海域劃界爭端常在各國謀取最大國家利益時伴隨而來，如何和平的解決爭議便是一個相當重要的議題。本論文探討的部分即為國際法院在解決此般爭議時所採用的方法，並分析解決爭議時法院所採用的程序與方式，進而理解過往案例的判決如何影響現在法院的決策，並依此分析出海域劃界趨勢的演變。
島嶼制度與比例概念是國際法院在解決劃界糾紛之時常作為考量的重要因素，因此本論文從這兩個角度切入，分析1982年的突尼西亞訴利比亞大陸礁層案、1984年的美國／加拿大緬因灣地區海洋疆界案、1985年的利比亞/馬爾他大陸礁層案、1993年的格陵蘭與揚馬延島海域劃界案、2009年烏克蘭與羅馬尼亞間的黑海劃界案以及2012年尼加拉瓜訴哥倫比亞領土與海洋爭端等案中的國際法院判決，並藉由這些案件瞭解法院如何採納並解釋判決，建立劃界時的固定程序，最後驗證劃界結果是否成比例。
島嶼制度上，由於《聯合國海洋法公約》對島嶼的定義仍有許多可討論之處，使的法院在審理時需要因案而異，藉由判決確立島嶼的詳細定義及其所享有之效力。法院在判決中可能會依照爭端國先前的協議、島嶼的面積、人口、與大陸的距離、位置等因素對島嶼的效力做出裁決，由判例中可以觀察出法院需要在審理每一個案件時依據上述的條件進行考量，最後在劃界結果上進行調整，給予島嶼所享有的權利。
而比例概念是自1909年瑞典、挪威間Grisbadarna劃界案提出中線原則後，與後來發展出的等距原則一同納入《海洋法公約》中。並由國際法院在判決中多次運用與實踐，才成為習慣國際法的一部分，但在案件判決之中也可以觀察到從海岸線長度、相關海域面積到島嶼面積等皆可做為考量，顯示出比例具有不確定性與主觀性的特徵。雖然有如此的特徵，法院在由案例判決逐漸建立的三段式劃界方法中仍然採用比例概念作為對劃界線的調整基礎，並在最後驗證時檢驗結果是否成比例。隨著三段式劃界方式已成為審理案件的基礎，比例概念也成為海域劃界趨勢中重要的一個環節。

When nations seeking the interest in the maritime, the boundary disputes will occur. This thesis is focused on the methods to solve such issues by submitting issues to the international tribunals such as the International Court of Justice (I.C.J.), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Based on the judgments of the International Court of Justice, indicated the trends and the mechanisms of how the courts determine the solution of such disputes can be observed.
The regime of islands and the proportionality are two primary concerns when the court need to resolve the maritime disputes, this thesis will analyze several case judgments of the I.C.J. from 1982 to 2012 to understand the trends of maritime boundary delimitation.
Though the regime of islands is a part of the United Nations Law of the Sea, the definitions of islands are not clear enough, which results disputes and potential conflicts of the claimants, the I.C.J. has to resolve such disputes by defining the rights and the boundary by prior agreements, population and other factors. The judgments indicated that the court has to determine the rights and the boundary of the relevant nations case by case.
The proportionality can be considered as a vital part of the three-stage delimitation process implemented by the I.C.J., purposed in 1909’s Grisbadarna case, it has become a part of the UNCLOS. Ranging from the length of the relevant coast, relevant coast area and other factors, the court has defined a three-stage method, in the first stage, the Court establishes a provisional delimitation line between territories of the Parties by using methods that are geometrically objective and appropriate for the geography of the area to construct an equidistance line, where the relevant coasts are adjacent, or a median line between the two coasts, where the relevant coasts are opposite. In the second stage, the court considers whether there are any relevant circumstances which may call for an adjustment or shifting of the provisional equidistance/median line so as to achieve an equitable result. At the final stage, third stage, the court will verify that the line does not, as it stands, lead to an inequitable result by reason of any marked disproportion between the ratio of the respective coastal lengths and the ratio between the relevant maritime area of each State by reference to the delimitation line. Such three-stage process has become a crucial way in the delimitation process.

一、中文部份
（一）書籍
王冠雄，〈由2009年黑海劃界案判決檢視島嶼制度之規範〉，《愛國學人：紀念丘宏達教授學術研討會會議實錄暨論文集》，台北：三民書局，（2013年）。
沈文周，《海域劃界技術方法》，北京：海洋出版社，（2003年）。
胡念祖，《海洋政策理論與實務研究》，台北：五南圖書，（1997年）。
姜皇池，《國際海洋法（下冊）》，台北：學林文化，（2004年）。
陸民仁，《經濟學概論》，台北：三民書局，（2003年）。
傅崐成，《國際海洋法-衡平劃界論》，台北：三民書局，（1992年）。
聯合國，《國際法院判決書、諮詢意見與命令摘要，黑海海洋劃界案（羅馬尼亞訴烏克蘭）》，（2009年）。
---------，《國際法院判決書、諮詢意見與命令摘要，領土與海洋爭端案（尼加拉瓜訴哥倫比亞）》，（2012年）。
（二）期刊
王冠雄，〈南海爭端之國際法觀點分析〉，《展望與探索》，第9卷，第8期，（2011年），頁13-20。
宋燕輝，〈領海直線基線劃定之爭議─ United States v . Alaska 一案判決之解析〉，《歐美研究》第33卷第3期 (2003年)，頁629-683。
林廷輝，〈論海平面上升對島國海洋權利之影響〉，《台灣國際法季刊》，第9卷第2期，（2012年），頁97-120。
周洪鈞、張衛彬，〈相關情況規則在國際法院海域劃界案中的應用〉，《丘宏達教授贈書儀式暨第一屆兩岸國際法學論壇學術研討會實錄》，（2012年），頁136-151。
俞寬賜，〈沿海國家間的海域劃界法制之研究〉，《台大法學論叢》，第29卷第二期，（2003年），頁1-41。
張衛彬，〈2009年羅馬尼亞訴烏克蘭黑海劃界案評析〉，《中國海洋法學評論：中英文版第2期》，（2009年），頁392-412。
黃璐，〈論海域劃界中的比例概念〉，《海洋信息》，第4期（2010年），頁24-27。
楊之遠，〈人口與地球承載力〉，《非傳統安全議題對我國之衝擊評估與因應》，財團法人中技社，（2013年），頁9-11。
廖文章，〈島嶼在海洋劃界中效力的研究〉，《研究與動態》，第十三期，（2006年），頁75-96。
二、英文部份
（一）Books
Alexandrowicz, C.H. (1967), “An Introduction to the Study of the Law of Nations in the East Indies (16th, 17th and 18th Centuries)”, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beckman, Robert, Townsend-Gault, Ian, Schofield, Clive, Davenport,
Tara, Bernard, Leonardo, (2013), “Beyond Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea: Legal Frameworks for the Joint Development of Hydrocarbon Resources”, NUS Centre for International Law series.
Johnston, Douglas M., (1988), “The Theory and History of Ocean Boundary-Making”, Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
（二）Journals
Antunes, Nuno Sérgio Marques, (2003), “Towards the Conceptualisation of Maritime Delimitation: Legal and Technical Aspects of a Political Process”, Ocean Development: A Series of Studies on the International, Legal, Institutional and Policy Aspects of the Ocean Development, Vol.42, pp. 301-304.
Beckman, Robert and Schofield, Clive, (2009), “Moving Beyond Disputes Over Island Sovereignty: ICJ Decision Sets Stage for Maritime Boundary Delimitation in the Singapore Strait”, Ocean Development & International Law. Vol.40 pp. 1-35.
Boggs, S. Whittemore, (1930), “Delimitation of the Territorial Sea: The Method of Delimitation Proposed by the Delegation of the United States at the Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, pp. 521-555.
Boyle, A. E., (1980), “The Law of Treaties and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf Arbitration”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2/3, pp. 498-508.
Borgia, Fiammetta, (2011), “Rocks or Islands? The Asian Dilemma”, AsianSIL Working Paper 2010/15 Finalized 30 January 2011.
Franck, M. Thomas, (2008), “On Proportionality of Countermeasures in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 715-767.
Francois, M., (1930), “Report of the Second Committee”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 234-258.
Herman, Lawrence L., (1984) “The Court Giveth and the Court Taketh Away: An Analysis of the Tunisia-Libya Continental Shelf Case.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 825-858.
Hunter Miller, (1930) “The Hague Codification Conference”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 674-693.
Nandan, Satya and Rosenne, Sabtai, (1995), eds., “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary”, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 321-339.
Schofield, Clive and Wang, Dustin Kuan-Hsiung, (2012), “The Regime of Islands under UNCLOS: Implications for the South China Sea” Maritime Energy Resources in Asia: Legal Regimes and Cooperation, pp. 61-77.
Shi, Jiuyong, (2010), “Maritime Delimitation in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice”, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 271-291.
Song, Yann-huei, (2010), “The Application of Article 121 of the Law of the Sea Convention to the Selected Geographical Features Situated in the Pacific Ocean” Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, Issue 4, pp. 663-698.
Sorokowski, Andrew D., (1996), “Ukraine in the World: Studies in the International Relations and Security Structure of a Newly Independent State”, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 330-339.
Van Dyke, Jon M., (2007), “Legal Issues Related to Sovereignty over Dokdo and Its Maritime Boundary”, Ocean Development & International Law, Vol. 38 Issue 1, pp. 157-224.
（三）Thesis
Lee, Ki Beom, (2012), “Demise of Equitable Principles and the Rise of Relevant Circumstances in Maritime Boundary Delimitation”, School of Law, The University of Edinburgh
（四）Judgments
International Court of Justice (I.C.J.), Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America), Judgment of 12 October 1984, I.C.J. Reports, (1984).
I.C.J., Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment of 3 June 1985, I.C.J Reports, (1985).
I.C.J., Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, I.C.J. Reports, (1982).
I.C.J., North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, I.C.J. Reports (1969).I.C.J., Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Judgment of 14 June 1993, Reports, (1993).
I.C.J., Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, I.C.J. Reports, (2009).
I.C.J., Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, I.C.J. Reports (2010)
I.C.J., Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, I.C.J. Reports, (2012).
I.C.J., Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 December 2007, I.C.J. Reports (2007).
I.C.J., Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, I.C.J. Reports, (2007).
United Nations (U.N.), Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the French Republic (UK, France), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, (1978).
（五）Conference records
I.L.C., Draft Articles on the Continental Shelf and Related Subjects, (1951).
I.L.C., Summary record of the 260th Meeting, (1954).
I.L.C., Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1951, (1957).
I.L.C., Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1952, (1958).
U.N., Agreement concerning Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Iran and Bahrain, (1971).
U.N., General Assembly, Resolution 1105 (XI) of the General Assembly of the United Nations Convening the Conference, (1958).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Algeria, Dahomey, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Tunisia, Upper Volta and Zambia: Draft Articles on the Regime of Islands, (1974).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Draft Convention on the Law of the Seas (Informal Text), (1980).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Informal Composite Negotiating Text, Revision 1, (1974).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Informal Single Negotiating Text, Part II, (1982).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document, (1977).
U.N., United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records Volume III: First Committee (Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone) Summary Records of Meetings and Annexes, (1958).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Reports of the Chairman of Negotiation Group 7, (1980).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Revised Single Negotiating Text (Part II), (1982).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Romania: Draft Articles on Definition of and Regime Applicable to Islets and Islands Similar to Islets, (1974).
U.N., Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Statement of Activities of the Conference during Its First and Second Sessions, (1982).
U.N., Treaty Series, Treaties and International Agreements Registered of Filed and Recorded with the Secretariat of the United Nations, Vol. 516, (1966).
U.N., Working Paper of the Second Committee, UNCLOS III Official Records, (1975).