1960 年代末期,海洋地質專家即已預測東海大陸礁層蘊藏著豐富的油氣資源,並且造成了周圍國家的震撼,臺灣、中國與日本競相投入海域的探勘活動。但是,後來為了避免國際紛爭,各方遂停止在東海探採石油。然而,隨著海底資源開發技術的發展、國際原油價格節節攀升,以及聯合國海洋法公約的生效,中、日雙方圍繞在東海油氣田的爭端再度爆發出來。由於中國開始在日本主張的「中間線」附近開採石油,造成日本的強烈反應,雙方衝突不斷升級,值得臺灣密切關注。深究中、日在東海發生爭端的根本原因, 在於雙方的專屬經濟海域有相當大部分的重疊。對於鄰近國家專屬經濟海域重疊的情形,海洋法公約呼籲透過協商解決。本文認為,儘管中、日兩國已於 2008 年 6 月達成共識,要先進行小範圍的共同開發,但是來自歷史的情結和現實的輿論壓力,加上東海問題的複雜性與敏感性,將給中、日試圖簽訂此類協議帶來極大的難度。
In the late 1960s, marine geologists had predicted that the continental shelf in the East China Sea is rich in oil and gas. This finding shocked the surrounding regions of Taiwan, Japan, and China, leading to a fever of oil exploration. These countries then stopped the exploration to prevent further international disputes. However, as new seabed resources exploring technology is developed, rising price of crude oil, and the implementation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the conflict of the East China Sea oil and gas fields between China and Japan breaks out again. Japan's strong reaction to China is caused by China's oil exploration near the median line claimed by Japan. Taiwan, thus, needs to pay more attention to the increasing conflict between China and Japan. The conflicts between China and Japan in the East China Sea resulted from the fact that their exclusive economic zone substantially overlapped. Regarding such issue, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea calls to resolve the dispute through negotiation. In this article, the author argues that even if China and Japan reached a consensus of small-scale joint exploration in June 2008, it will be more difficult to sign this type of agreement in the future due to historical factor, public opinion pressure, and the complexity and sensitivity of the East China Sea issue.
歐盟在與第三國/區域簽訂貿易或投資協定時,因為其市場吸引力,而得以將帶有歐盟價值的規範性議程納入協定中,以實踐自身外交政策的目標。此「規範性權力(normative power)」論述在學界已有廣泛的討論。實務上,歐盟的規範性權力亦不斷透過各種不同的管道,在不同的地區和領域內發揮影響力。歐盟自2013年10月開始,與中國大陸進行全面投資協定(Comprehensive Agreement on Investment,簡稱CAI)談判,目前已完成了第35輪的談..
The European Union (EU) has well utilized its market attraction to bring European value based normative agenda into trade or investment agreement negotiations with third country/region, in order to achieve its own foreign policy objectives. This “normative power” theory has had wide discussion among academics. In practice, EU’s normative power has also continuously expanded its influence in different areas via various channels. Since October 2013, EU and China have begun the negotiations on the Comprehensive..
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.