Title 日本の海運・造船業と油送船市場 經濟論叢 …...2,013 61,666 便宜置籍船化は,船員費の安い外国人船員を配乗させることを通じて運航コス
Article, photos Li Ying-guani 論中國漁船越界捕魚之處分 以布袋海 … ·...
Transcript of Article, photos Li Ying-guani 論中國漁船越界捕魚之處分 以布袋海 … ·...
38 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊
壹、前言
95年6月19日第十三(布袋)海巡隊雲林
麥寮分隊剛成軍進駐之百噸級編號PP-10026巡
防艇執行「安海專案」勤務時,於彰化王功外
海15浬處發現中國籍越界捕魚漁船成群,分別
為閩獅漁6302號、7926號、7968號、7972號、
7983號等五艘,未經許可侵入我國禁止海域從
事漁撈行為,登檢後將5艘漁船及船員計27員
帶案行政處分,進入雲林麥寮工業專用港留置
偵訊,全案依「台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係
條例」第32條暨施行細則第42、43、45條處
罰,移請當地漁業主管機關雲林縣政府農業局
漁業課,將其漁網、漁具沒入、漁獲則進行海
拋,5艘漁船驅離至限制水域外。
貳、現況分析
中國大陸沿海由於過去過度濫捕,導致漁
業資源枯竭,其沿海漁民便不斷向外擴張作業
海域,因此不時有大陸漁船違法越界至我限制
論中國漁船越界捕魚之處分以布袋海巡隊為例The penalty on the fi shing vessels from Mainland China to cross-boarder fi shing activities-Case of Bu-Dai Coast Patrol Corps
☉ 文、圖|李應冠 ☉ Article, photos|Li Ying-guani
Part I. Forewords
On June 19, 2006, the Mei-Liao, Yun-Lin Squad, Maritime Patrol Crops
13th (Bu-Dai) initiated to use 100-ton PP-10026 patrol boat to execute the
task of“Ann-Hai project”. Outside the coastal area that was 15 miles away
from Wang-Kung, Zhang-Hwa, many fi shing vessels clustered crossing the
border line, which were Ming-Shi fi shing vessels No. 6302, No. 7926, No.
7968, No. 7972, No. 7983. Without any permission, they intruded into our
coastal areas for fi shing activities. After investigating on board, fi ve fi shing
vessels and 27 fi shermen were taken back to the maritime Patrol Corps and
detected in the Mei-Liao industrial reserved area, Yun-Lin. The penalty
was based on regulation 32 of“Cross-straits People's relations Act”and
its execution bylaw, regulation 42, regulation 43, regulation 45. The case
then transferred to local fi shery administrative unit, the fi shery section,
agriculture bureau of Yun-Lin County Government, the fi shing net, fi shing
equipment were confi scated. The fi sh were released. The fi ve fi shing vessels
were constrained to the outside of restricted waters.
Maritime Forum
2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 39
或禁止水域使用滾輪式拖網及流剌網從事漁撈
作業,造成臺灣地區周遭海域漁業資源面臨重
大浩劫,加速海洋生物資源耗損。近年來中國
政府漁政機關為保護日漸枯竭漁業資源,沿海
省份每年6月至8月(有些省份5月即開始)實
施禁漁措施,導致部份不肖漁民進而航越台灣
海峽越界至台灣禁限制水域捕魚,如此似狼群
式獵殺惡捕,最終將造成海洋漁業資源枯竭之
最大原因,而長期以來我方(海巡署)對中國
籍越界捕魚漁船均以「驅離」及「帶案行政處
分」等方式處置,沒入漁具、漁獲,但沒入後
之處理程序則有因地方政府配合態度而有不同
處置方式,有時未免流以形式,發揮不了嚇阻
作用。
參、大陸籍漁船越界捕魚之法律探討
台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例乃是為
了規制台灣地區與大陸地區人民之權利關係,
是一項特別之規定,該條例第一條亦明確揭
示:「本條例未規定者,適用其他相關法令之
規定。」
一、 台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例暨施行
細則
目前處理大陸漁船進入臺灣地區限制或禁
止水域為防止大陸漁船越區捕魚,所採之方式
為驅離及行政處分之模式。依據台灣地區與大
陸地區人民關係條例第32條規定:「大陸船舶
未經許可進入台灣地區限制或禁止水域,主管
機關得逕行驅離或扣留其船舶、物品,留置其
人員或為必要之處置。」台灣地區與大陸地區
人民關係條例施行細則第42條規定:「大陸船
舶未經許可進入台灣地區限制或禁止水域,主
管機關依下列規定處置:
(一) 進入限制水域者,予以驅離;可疑
者,命令停船,實施檢查。驅離無
效或涉及走私者,扣留其船舶、物
品及留置其人員。
Part II. Analysis of current situation
Since the fi shing vessels from Mainland China caught fi sh in excess,
the fi shing resources vanished. Therefore, the fi shermen tried to expand
their fi shing area to other waters outward. The cross-boarder fi shing
activities occurred. They even adopted the rolling-wheel net and thorn net
to catch fi sh in the restricted or forbidden waters, which made the fi shery
resources in the coastal area lapse into danger and lose large amount of
marine resources. Recently, the government in Mainland China aimed to
protect the fi shery resources that exhausted gradually. From June to August,
the coastal provinces(some provinces started from May)implemented
the measure of forbidding fi shing activities, which resulted in the illegal
cross-boarder fi shing activities by some fi shermen. Such selfi sh activities
were the major reason that caused the depletion of maritime resources.
For a long time, the Coast Guard Administration adopted the measures
of“dispel”and“administrative penalty”against these fi shing vessels
fi shing in the forbidden areas and confi scated the fi shing equipment. After
the confi scation, the process procedure varied according the different local
government. Therefore, the effects were not so evident. It couldn't achieve
the effect of threat.
PArt III、 Exploration of law issues on the illegal fi shing
activities in the forbidden areas
The Cross-strait People's Relations Act was stipulated to confi ne
the rights between people in Taiwan and in Mainland China, which was a
specifi c regulation. The fi rst act was to declare that“Those that were not
confi ned in the Act applied to other relevant regulations”
I、Regulations of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act
Currently, the measures of dispel and administrative penalty were
the two ways to prevent the fi shing vessels from Mainland China from
fi shing in the restricted or forbidden waters. According to the regulation
32 of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act:“If the fi shing vessels from
Mainland China intruded the forbidden waters without any permission,
the authorities concerned could dispel immediately or detain the fi shing
vessel, fi shing equipment and fi shermen.”. The regulation 42 of the
execution bylaw of the Cross-strait People's Relations Act stipulated:“If
the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded the forbidden waters
without any permission, the authorities concerned could execution the
following measures:
(1) Dispel the fi shing vessels intruding the restricted waters;Stop
and check the fi shing vessels f any suspicious action was found.
Pertaining to the ineffective dispelling or smuggling activities,
the authorities concerned could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing
equipment and faculties.
Maritime Forum
40 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊
(二) 進入禁止水域者,強制驅離;可疑
者,命令停船,實施檢查。驅離無
效、涉及走私或從事非法漁業行為
者,扣留其船舶、物品及留置其人
員。
(三) 進入限制、禁止水域從事漁撈或其
他違法行為者,得扣留其船舶、物
品及留置其人員。
(四) 前三款之大陸船舶有拒絕停船或抗
拒扣留之行為者,得予警告射擊;
經警告無效者,得直接射擊船體強
制停航;有敵對之行為者,得予以
擊燬。」
台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例施行細
則第44條規定:「本條例第32條第1項所稱主
管機關,指實際在我水域執行安全維護、緝私
及防衛任務之機關。
本條例第32條第2項所稱主管機關,指海
岸巡防機關及其他執行緝私任務之機關。」
由前述台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例
及施行細則可以了解,大陸船舶進入台灣地區
限制或禁止水域從事漁業活動,主管之海岸巡
防機關依法得扣留其船舶、物品及留置其人
員。在此條例內所稱之主管機關乃海岸巡防署
海洋巡防總局。
對大陸船舶進入限制、禁止水域行政處
分,主管機關為海岸巡防機關,因此主管機關
僅能依據台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例及
施行細則之規定,對扣留之物品屬違禁、走私
物品、用以從事非法漁業行為之漁具或漁獲物
者及用以從事漁撈或其他違法行為之漁具或漁
獲者,得沒入之。而對沒入後之違禁、走私物
品、漁具、漁獲等及違法情節重大沒入扣留之
船舶之後續處理方式,則依據行政院公告之「
大陸船舶未經許可進入台灣地區限制禁止水域
案分工事項表」及「大陸船舶未經許可進入台
灣地區限制或禁止水域問題後續分工事項表」
交由行政院農業委員會或其他主管單位負責,
(2) Compel to leave if the fi shing vessel intruded the forbidden
waters;Stop and check the fi shing vessels if any suspicious
action was found. Pertaining to the ineffective dispelling or illegal
fi shing activities, the authorities concerned could detain the
fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and faculties.
(3) The fi shing vessels intruded into the restricted or forbidden waters
for fi shing activities or other illegal activities, the authorities
concerned could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and
faculties.
(4) If the fi shing vessels refused to obey the previous regulations,
the shooting as a warning was allowed;If the warning was
ineffective, the authorities concerned is allowed to shoot the
fi shing vessel. If the antagonist action occurred, it is allowed to
shoot down the fi shing vessels.”
The regulation 44 of the execution bylaw of the Cross-strait People's
Relations Act stipulated:“The said authorities concerned in the fi rst item
of regulation 32 of this Act means those authorities practically execute the
tasks of protecting, investigating and defending in the waters. The said
authorities concerned in the second item of regulation 32 of this Act means
the Coast Guard authorities and other relevant authorities that executed the
task of smuggling.”
Based on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act and its execution
bylaw, it was clear that if the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded
the restricted or forbidden waters, the coast guard authorities concerned
could detain the fi shing vessel, fi shing equipment and faculties. The
authority concerned here said is the Maritime Patrol Directorate General,
Coast Guard Administration.
The administrative penalty on the fi shing vessels from Mainland
China to cross-boarder fi shing activities is administered by the coast guard
authorities. Therefore, based on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act those
goods detained and are forbidden, smuggled goods, fi shery equipments
used for illegal fi shery activities or the fi sh and fi shery equipments used for
fi shing or the fi sh, could be confi scated. As for dealing with the confi scation
of illegal and smuggling items, fi shing equipment, it was based on the
Executive Yuan announced “Task allocation list of the fi shing vessels from
Mainland China intruding the forbidden waters”and the “follow-up task
allocation list of the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruding the
forbidden waters”, would be in charge by the agriculture council, Executive
Yuan or other administrative units concerned. The follow-up procedure of
confi scating fi shing equipment and fi shing vessels would be in charge by
fi shery administration sections in local city or county government which
the coast guard unit located.
II、Fishery law
The fi shing equipments used by the fi shing vessels from Mainland
Maritime Forum
2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 41
其中沒入之漁具、漁獲、船舶部分則交由當地
海巡機關所在地之縣市政府漁政單位負責後續
處理問題。
二、漁業法
大陸漁船進入限制或禁止水域從事漁撈行
為,使用的漁具多為滾輪式拖網或流網作業,
依據漁業法第44條第1項第3款公告有關規定漁
具、漁法之限制或禁止,及行政院農業委員會
訂定之「流網漁業管理要點」之規定,滾輪式
拖網或流網作業乃違反漁業法第44條及61條之
規定,可處6月以下有期徒刑、拘役或科或併科
新台幣3萬元以下罰金。
依據漁業法第6條之規定:「凡欲在公共
水域及與公共水域相連之非公共水域經營漁業
者,應經主管機關核准並取得漁業證照後,始
得為之。」違反此規定而經營漁業者,依據漁
業法第64條之規定處新台幣6萬元以上30萬以下
罰鍰。
參照上述漁業法之相關規定,大陸漁船進
入台灣地區限制或禁止水域從事違法漁業行
為,主政之行政院農業委員會漁業署理應依法
對違法之大陸漁船處以行政處分,及適用該法
規中之行政刑法移送管轄,並無疑義。但就執
行層面而言,在查獲違法越界從事違法漁業活
動之大陸漁船,對於違反漁業法第44條第1項第
3款公告有關規定漁具、漁法之限制或禁止之
相關規定時,其相關認定鑑驗機關為何必須事
先釐清,由專業鑑驗機關判定是否構成違法要
件,始能進行對從事違法漁業行為之大陸人民
科處刑責。
台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例乃規制
大陸地區與台灣地區人民之權利關係,其法
律性質與其他法律間形成特別法與普通法的關
係,國內著名學者黃異教授認為大陸地區人民
在台灣地區限制或禁止海域從事漁業活動,非
依漁業法予以取締及予以制裁,而是依據台灣
地區與大陸地區人民關係條例中有關違反限制
及禁止海域之處置規定而處理。且特定行政法
China in the restricted or forbidden waters were rolling-wheel net and
thorn net. According to the limitation and prohibition of fi shery equipments
and fi shery methods announced in item 3, regulation 1 of Fishery Act 44
and the“essentials of managing fi shing net”stipulated by the agriculture
council, Executive Yuan, such fi shing methods as the rolling-net or thorn
net were against regulation 44 and regulation 61 of Fishery Act and would
be fi ned NTD 30,000 and penalized less than six-month imprisonment or
apprehension.
According to the regulation 6 of Fishery Act:“Those who would
like to involve fi shing activities in the public waters or in the none-public
waters connecting with public waters must get certifi cates from the
authority concerned.”Those who are against the regulation must be fi ned
from NTD 60,000 to NTD 300,000, based on the regulation 64 of Fishery
Act.
The relevant regulations listed above could be viewed as references.
If the fi shing vessels from Mainland China intruded the restricted or
forbidden waters for fi shing activities, the agriculture council must execute
the administrative penalty based on the relevant laws. However, as for
the aspect of execution, after investigating those fi shing vessels that are
involving the illegal fi shing activities, the authority concerned must verify
those detained fi shing equipment and fi shing methods based the item 3,
regulation 1 of fi shery act 44. The verifi cation institutions must be clarifi ed
in advance. The right judgment to ensure whether it was against the laws
must be made by a professional verifi cation institution thus the penalty
could be decided at the fi nal stage.
The Cross-strait People's Relations Act stipulates people's rights
between Taiwan and Mainland China. The feature of the Cross-strait
People's Relations Act was functioned as special law, compared with other
common laws. Mr. Yi Huang, the famous professor in Taiwan indicated
that fi shing vessels from Mainland China engage in fi shing activities
in the restricted or forbidden sea area are not clamped down based
Maritime Forum
42 ⇤Vol.23 2006 海巡雙月刊
規在限制及禁止海域內外排除適用,則該行
政法規中之刑事制裁(行政刑罰),亦當不
適用【註1】。然而實務上大陸漁船於台灣地
區限制或禁止水域從事違法漁業行為時,其觸
犯漁業法中之行政刑罰(如電漁),經海岸巡
防機關查獲後移送司法機關進行司法審判【註
2】。
海岸巡防機關於海上查緝違法案件時,對
於管轄之法院認定往往取決於查緝犯罪海域之
相對於陸上位置而認定,(例如嘉義縣西方外
海海域亦是澎湖縣東方海域)而海巡隊所轄之
海域經常跨越數縣市,海巡單位需要經常與所
轄內不同之檢察機關保持聯繫,以利案件之偵
辦。同理,在偵辦大陸籍漁船違法越界從事違
法漁業活動涉及刑事罰時,首先必須請示檢察
官報告案情及處理方式,取得檢察官之認同再
行偵辦,以免發生雙方不同調之窘境。
肆、結論與建議
一、 大陸漁船進入台灣地區限止或禁止水
域從事漁撈行為,其行為觸犯了中華
民國之漁業法、中華民國專屬經濟海
域及大陸礁層法、台灣地區與大陸地
區人民關係條例暨施行細則,其中除
牽涉行政罰之外,尚有行政刑罰之論
處。長久以來對於越區捕魚之大陸漁
船多由海岸巡防機關依據台灣地區與
大陸地區人民關係條例暨施行細則進
行帶案行政處分,漁政單位並未介入
針對違反漁業法部分進行裁處。
二、 近年來我國漁船頻遭日本、菲律賓等
國以入侵他國經濟水域從事捕撈漁業
資源為由,對我漁船進行緊追、強行
登檢扣留船舶裁處鉅額罰鍰,漁民團
體反彈聲浪頗大,各界紛紛指責政府
護漁不力,不顧漁民權利。反觀我國
處理大陸籍漁船越區捕漁之方式與我
國漁船遭日、菲等國扣船罰款之情
事,不成比例相距懸殊。事,不成比例相距懸殊。
on the fi shery act, but based on the some regulations in the Cross-strait
People's Relations Act. Besides, specifi c administrative regulations are
excluded in the restricted or forbidden sea area thus its criminal penalty(
administrative penalty)in the administrative regulations should not be
applicable, either【reference 1】. However, practically the fi shing vessels
from Mainland China when intruded the restricted or forbidden waters
for fi shing activities and violated the administrative penalty(such as the
fi shing activities by means of electricity), could be handed over to the
jurisdiction organizations for judicial trial once caught by Coast Guard.【
reference 2】
When the coast patrol organizations investigated the illegal fi shing
activities, how to decide the court in charge of the case was to compare the
location where the fi shing vessel was founded to the coast position. (For
example, the western coastal area of Jia-Yi is also the eastern coastal area
of Penghu) The sea areas in charge by the Maritime Patrol Corps usually
covered several counties and cities. The coast guard sections should contact
with various procuratorial organs, which could prompt the execution of
investigation. Similarly, when dealing with these cases of illegal fi shing
activities involved with criminal penalty by the fi shing vessels from
Mainland China, the details of the case and process procedure must fi rstly
be reported to the prosecutor. It aimed to get the confi rmation from the
prosecutors before the detection in order to prevent the occurrence of
confl icts.
Part IV、Conclusion and suggestion
I、 The fi shing vessels from Mainland China that intrude the restricted
or forbidden waters for fi shing activities are against the Fishery
Act of R.O.C., the R.O.C. exclusive economic zone and China
Reef Act, the Cross-strait People's Relations Act and its execution
bylaw. Beside the administrative penalty it may associate with
the criminal penalty. For a long time, the fi shing vessels from
Mainland China that were against the laws were penalized based
on the Cross-strait People's Relations Act by Coast Guard units.
The fi shery administration organizations didn't execute the
penalty based on the Fishery Act.
II、 Recently, our fi shing vessels were repeatedly chased, forced to
be boarded and inspected, detained and fi ned with big amount
by Japan and Philippines for intruding their exclusive economic
sea area to fi sh. The fi shermen group rebounded greatly.
Complaints aroused from various fi elds, which condemned the
ineffective actions of the government to protect the fi shermen. On
the contrary, our country paid more attention to deal with the
intrusion of fi shing vessels from Mainland China in a manner
incomparably.
III、 The most effective investigation action was executed by the
Penghu County Government in coordination with Penghu
Maritime Forum
2006 海巡雙月刊 Vol.23 ⇥ 43
Maritime Patrol Corps. The Penghu County Government
compelled to demolish the fi shing equipment and fi shing nets,
which could truly prevent the fi shing vessels from crossing
the border. Because of the cooperation with the Penghu
County Government, the Maritime Patrol Corps could quickly
execute the confi scation of fi shing equipment and fi sh without
following problems. When the Maritime Patrol Corps executed
the investigation activities in the western coastal area of
Taiwan, the fi shery organizations didn't provide any assistance.
The Maritime Patrol Corps was in charge of every detailed
investigation, which could not bring any intimidating effects.
IV、 In order to intimidate the illegal fi shing activities, it was hoped
that the government could clarify the current situation and
management models. The more aggressive actions could be
taken into consideration, besides contemplating only on“Cross-
strait People's Relations Act”. Other relevant regulations and
laws could be considered to penalize the illegal Mainland
China fi shing vessels in order to balance the treatment that our
fi shing vessels faced in other countries. Meanwhile, it could
also demonstrate that the government would like to protect the
fi shing industry in every aspect.
Reference 1: Huang Yi, the management of coastal area and
administration laws, Shen-Chou publishing co. June,
2003, p.p.365~376。
Reference 2: Concise adjudication statement, procuratorate of
Penghu local court No. 124, 2004.
(The author is currently with the "Bu- Dai" Offshore Flotilla 13 ,Maritime
Patrol Directorate General)
Maritime Forum
三、 在查緝大陸籍漁船違法越界捕魚成效三、 在查緝大陸籍漁船違法越界捕魚成效
最為良好之處應屬澎湖縣政府配合澎最為良好之處應屬澎湖縣政府配合澎
湖海巡隊實施強制拆除漁具及沒入漁湖海巡隊實施強制拆除漁具及沒入漁
網等執行方式,成效良好,明顯遏止網等執行方式,成效良好,明顯遏止
越區作業之大陸漁船。該地區由於當越區作業之大陸漁船。該地區由於當
地縣政府高度配合下,海巡隊對違法地縣政府高度配合下,海巡隊對違法
越界捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分越界捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分
時,對查扣沒入之漁具、漁獲得以
迅速執行且無後續處理問題。其他台
灣本島西部之海巡隊在處理違法越界
捕魚之大陸漁船帶案行政處分時,多
數當地漁業機關並未派人協助處理配
合,一切皆由海巡隊包辦,造成查緝
結果流於形式發揮不了嚇阻功效。
四、 為有效嚇阻大陸籍漁船越區從事漁業
活動,是否可突破目前思維及作業模
式,採取更為強烈之手段,跳脫「台
灣地區與大陸大區人民關係條例」之
思考模式,適用其他相關法令對違法
之大陸籍漁船科處刑罰或鉅額罰鍰,
衡平我國漁船遭受他國之待遇,以展
現政府對於護漁之決心。
註1: 黃異,海域管理與行政法,神州圖
書出版有限公司,2003年06月,頁
365~376。
註2: 93年度偵字第124號臺灣澎湖地方法
院檢察署檢察官聲請簡易判決處刑
書。
(本文作者任職於海洋總局第十三(布袋)海
巡隊)