國際和平文件－以兩岸和平協議為探討中心

Abstract

國際和平文件是國際法上用以處理和平議題的形式，其中包含了休戰（Truce）、停火（Cease Fire Agreement）、停止敵對行動（Cessation of Hostilities）、停戰協定（Armistice Agreement）、和平條約（Peace Treaty）。本文首先將探討上述文件的國際法意義，並統整國內外學者文獻及國際實踐，分析在1945年前後國際文件間內涵的演變與連動性。 再來，本文接續討論「和平條約」與「和平協議」之間的區辨，由於「條約」（Treaty）通常係指「兩個國家或兩個以上國家或國際法人間」所締結受國際法規範的協定，而和平協議（Peace Agreement）是否僅具有「國內法性質」，抑或具有「雙重性質」，此將影響《兩岸和平協議》的法律性質。 最後，我國的國際處境特殊，在國際空間的發展上處處受到中國大陸的牽制，而作為未來解決兩岸問題方式之一的《兩岸和平協議》，其法律性質尤其關鍵，本文回到兩岸關係的層面，將《兩岸和平協議》的法律性質與兩岸的「政治定位」加以連結，並提出現階段兩岸最務實的和平互動模式。

An international peace instrument is used to deal with peace issue between belligerent countries or non-State parties, including truce, cessation of hostilities, ceasefire agreement, armistice and peace treaty. This article will first discuss the significance of the above-mentioned instruments in international law, integrating domestic and foreign scholars' literature and international practice, and analyze the evolution and linkage of connotations between international instruments around 1945 AD. There is a continued discussion of the distinction between peace treaties and peace agreements, because 'peace treaties'are usually concluded by' two or more countries or international legal persons'. Therefore, whether the peace agreement is only of domestic law or dual nature will have profound impact on the legal nature of the ' Cross-Strait Peace Agreement '. Taiwan’s international status is complicated and mainly everywhere constrained by mainland China. As a way to solve cross-strait issues in the future, the legal nature of the “Cross-Strait Peace Agreement is particularly critical. This article returns to the scale of cross-strait relations, linking the legal nature of the ' Cross-Strait Peace Agreement ' with the 'political positioning' of the two sides and presents the most pragmatic mode of peaceful interaction between the two sides at this stage.