越權之海域主張，本文將一併探討。|
A U.S. Navy EP-3 Aries II spy plane which was on a surveillance mission collided with a Chinese J-8 interceptor in the airspace on April 1, 2001. The incident occurred about 50 miles southeast of China's Hainan Island, and led to some legal disputes. Does the U.S. have right under international law to conduct military activities along the Chinese coast within its EEZ or over the area? According to China’s point of view, it is illegal for EP-3 to enter its territorial space without prior approval. There has been a series of troubling incidents in so-called “international waters”or “international airspace” bodering the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Several maritime conflicts between PRC and the United States of America (USA) have occurred successively in the sea areas around China, including, the USNS Bowditch encounter, the USNS Impeccable incident, China Seizes US UUV, etc.. Legally, these conflicts were caused by the different interpretation and application between the two countries of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). PRC stated that USA warships, naval auxiliaries or aircrafts cannot appeare to be actively engaged in a signals intelligence operation inside what the Chinese consider their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) without permission. Actually, their presence in the area was unauthorized and broke international law and Chinese laws and regulations. But, the USA government insisted on the freedom of military activities in the EEZ and refused to recognize excessive maritime claims put forth by foreign governments. USA made the statement on the phrase “other internationally lawful uses in the Article 58(1) of UNCLOS was intended to preserve in the EEZ the freedom to use the high seas for military purposes. Hainan Island, with numerous airfield and submarine bases, remains an area of interest for USA, per international law, military activities may be conducted “as an exercise of the freedoms of navigation and overflight.” Therefore, USA stated that it’s ship was engaged in lawful military activities in China’s claimed EEZ, and blamed PRC for the common element of most of the conflicts between the two sides is China’s perception of its national security and international responsibilities. As several USA officials declared that USA military vessels and aircraft “will continue to sail, fly, and operate anyehere that international law allows.”, and thus tension rises, this kind of incidents will happen again and again with the USA carrying out the FONOPs. Is intelligence data-gathering by USA governments within China’s EEZ llegal or illegal? It seems these questions between the countries are open to debate. The purpose of this thesis is to discuss the related issues mentioned above.