「一九八二年聯合國海洋法公約」創設國際海洋法法庭，一九九六年成立於德國漢堡。法庭管轄範圍不限於公約締約當事者，尚開放非締約國家和實體使用；此與傳統國際司法機關管轄範圍限於國家(States)者不同，為其特色。台灣不是締約當事者，且囿於國際現實，往往在國際社會被視為非國家「特類實體」(entity sui generis)，台灣有無機會向國際海洋法法庭申訴(access)呢？此為本文目的。國際海洋法法庭是否受理台灣申訴案件的議題與當代國際漁業法的發展息息相關。本文第一部分先就研究重點及架構作一介紹，第二部分從國際海洋法的發展觀點出發，針對海洋法公約和魚群協定為基礎構成的當代國際漁業法規析論國際間海洋生物資源的養護和管理已到了必須國際社會所有參與者合作管理，否則難收實效；而台灣身為六大遠洋捕魚國家以及國際間指稱的捕魚實體，有機會參與相關區域漁業管理組織之養護和管理工作，以善盡國際義務。第三部分研議海洋法公約和二○○一年十二月十一日生效的魚群協定之爭端解決機制，以及該爭端解決機制適用範圍，是否涵蓋非國家「捕魚實體」或「實體」。第四部分述及國際社會接納捕魚實體參與區域漁業管理組織工作的實踐，說明此為發展趨向。第五部分針對法庭管轄權限，研究台灣作為捕魚實體向法庭申訴之法理和可行性以及可能挑戰。最後，第六部分從海洋法發展趨勢和國際實踐提出總結，指出台灣已有機會參與區域漁業管理組織工作，透過組織提供之爭端解決機制，於與爭端會員達成協議下，德選擇向國際海洋法法庭申訴並應獲得受理，此應為國際海洋法發展趨向。台灣倘能暫時拋開「主權國家」堅持，以「特類實體」地位的現實，接受國際間認知的「捕魚實體」身分向法庭申訴。在此包裝下，可避開敏感主權爭議所致的政治困難，致法庭礙難受理。鑒於法庭作為國際間最高常設海事法庭以及管轄權及於非國家實體的事實，台灣倘能避開政治爭議，從國際海洋法有關養護和管理生物資源的工作需要所有參與者共同努力的觀點切入爭取，台灣是有機會的。

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, with its seat in Hamburg, Germany, was established in 1996 by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention). The Tribunal may exercise jurisdiction not only on the contracting parties to the Convention, but also on non-contracting parties and entities that confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal. This is in difference from the International Court of Justice, the Statute of the Court provides that only states may be parties to cases before the Court. Based on this legal fact, will Taiwan, a reputed fishing entity and non-party to the Convention, have the access to the Tribunal? This paper discusses the possibility. The question whether Taiwan will have the access to the Tribunal is closely related to the fishery issues for the law of the sea. This paper, divided into six parts, gives its research structure in Part Ⅰ, and an account of the development of International law of the sea in Part Ⅱ, arguing that effective conservation and management measures of living resources whose interpretation and application is subject to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal need cooperation from all actors, states and entities. Taiwan is a major distant water fishery player, shall cooperate with others for such purpose, enshrined in the Convention. Part Ⅲ focuses discussion on the dispute settlement provisions of the Convention and of the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. Article 30 of the Agreement illustrates the rules by reference to the dispute settlement provisions of the Convention with respect to disputes between the states parties concerning the interpretation or application of that Agreement or concerning the interpretation or application of a regional fisheries agreement relating to straddling fish stocks or highly migratory fish stocks. In Part Ⅳ, this paper devotes to the practice of fisheries agreements that establish regional fisheries organizations (RFOs), demonstrating that for effective conservation and management, fishing entities have been accorded chances along with state to participate in the work of RFOs in a meaningful way. Part Ⅴ discusses the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, focusing on article 288 of the Convention and article 20, paragraph 2, and article 21 of the Statute. The question whether the Tribunal will have jurisdiction on cases to which Taiwan, a reputed fishing entity, is a party will also be examined, along with challenges ahead. Part Ⅵ concludes that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over a dispute to which Taiwan is a party, bearing in mind the purpose and objective of the Convention. The fact that the Tribunal shall be open to entities in any case submitted pursuant to any other agreement conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal which is accepted by all the parties to that case seems provide a promising vehicle to Taiwan. To achieve the goal, Taiwan should refrain from political motivation while seeking judicial settlement of a dispute before the Tribunal, or in any way incompatible with the status or competence of a fishing entity.