The marine environment’s evolving discourse on oil pollution in the High Seas since the 1958 Convention on the High Seas and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas is of great significance. This research aims to investigate the changes and developments in this discourse, shedding light on the importance of addressing oil pollution and its impact on the marine environment. By examining the changes in discourse, the study aims to highlight the difficulty of the problem and the potential implications of its resolution. The approach involves analyzing the 1958 Conventions, GESAMP reports, and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The findings indicate that the 1982 treaty successfully addressed the semantic ambiguity of the terms ships and oil found in the 1958 Conventions. The inclusion of the term vessels in the treaty provided a more comprehensive definition, ensuring coverage of all types of ships. Furthermore, the discourse expanded beyond a singular focus on oil, encompassing a broader range of pollutants and environmental concerns. These results signify progress towards a more holistic approach to combat oil pollution in the high seas. The implications of these findings underscore the importance of ongoing efforts to protect and preserve the marine environment.

1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》確立了專屬經濟區的制度後，公海成為海洋生物資源養護與管理的一大缺口，特別是在養護與管理跨界及高度洄游魚群上產生防護的漏洞。1995年國際間通過《聯合國跨界與高度洄游魚類協定》，旨在履行《聯合國海洋法公約》關於養護跨界與高度洄游魚群之規定，並進一步訂立更完善之規範，特別是協定重視各區域性漁業組織之功能，期能透過該些組織，更有效率地管理並養護各區域之跨界與高度洄游魚群。因此，《聯合國海洋法公約》、1995年協定與區域性漁業組織相互間透過法律規範，從架構、實踐與實際執行這三方面試圖形塑一個較為嚴謹及嚴密的網絡。 2004年中西太平洋漁業委員會（WCPFC）成立。協定與委員會透過登臨與檢查的方式，以養護與管理在公海海域之跨界與洄游魚群。然公海自由及公海上由船旗國管轄乃習慣國際法，而為在保育海洋生物資源，在公海上採取相互登臨與檢查為國際海洋法發展之趨勢。由於登臨與檢查乃涉及一國之主權問題，台灣因於國際上之特殊地位，在WCPFC中之登臨與檢查權便為一值得探討之議題。 《WCPFC登檢程序》規定《WCPFC公約》之締約方有相互登臨檢查之權利與義務，而WCPFC之會員有被登檢之義務。由於台灣乃以漁業實體之身份加入，成為WCPFC之會員，並非《WCPFC公約》之締約方，因此台灣是否有登檢其他會員船舶之權利便為我方關切之議題。筆者透過對1995年協定、《WCPFC公約》，以及《WCPFC登檢程序》之分析，認為台灣倘與其他會員或《WCPFC公約》締約方締結登檢協議，則台灣與協議締約方間當可享有《WCPFC登檢程序》中規定之完整的登檢權利與義務，而不受僅為「會員」身份所造成之模糊地位所限制。 / As the 1982 LOS Convention establishes the concept of Exclusive Economic Zone, the high seas has not only become the rest areas without authorities’ jurisdiction, but also been a breach of the conservation and management of living recourses, especially in aspect of the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory stocks. In 1995, Straddling Stocks Agreement was approved, in which the main purpose is to enforce the principles of LOS Convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory stocks. Straddling Stocks Agreement respects the functions of the regional fishing organizations and expects it to manage and conserve straddling and highly migratory stocks more efficiently in each region. Consequently, through making stipulations, the LOS Convention, 1995 Agreement, and regional fishing organizations attempt to build up a strict network of framework, implementation, and enforcement. In 2004, WCPFC Commission was founded. Through boarding and inspection, 1995 Agreement and WCPFC Commission conserve and manage the straddling and highly migratory stocks. Although the high-seas freedoms and flag State jurisdiction are the parts of customary international law, it is the trend in development of international law to adopt boarding and inspection in high seas for conserving living resources in ocean. Due to boarding and inspection concerning the sovereignty, as the special status in international society, Taiwan’s boarding and inspection rights in WCPFC Commission become a disputed issue. WCPFC Boarding and Inspection Procedures imply that the Contracting Parties of WCPFC Convention have rights and obligations to board and inspect each other’s ships, but the members of WCPFC only have the obligation of being boarded and inspected. Since Taiwan, as the fishing entity, participated in WCPFC as the Member rather than the Contracting Parties. As a result, whether Taiwan possessing any rights to board and inspect other members’ ships is concerned by Taiwan’s authority. By analyzing 1995 Agreement, WCPFC Convention, and WCPFC Boarding and Inspection Procedures, the author concludes that if Taiwan has the agreements relating to boarding and inspection with other Members or Contracting Parties, Taiwan would absolutely possess the full rights and obligations, which the WCPFC Boarding and Inspection Procedures stipulate, without constrained by its ambiguous status caused by the role of Member.

Le régime juridique relatif à la conservation de la biodiversité dans les zones maritimes internationales est actuellement au cœur des discussions entre États au sein des Nations Unies. En effet, la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, véritable «Constitution des océans», ne permet pas d’assurer une conservation effective de la biodiversité dans la Zone et en haute mer. En 1982, lorsqu’elle a été adoptée, la notion de «biodiversité» n’existait pas encore, la Convention s’y référant alors uniquement de manière indirecte. Certaines ressources comme les ressources génétiques marines ne sont ainsi pas couvertes par la Convention, de même que certaines activités, ou outils de protection tels que les aires marines protégées. De plus, la division des océans en différentes zones aux régimes juridiques distincts et fragmentés ne permet pas aux États de mettre en œuvre leurs obligations conventionnelles de manière efficace. L’adoption d’un nouvel accord de mise en œuvre de la Convention dans le cadre des Nations Unies pourrait permettre, dans une certaine mesure, de pallier ces diverses insuffisances. Cependant, l’issue des négociations reste encore incertaine. Finalement, il conviendra d’observer que seule une approche plus globale, fondée sur la reconnaissance de l’existence d’une obligation générale de conservation de la biodiversité dans les zones maritimes internationales, pourrait permettre de dépasser les limites inhérentes à une approche exclusivement spatiale de la conservation de la biodiversité dans des espaces communs à tous les États, aux régimes distincts voire opposés. / Marine biodiversity conservation beyond national jurisdiction is currently subject of discussions in the United Nations. Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the «Constitution of the Oceans», is not sufficient to protect marine biodiversity efficiently, in the high seas and the Area. In 1982, the word «biodiversity» did not exist yet, so the Convention only refers to marine pollution or biological resources conservation or management. Some resources, as marine genetic resources, are not covered by the Convention, as well as certain activities or conservation and management tools like marine protected areas. The division of the oceans in different maritime zones, moreover, with distinct and fragmented legal regimes, does not allow States to accomplish their conventional obligations dealing with biodiversity conservation. The adoption of a new implementing agreement related to the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea and dealing with marine biodiversity conservation and sustainable use beyond national jurisdiction would clearly improve the cur-rent regime. However, such an agreement could turn not being enough toward this objective, and the achievement of the process of negotiation remains uncertain. Finally, it appears necessary to build a more global approach, resting on the identification of an international general obligation of conservation of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Such a global approach helps to overcome the limits of the actual regime of conservation, which is centered on a spatial approach of marine biodiversity conservation in common spaces, having opposed legal regimes.