近代日本思想界總是企圖避免採用會凸顯日本的概念,一方面是對日本身在世界面前缺乏信心,二方面是身在亞洲面前會引發鄰國的猜忌。然而,在日本無法整合亞洲,但又對歐美強權追求和平的誠意與能力感到不足的時候,以日本作為一種有別於西方的和平主義身分,並不會引起亞洲的反彈或西方的排斥。本文以下刻意違反日本思想史習慣而提出的日本主義,其內涵是繞過亞洲,直接以日本作為世界性的國家,貢獻於世界性的形成,並以日本是世界上最有資格談和平與中立的民族,來反思西方、亞洲乃至於中國所代表的意義。日本主義不是任何學派提出的具體思想立場,而是尋求以日本直接面對世界的一種思維態勢,其背景在於歐洲接受日本為平等之一員,但歐洲不能充分提供完成世界性與普遍性理想的制度或政策出路,因此日本可以有獨特的貢獻,並且可以充滿信心的積極貢獻。本文蒐羅這種思想取向的各種蛛絲馬跡,名之為日本主義。
Modern history of Japanese thought always avoids the notion of “Japan” as thinkers do not consider Japan a valid identity to be presented to the world led by European civilizations. If Japan were to participate, it could only participate with confidence in the name of Asia. However, this Asia approach resulted in notorious expansionist war in history. After Cold War was over, Japan’s equal partnership in the world alongside European countries has appeared certain. On the other hand, Europeanness has not achieved the spirit of universal humanism. This provides the background for the emergence of a Japan that could participate in and contribute to the enrichment of such a spirit. The following discussion collects those nascent, sporadic pieces of evidence to suggest a possible rise of Japanism, embedded in peace-making, anti-nuclear movement, neutrality as well as human security. This is the first time in the Japanese thought history that Japan stands along in front of the world as a direct participant in the making of universal humanism.
本文主要研究問題是:中國大陸對於衝突預防的原則性立場與態度為何?在身為當事國與第三方行為者兩種不同身分時,其在實踐上有何不同?本文藉由南蘇丹危機與南海衝突兩個案例分析中國大陸在衝突預防實踐上,面對事關自身主權與國家利益以及與自身主權無關之衝突事件時,在衝突預防作為上有何差異?其宣示與實際作為有何落差?此外,為何中 國大陸在南海議題上,會由堅持雙邊對話,轉變為也同意透過多邊機制,作為處理南海主權爭議途徑的立場與作為?在這樣的雙邊與多邊機制下,呈現出怎樣的「中國..
The main research questions of the paper are as follow: first of all, what are China’s position, attitude, and actions in conflict prevention, second question is what is the difference between China’s action and statement on the issue of the South China Sea dispute and the South Sudan Crisis when China is one of the parties who faces sovereignty and national interest, and as a third- party in the practice of conflict prevention. Third question is why China is willing to change her position from insisting bilateral..
雖然中國政府重申不會在國際壓力下改革人民幣匯率,但其終究在 2005 年 7 月 21 日改革人民幣匯率體制與水平,本文透過貨幣權力關係理論的途徑探討為什麼中國會改變人民幣匯率政策。本文論證了美國是國際貨幣權力關係中的強國,在貨幣權力理論中延遲的權力與轉移的權力上,確認了美國的貨幣權力高於中國,讓美國得以在此一國際貨幣權力關係中向中國施壓,使得中國在人民幣匯率政策上無法說不,而必須改變人民幣實施多年的固定匯率體制。但由於中國並非美國傳統上的盟邦且在軍事、安全..
Although the Chinese government has reiterated that the reform of Renminbi(RMB)exchange rate would not be influenced by international political pressure, it adjusted the exchange rate regime and level on July 21, 2005. The main purpose of the paper is trying to analyze why the Chinese government changed the exchange rate policy through international monetary power theory. The paper proved that the U.S. is a stronger power than China in the dimension of international liquidity, owned reserves, borrowing capacity, degree of ope..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.