課程名稱︰國際公法
課程性質︰必修
課程教師︰黃昭元
開課學院：法學院
開課系所︰法律系
考試日期（年月日）︰2015.01.15
考試時限（分鐘）：110分鐘
試題 :
一、可參考自己的任何紙本資料，但不得使用電腦或網路資源。
二、注意時間控制，及時綻放理性的光芒。
三、寫的多不如寫的好。瞎掰，損人不利己。
四、請標明題號（包括大題及小題），並確認系組級別、學號及姓名均已填寫
第一題（30分）
　　假設博美、吉娃娃國原均為聖伯納國殖民地，經多年武力抗爭，終於在1946年分別
獨立，並各獲得聖伯納國承認，1952年博美、吉娃娃國兩國更同時加入聯合國。但博美
、吉娃娃兩國間始終有領土爭議，1970年博美國突然出兵攻占吉娃娃國境內的愛慕思及
希爾思兩地，宣稱愛慕思與希爾思兩地向為博美國之固有領土，只是被前殖民國聖伯納
國於1850年間不當劃歸吉娃娃國。吉娃娃國隨即向聯合國安全理事會申訴，主張博美國
違反聯合國憲章，要求聯合國安全理事會採取集體安全措施，制裁並組織聯合國軍隊介
入，將愛慕思與希爾思兩地返還吉娃娃國。但因安全理事會之常任理事會哈士奇國為博
美國之盟國，投票否決安全理事會組織聯合國軍隊介入之提案。最後聯合國安全理事會
僅通過決議要求雙方立即就地停火，不得再侵犯各自控制或管理下的領土。
　　後博美國之另一鄰國大丹國也以收復固有領土為由，於1972年出兵佔領博美國所管
領的優卡及愛慕斯兩地。大丹國主張優卡一地原係聖伯納國於1820年發動戰爭侵略大丹
國，逼迫大丹國簽訂和約並割讓給當時之聖伯納國，因此是不平等條約，自始無效，大
丹國有權以武力收復固有領土。
　　請附理由回答以下問題：
　　1.博美國於1970年出兵並佔領愛慕思與希爾思，在聯合國安全理事會1970年的停火
　　　決議後，是否即因此取得愛慕思及希爾思兩地之領土主權？（10分）
　　2.聖伯納國與大丹國在1820年締結之和約是否有效？博美國如要向大丹國主張其對
　　　優卡一地擁有主權，其國際法依據為和？（20分）
第二題（40分）
　　我國與巴拿馬於2003年8月21日簽訂「自由貿易協定」，約定關稅減讓、部分服務業
市場開放等，請問：
　　1.依我國憲法規定及相關大法官解釋，上述協定應否送立法院批准？（20分）
　　2.貿易法第7條第4項規定：「協定或協議之內容涉及現行法律之修改或應另以法律
定之者，需經完成立法程序，始生效力。」請參照上述貿易法規定分析上述自由
貿易協定在我國法上是否具有自動履行(self-executing)效力？又如協定與我國
　　　法律牴觸，何者優先？（20分）
第三題（30分）
　　國際法院在有關Kosovo獨立之諮詢意見中認為：
79. During the eighteenth, nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, there
were numerous instances of declarations of independence, often strenuously
opposed by the State from which independence was being declared. Sometimes a
declaration resulted in the creation of a new State, at others it did not. In
no case, however, does the practice of States as a whole suggest that the act
of promulgating the declaration was regarded as contrary to international
law. On the contrary, State practice during this period points clearly to the
conclusion that international law contained no prohibition of declarations of
independence. During the second half of the twentieth century, the
international law of self-determination developed in such a way as to create
a right to independence for the peoples of non-self-governing territories and
peoples subject to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation. A great
many new States have come into existence as a result of the exercise of this
right. There were, however, also instances of declarations of independence
outside this context. The practice of States in these latter cases does not
point to the emergence in international law of a new rule prohibiting the
making of a declaration of independence in such cases.
80. Several participants in the proceedings before the Court have contended
that a prohibition of unilateral declarations of independence is implicit in
the principle of territorial integrity.
The Court recalls that the principle of territorial integrity is an important
part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4, which provides that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations."
In General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled“Declaration on Principles
of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, which reflects
customary international law...,the General Assembly reiterated
“[t]he principle that States shall refrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State." This resolution then enumerated various obligations
incumbent upon States to refrain from violating the territorial integrity of
other sovereign States. In the same vein, the Final Act of the Helsinki
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of 1 August 1975 (the
Helsinki Conference) stipulated that“[t]he participating States will respect
the territorial integrity of each of the participating States"(Art. IV). Thus,
the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere
of relations between States.
　　參照上述意見，加拿大的魁北克（Quebec）能否主張人民自決權？如其單方宣布獨立，
是否違反國際法？是否因破壞加拿大的領土完整而違法國際法？