2007年的7月6日，日本政府依據《聯合國海洋法公約》第292條規定向國際海洋法法庭提出兩個控訴案，要求釋放兩艘被俄國所扣押的日本漁船富丸53號和豐進丸88號。這兩艘漁船遭俄羅斯海岸防衛隊扣捕，主要原因是在俄國的專屬經濟海域捕魚而違反俄國漁業法。此乃日本政府自二次世界大戰結束後至今首次向國際司法機構提出的訴訟案，也是國際海洋法法庭最近所審理的兩個案件（編號爲第14號與第15號）。2007年8月6日，國際海洋法法庭宣佈關於釋放富丸號的要求並無法之標的物，蓋此船已經俄國的法院宣判沒收。同一天，國際海洋法法庭作成另一判決，也就是在日本交付保證金1, 000萬盧布之後，俄國必須立即釋放豐進丸號，此包括船上的魚貨，而船長與船員必須無條件立即予以釋放。2007年8月16號，俄國在收到保證金以後立即釋放漁船與船員。本文主要目的有二：（一）對日本與俄國兩造在國際海洋法庭所審理的第十四號（富丸53號案）與第十五號（豐進丸88號案）所持之訴訟立場，以及國際海洋法法庭的判決作一綜述；（二）探討此二案例對未來臺灣處理可能與日本發生在其所主張專屬經濟海域內潛在海事糾紛的意涵。

On July 6, 2007, pursuant to Article 292 of the UNCLOS, Japan submitted two applications to the ITLOS for the release of two Japanese fishing vessels, namely the 88(superscript th) Hoshinmara and the 53(superscript rd) Tomimaru, that were arrested by the Russian coastguard in the Russian EEZ for alleged violations of Russian fisheries legislation. On August 6, 2007, ITLOS delivered its judgment, finding that the application for the release of the vessel Tomimaru is without object because the vessel was confiscated by decision of the Russian domestic courts. On the same day in August 2007, the Tribunal delivered another judgment, declaring that Russia shall promptly release the Hoshinmaru, including its catch on board, upon the posting of a bond in the amount of 10,000,000 roubles, and that the Master and the crew shall be free to leave without any conditions. On August 16, 2007, the vessel and crew were released the same day that Russia received the bond. On the 8 (superscript th) of October 2005, a Taiwanese registered fishing boat, Long Rong No. 2, was detained by a Japanese Coast Guard patrol boat in the waters near Okinotorishima for illegally fishing in the Japanese-claimed EEZ. On the 11 (superscript th) of October, of the same year, after the fishermen deposited financial securities, Long Rong No. 2 was released. After this incident occurred, Taiwan's fishing industry lodged complaints against Japanese law enforcement measures, as they considered Okinotorishima to be completely uninhabited, and thus according to international legal regulations, not capable of generating a 200 n.m. EEZ. At the same time, they supported the idea of filing of an international lawsuit regarding this incident. The purposes of this paper are twofold. First, it provides an overview of these parties'0 arguments and the judgment of ITLOS in the Hoshinmara and Tomimaru cases. Second, it discusses the possible implications for Taiwan of dealing with the potential maritime disputes that might arise in the Japanese claimed EEZs in the future.