前言
Forward

台灣周邊水域係重要的國際航道，航經此水域的船船除各國商船外，尚包括了美國、日本、俄羅斯與中共等國的海軍艦艇。由於台灣與美國、日本與俄羅斯間並無敵意存在，因此雙方軍艦公海遭遇不致引發軍事衝突。然而，由於台灣與中共處於敵對狀態，雙方艦艇極有可能於公海上發生意外事件。隨著台灣與中共不斷地擴建海軍武力，《一九七二年國際海上避撞章程》已經不敷使用，因其無法有效預防海上意外事件，以及防止意外事件向上發展成為衝突或是戰爭。因此，台灣與中共有必要發展海上信任建立措施，用以降低海上意外事件以及強化雙方的互信與信心。
The waters surrounding Taiwan are important international waterways. In addition to every nations’ merchant ships, U.S., Japan, Russia and China warships may appear in these waters. No hostility appears between Taiwan and U.S., Japan or Russia that could trigger military confrontation among them. However, Taiwan and China have a tense relationship, and both sides have a high potential of naval accidents in the high seas. As Taiwan and China expand their naval capability, the IMO Convention, the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, may be not enough prevent naval accidents, which would develop into conflicts and war. Therefore, China and Taiwan need to develop maritime confidence-building measures that could reduce naval accidents and strengthen mutual trust and confidence.

在諸多不同型式的海洋信任建立措施概念中，做為軍事目的且最成功與最有效的，應為一九七二年美國與蘇聯簽署的《防止公海意外事件協定》及其後續的相關類似協定。直到今日，「防止公海意外事件協定」仍具效力並且繼續執行。此協定的有效執行，標示著信任建立措施可以成為傳統軍備管制的一個可行選項。即令「防止公海意外事件協定」可降低「非蓄意性」戰爭的風險，並對防止危機做出具體的貢獻。然而，吾人亦不應過份強調信任建立措施的功效，其仍無法防止任何一方蓄意發起的戰爭。1
Among the variety maritime CBMs concepts, for the military purpose, one of the most successful and effective measures has been the U.S.-Russian Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) and its many successors. Up to now, the 1972 INCEA agreement has still in effect between the U.S. and Russia. The success of the agreement demonstrates that CBMs represent a workable alternative to traditional arms control proposals. Although, INCSEA agreements can reduce the dangers of inadvertent war and contribute to the prevention of crisis, the effectiveness of CBMs should not be overstated as they can prevent the deliberate initiation of war.1

這篇文章分成三個主要部份。首先，在對海外意外事件的種類與其具有的特殊性質進行扼要敘述。其次，則在闡釋美蘇《防止公海意外事件協定》的成功因素，討論將其概念適用於台海水域的可能性。最後，提出兩岸建構「防止公海意外事件協定」的架構與程序，俾能提供相關單位做為參考。這篇文章的主要目的非在單純說明《防止公海意外事件協定》對於美蘇雙方的利得與風險。更確切地說，作者希望能夠提出一個具體途徑，對兩岸海軍的行動進行若干程度限制，用以降低海上誤解與意外事件的發生，從而降低海上意外引發軍事衝突與政治緊張的可能性。
This paper is divided into three principal sections. The first section outlines the category and characteristics of incidents at sea. The second section interprets the successful factors of the INCSEA Agreement between the US and the Soviet Union and applies the INCSEA concept to the Taiwan Strait. The third section develops a framework and approach of establishing INCSEA between Taiwan and China. My purpose in this paper is not only narrative historical records of risks and benefits of the INCSEA Agreement to the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Rather, I hope to suggest a concrete approach to constraint of both sides’ naval activities that are intended to reduce accidents or misunderstanding on the seas.

海上意外事件的種類與特性
The Category and Characteristics of Incidents at Sea

海上意外事件的種類
The Category of Incidents at Sea

就廣義而言，海上意外事件係指軍艦或飛機在公海上的某種行為，會對其他軍艦或飛機的安全造成嚴重危害。海上意外事件可以約略分成以下數項：2
In the broaden sense, “incident at sea” means an action on the high seas by a ship or plane that endangers, or is alleged to endanger, another vessel or aircraft. “Incident at sea” can be divided into below items, including: 2

危險運動：近接運動的海軍單位，採取各種不同運動迫使他方艦艇採取迴避動作用以防止立即碰撞。危險運動最常見的例子，即係進行海上加油或整補時，他方艦艇以直航方式迫使海上作業艦艇偏離既定航道。
Dangerous maneuvers: Naval units in close proximity can engage in a variety of maneuvers that force other vessels to take evasive action to avoid imminent collisions. Many incidents of this sort have occurred carrier operations or refueling at sea.

近接偵察：運用飛機在甚短距離內接近或飛越對方艦艇進行偵察，或由飛機投下聲納浮標追蹤他方潛艦。
Close air surveillance (“buzzing”): One side aircraft fly close passes near opposing vessels for reconnaissance purposes.

模擬攻擊：運用艦炮、飛彈、魚雷、射控雷達或其他武器追瞄對方機艦並且進行模擬攻擊。這樣的行動會造成雙方官兵神經緊張，處理不慎即可能擦槍走火，造成雙方的海上武裝衝突，甚至可能升高成為全面性的戰爭。
Simulated attacks: Naval vessels have simulated attacks by aiming guns, missile launchers, torpedo tubes, fire control radars, other weapons and sensor systems at each other’s ships and planes.

演習時的意外射擊：軍艦或商船進入他方實彈射擊或演習區域，導致艦船受損以及人員傷亡。此類意外源自事前通報不明，或他方欲在近距離觀察對方演習實況，兩種因素的交互作用，增加了此種意外發生的機率。
Accidental firing during exercises: Naval exercises involving the use of live ammunition obviously can endanger warships or merchant vessels that stray into the area. The absence of prior notification of exercises and the interest of both countries in observing the other’s maneuvers as closely as possible increase the probability of such incidents.

其他型式干擾：除上述各種狀況外，軍艦還可以下列各種方式對他方艦艇進行干擾，例如使用強力探照燈照射對方軍艦的艦橋、發射照明彈干擾對方以及使用雷射造成對方機艦操作人員目眩，影響其正常的操作。
Other harassment: There are a variety of ways in which one side vessels can harass one another at sea. For example, illuminated the bridges of opposing vessels with powerful searchlights, firing flares, and using laser devices.

一九六○年代，蘇聯擴張海軍軍力，建立起了一支遠洋海軍，於是美蘇兩國海軍間出現了多起嚴重海上意外事件。一九六七年，美國驅逐艦Walker 號與蘇聯軍艦於日本海發生碰撞，當時這艘蘇聯軍艦正試圖對美海軍航艦作業進行干擾。3另起嚴重事件發生於一九六八年，一架蘇聯的海洋巡邏機低空飛越美國海軍Essex 號航艦進行偵察任務，當其轉向進行另次偵察任務時，由於飛行高度過低墜入挪威海中，機上人員全數罹難。4為了防止兩國間的海軍遭遇升高為衝突或戰爭，美國與蘇聯經長期磋商後於一九七二年簽署了《防止公海意外事件協定》。
In the Cold War decade of the 1960s, as the Soviet Union developed an blue water navy, a serious of dangerous incidents between U.S. and Soviet ships and aircraft occurred at sea. For example, Soviet warships collided with the American destroyer U.S.S. Walker in the Sea of Japan when it maneuvered to prevent interference with carrier operations in 1967.3 Another serious situation occurred in 1968, a Soviet maritime patrol bomber made a low pass over the carrier U.S.S. Essex in the North Sea and then, while turning to make another run, flew too low and crashed into the ocean, killing all the crew.4 For prevention navy-to-navy confrontation escalation to conflict and war, U.S. and Soviet Union negotiated and signed the Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents at Sea in 1972.

海上意外事件的特性
The Characteristics of Incidents at Sea

何以美蘇兩國海軍間會出現數以百計的意外事件？此外，不具強烈敵意的美國與中共，一九九四年與二○○一年間亦各別出現了一次嚴重海上意外事件。5因此，海上意外事件不僅出現於兩個敵對國家間，它亦有可能存於任何兩個海洋國家間。在這種情況下，不論此類事件源自蓄意行動或是指揮失控（海軍指揮階層無法有效掌控下屬艦艇行動），我們有必要對其特性進行深入調查，藉此有助吾人瞭解海上意外事件的起因與動機，這對防止海上意外事件的發生具有重大意義。一般而言，海上意外事件具有下列數項特性：
Why did hundreds of incidents at sea occurred between U.S. and Russia? Moreover, no intense antagonism between U.S. and China that have had two serious naval confrontation in 1994 and 2001, respectively.5 Therefore, incidents at sea do not appeared between rivalry nations, and also probably occurred between potential nations. Under these circumstances, we must to further investigate the characteristics of incidents at sea is whether acts of intentional policy or out of order of two sides naval headquarters. Through understanding the characteristics of incidents at sea, we can find the cause and motivation of incidents of sea and important of the prevention of incidents at sea. In general, the characteristics for the incidents at sea can be summarized as follows:

海上意外事件係「砲艦外交」的一種變體：嚴格來說，海上意外事件可視為運用有限海軍兵力達成若干政治目標的手段。事實上，干擾行為和危險運動係舊有「砲艦外交」的一種變體，其可向對方海軍甚或領導者傳達一種「行動語言」。6除了彰顯我方艦艇與海航兵力存在的事實，亦讓對方明瞭海洋並非為其掌控，一旦出現危機或戰爭爆發時，我方的能力係對方必須予以考量的。因此，海上意外事件部份肇因於軍事上的需要，傳統「砲艦外交」的政治動機亦係其發生的主要原因。7
Incidents at sea are variations of gunboat diplomacy: These actions constitute limited applications of naval force to achieve some political objectives. In effect, harassment or dangerous maneuvering at sea gives the one navy an “action language” for signaling hostile navy and political leaders. 6 In other words, these action demonstrate that our ships and naval aviation exist; they should consider our capabilities in the event of conflict or war. Under these circumstances, the incidents at sea grew
partly out of perceived military need, but often were politically motivated in the tradition of “gunboat diplomacy.” 7

海上意外事件具有「突發」特性，將會增加涉及兩造的緊張情勢並具引發戰爭的高度風險：檢證海軍史，不難發現若干海上意外事件，不僅引發了涉及兩造間的緊張情勢，甚且進一步地升高成為海上戰爭。著名例子計有英國與西班牙的傑金斯耳戰爭（一七三九至一七四一年）8；日俄戰爭期間的英俄北海漁船事件（一九○四年）9；美國與北越的東京灣事件（一九六四年）10；以及美國與北韓的布魯勃船事件（一九六八年）11.這些海上意外事件，均曾在雙方未預期的情況下，引發涉及兩造的緊張對峙甚或武裝衝突。
Incidents at sea often possess “outburst” characteristics, increasing tensions and raising the risk of war: Review the naval history, we can find many incidents at sea have increased tensions and developed into sea wars. The best examples include War of Jenkins’ Ear between Great Britain and Spain (1739-1741), 8 the Dogger Bank affair between Great Britain and Russia during the Russo-Japanese War (1904),9 Gulf of Tonkin incident between U.S. and North Vietnam (1964),10 and U.S.S. Pueblo incident between U.S. and North Korea (1968).11 Above mentioned incidents at sea that could have triggered major armed conflict occurred unexpectedly.

海上意外事件源自運用干擾與危險運動達成意欲的軍事目的：除政治目的外，海上意外事件的大部份動機來自軍事目的，藉由干擾與危險運動可對他方的軍事戰備、能力與行動進行情報蒐集。存於雙方反潛兵力與潛艦部隊間的「貓捉老鼠」遊戲，其目的在測試對方的潛艦性能與反潛能力。12若無任何限制，有可能導致碰撞的發生，危及人員與裝備的安全，甚且具向上升高的風險。
Incidents at sea derived from using harassment or dangerous activities for military purposes: In addition to political purposes, a more prevalent motive, other harassment activities appear to be the desire to collect intelligence on the other side’s military readiness, capabilities, and performance. Games of “cat-and-mouse” between both side’s anti-submarine assets and submarine forces are
played in order to test other’s submarine performances and anti-submarine capabilities12 Without restrictions, then sometimes result in collisions, which may cause damage to life or equipment, and further, carry the risk of escalation.

海上意外事件與海軍的特殊文化息息相關：對國內輿論與政治領袖言，海上意外事件的經常性發生，可以彰顯敵我間的緊張情勢，成為增加海軍經費的一個強有力藉口。因此，就海軍觀點言，維持其與潛在敵人間的接觸被視為一種特殊的利益，這是其他軍種所無法獲得的。13此外，「自主」係海軍的一項特殊傳統，海軍指揮官特別係潛艦艦長，經常視其本身為一個獨立的操作者，於是許多挑釁行為係在其未經授權情況下發起的。諸如此類的海上意外事件，大多肇因於急躁的海軍艦長，而非拿風險做為賭注的政治領袖。14
Incidents at sea are highly related to the special cultural of naval circle: Provocative naval activities may serve a powerful argument－justification of large navies to domestic publics and political leaders. For navy, operational contact between it and its potential adversary is viewed as a special and valued “dividend” which the navy, alone among the services, has enjoyed.13 In addition, because the navy has a singular tradition of autonomy, the naval commander, particular a submarine captain, is apt to consider himself an independent operator who may take provocative actions without prior authorization. Such incidents lend some support to the view that incidents are caused by “peppery ship captains,” rather than risk-prone political leaders.14

藉先前分析，可發現海上意外事件引發的危險可歸納為三大類：（一）碰撞對人員與艦船構成的實質危險；（二）意外事件本身或許相當輕微，然仍有挑起危機甚或戰爭的可能性；（三）現場指揮官對意外事件的誤認或誤解，導致直接戰鬥或升高衝突旳危險。15若能遵守《一九七二年年國際海上避碰章程》的條文，即可有效化解雙方艦船可能出現的碰撞危險。16對第二與第三類危險，我們必須對艦機的挑釁行動明確定義，以免導致誤解引發不必要的衝突。基於這項考量，防止海上意外事件協定意欲達成的目標計有：（一）降低砲艦外交或運用海軍武力追求政治目的的機會；（二）降低海上意外發生的可能性；（三）降低平時與危機期間，海上意外事件不經意升高的風險；（四）降低遭受奇襲的風險。17
Though previous analysis, we can divide the dangers of naval incidents into three categories: (1) the physical danger to lives and vessels posed by a collision; (2) the possibility that an incident, even if relatively minor in itself, will provoke a crisis or even war; and (3) the risk of direct and immediate combat and escalation as a result of misinterpretation or misperception of an incident by local commanders.15 For the first category, “the Rule of the Road”, or the 1972 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, should have sufficed.16 For the second and third categories, we must define acts to be avoided so as not to invite misunderstanding. Therefore, an incidents at sea agreement may identify the following set of potential objectives: (1) reducing opportunities for gun-boat diplomacy, or the political exploitation of naval power; (2) reducing the likelihood of naval incidents; (3) reducing the danger of inadvertent escalation of naval incidents in peacetime or during crises; and (4) reducing the danger of surprise attack.17

美蘇《防止公海意外事件協定》成功因素
The Successful Factors of U.S.-Soviet INCSEA Agreement

隨著美蘇間海上意外事件頻率與嚴重性的日增，美國遂提議蘇聯就「海上安全」議題進行討論。經過兩年的推拖延宕，蘇聯通知美方願在一九七一年春就此一議題展開磋商。經內部討論形成共識後，一九七一年六月美國通知蘇聯同意該年十月於莫斯科就此議題進行討論。經過兩個回合討論，一九七一年十月於莫斯科以及一九七二年五月於華盛頓，雙方於華盛頓完成了協約的草簽。一九七二年五月廿五日，美蘇高峰會議期間，美國海軍部長華納與蘇聯海軍總司令高西柯夫分別代表兩國政府，正式簽署了《美國政府與蘇聯政府間防止公海意外事件協定》。
With increasing frequency and severity of U.S.-Soviet naval incidents, U.S. proposed “Safety on the Sea” to the Union Soviet. Two years later, the Soviets responded by proposing that negotiations be opened in the spring of 1971. Having formulated its position, the U.S. accepted the Soviet Union offer to negotiate in June 1971, and discussions were scheduled to begin in Moscow in October of that year. Through two talks, October 1971 in Moscow, and May 1972 in Washington, D.C. , the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Prevention of Incidents on an over the High Seas (the INCSEA) was initialed by Warner and Kasatonov in Washington and formally signed by Warner, then Secretary of the U.S. Navy, and Admiral Gorshkov on May 25, 1972, during the Moscow summit
meeting.

儘管這項協定無法消弭所有海上意外事件，它仍被視為相當地成功。一九六○年代後期，美俄兩國每年平均會出現超過一百起的嚴重海上意外事件，協定簽署後此種現象已有逐漸緩和趨勢。如同美海軍部長李曼報告中指稱的：一九八二年六月至一九八三年六月，美蘇間的嚴重海上意外事件已減少至四十起。李曼將海上意外事件的減少，歸因於「防止公海意外事件協定」的簽署。18過去三十年間，《防止公海意外事件協定》歷經了數次嚴苛的檢驗，如一九七三年的「贖罪日戰爭」與一九八三年韓航客機遭蘇聯擊落事件，這兩起事件期間美俄兩國數量龐大的艦艇於公海遭遇，惟因協定的約束與運作良好，美俄兩國間並未發生嚴重的海上意外事件。除此之外，在蘇聯入侵阿富汗，美蘇兩國關係惡化之際，《防止公海意外事件協定》的年度磋商仍然如期地召開。或許最重要的，此協定的概念擴大成為《防止危險軍事活動協定》，適用範圍則由公海擴及為陸地、海上與天空。加拿大學者葛里菲茲稱此協定係最持久與最具彈性的信任建立措施。19
Even though, the INCSEA Agreement did not eliminate all naval incidents, it is generally regarded as a success. In the late 1960s, the number of serious incidents exceeded 100 per year, but Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, Jr., reported that there were only about 40 potentially dangerous incidents between June 1982 and June 1983. Lehman has attributed this substantial reduction in collisions and near-collisions to the INCSEA Agreement.18 During the past nearly thirty years, the INCSEA Agreement passed the severe test: Yom Kippur War in 1973, and Korean Airline 007 airplane shootdown crisis. It worked very well. In addition, the INCSEA also successfully passed period of the diplomatic tension between U.S. and the Soviet Union. Moreover, the INCSEA concept has also provided a model for Dangerous Military Activities Agreements (DMAA) which address sea, land, and air forces, and areas other than the high seas. As Canadian scholar David N. Griffiths noted: “the INCSEA” has become one of the most enduring and resilient of all confidence-building measures.19

何以此協定的效力可維持長達三十年時間？促成此協定成功的各項因素為何？《防止公海意外事件協定》與其他的信任建立措施有何不同？事實上，此協定的成功要素在溫克勒與瓦倫西亞的各自著述中已有詳盡地討論。20根據作者觀察，並參酌前述兩位學者提出的相關見解，歸納出此協定成功要素如下：
Why did the INCSEA continue in effect thirty years? What reasons make the agreement successful? What are differences between the INCSEA and other confidence-building measures? There are many reasons for the success of the INCSEA concept. These factors had have been described in detail by David Winkler and Mark J. Valencia in their respective articles.20 According to the author observation, and combining Winkler and Valencia’s insights, can be summarized as follows:

共同利益
Mutual Interest

相較陸軍與空軍擁有的資產，海軍艦艇的數量相對地較少。因此，海軍戰艦遂成為國家最貴重的軍事資產。在這種情況下，沒有國家願意因為海上碰撞造成戰艦的損傷甚至沉沒。此外，亦無任何國家願意因為海軍意外事件升高成為非蓄意的衝突或危機。
Compared army and air forces, navy have a fewer platforms, making naval combatants becomes a valuable military asset for each nations. Under these circumstances, neither country wanted to its ships damaged or sunk by collision. Moreover, no country wanted a naval incident to escalate an inadvertent conflict or crisis.

簡單明確
Simplicity

《防止公海意外事件協定》未引進繁複的各項規則，此協定僅係簡單地將現有國際法的各項規則予以強化或是補其不足。對海軍人員言，簡單明確意味其易於執行與傳播周知。
The INCSEA Agreement had no introduced complexity regulations, this agreement simply reinforced and complemented by the principles and rules of international law. For navy personnel, simplicity means that it is easier to execute and disseminate.

專業主義
Professionalism

此協定的磋商係由海軍與海航人員全程參與，而非如一般協定多由外交人員總攬其責。此外，出席此協定年度磋商的代表，亦為雙方的海軍與海航人員。因此，討論的過程相當專業化，同時不摻雜任何的政治因素。事實上，美俄兩國磋商此協定時，俄國人對海上意外事件可由「海上弟兄」討論處理表示歡迎。21因此，此協定將政治力的介入降至最低，准許兩國海軍以本身專業處理存於其間的海上意外事件。
The contents of the INCSEA Agreement are negotiated by sailors and naval aviators, not by diplomats. In addition, all delegates to annual consultations are sailors or naval aviators, therefore discussion tends to be professional and non-political. During the negotiation, the Soviets were apparently pleased that incidents could be discussed between “brothers at sea.” 21 Therefore, this agreement may help to minimize the political interference and permit the two navies handle such incidents.

事前準備妥善
Preparation

一旦發生意外事件，全程經過可在年度磋商前，透過海軍武官送至雙方海軍當局。因此，被指控違反協定條款的一方，有機會對事件經過進行調查。年度磋商前，雙方可將此事件納入當年會議議程進行討論，避免磋商期間臨時提出，造成雙方的慌亂失措。
In an incident occurred, the reported violation was passed through the other nation’s naval attache well in advance of the annual review, allowing the accused transgressor had the opportunity to investigate. Also, both sides entered the annual review with the benefit of a set agenda and confidence in knowing there should be no unexpected surprise.