课程名称︰国际公法
课程性质︰必修
课程教师︰黄昭元
开课学院：法学院
开课系所︰法律系
考试日期（年月日）︰2015.01.15
考试时限（分钟）：110分钟
试题 :
一、可参考自己的任何纸本资料，但不得使用电脑或网络资源。
二、注意时间控制，及时绽放理性的光芒。
三、写的多不如写的好。瞎掰，损人不利己。
四、请标明题号（包括大题及小题），并确认系组级别、学号及姓名均已填写
第一题（30分）
　　假设博美、吉娃娃国原均为圣伯纳国殖民地，经多年武力抗争，终于在1946年分别
独立，并各获得圣伯纳国承认，1952年博美、吉娃娃国两国更同时加入联合国。但博美
、吉娃娃两国间始终有领土争议，1970年博美国突然出兵攻占吉娃娃国境内的爱慕思及
希尔思两地，宣称爱慕思与希尔思两地向为博美国之固有领土，只是被前殖民国圣伯纳
国于1850年间不当划归吉娃娃国。吉娃娃国随即向联合国安全理事会申诉，主张博美国
违反联合国宪章，要求联合国安全理事会采取集体安全措施，制裁并组织联合国军队介
入，将爱慕思与希尔思两地返还吉娃娃国。但因安全理事会之常任理事会哈士奇国为博
美国之盟国，投票否决安全理事会组织联合国军队介入之提案。最后联合国安全理事会
仅通过决议要求双方立即就地停火，不得再侵犯各自控制或管理下的领土。
　　后博美国之另一邻国大丹国也以收复固有领土为由，于1972年出兵占领博美国所管
领的优卡及爱慕斯两地。大丹国主张优卡一地原系圣伯纳国于1820年发动战争侵略大丹
国，逼迫大丹国签订和约并割让给当时之圣伯纳国，因此是不平等条约，自始无效，大
丹国有权以武力收复固有领土。
　　请附理由回答以下问题：
　　1.博美国于1970年出兵并占领爱慕思与希尔思，在联合国安全理事会1970年的停火
　　　决议后，是否即因此取得爱慕思及希尔思两地之领土主权？（10分）
　　2.圣伯纳国与大丹国在1820年缔结之和约是否有效？博美国如要向大丹国主张其对
　　　优卡一地拥有主权，其国际法依据为和？（20分）
第二题（40分）
　　我国与巴拿马于2003年8月21日签订“自由贸易协定”，约定关税减让、部分服务业
市场开放等，请问：
　　1.依我国宪法规定及相关大法官解释，上述协定应否送立法院批准？（20分）
　　2.贸易法第7条第4项规定：“协定或协议之内容涉及现行法律之修改或应另以法律
定之者，需经完成立法程序，始生效力。”请参照上述贸易法规定分析上述自由
贸易协定在我国法上是否具有自动履行(self-executing)效力？又如协定与我国
　　　法律牴触，何者优先？（20分）
第三题（30分）
　　国际法院在有关Kosovo独立之咨询意见中认为：
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.
　　参照上述意见，加拿大的魁北克（Quebec）能否主张人民自决权？如其单方宣布独立，
是否违反国际法？是否因破坏加拿大的领土完整而违法国际法？