近 400 年來的歐洲,是主權國家平等的「西發里亞體系」,以權力平衡維繫國際秩序;近 600 年以來的東亞,則是中國為天朝而四方小國臣服的「朝貢體系」,是上下層級的國際秩序。為何會有「朝貢體系」?它為何能運作?從現實主義式的觀點來看,「朝貢體系」只是一個包裝過的權力政治,骨子裡仍是物質上的利害與效益計算,中國霸權之下區域國家抵抗無望,不得不臣服。但是,從建構主義式的觀點來看,之所以會有「朝貢體系」的國際秩序,並不只是因為中國的強大,也是因為區域國家認同中國的文化,中國於是才有了領導的正當性。究竟這兩種觀點孰是孰非?本研究嘗試以歷來與中國朝貢關係最密切的朝鮮為案例,實際從其 1618 至 1637 年 間,在明朝與清朝之間選擇的決策過程,檢驗他決定服從中國的真實理由,以進一步了解東亞「朝貢體系」的國際秩序。本文從中發現,建構主義式的論點獲得驗證。
For nearly four centuries, Europe had the so-called Westphalian System of sovereign states, in which balance of power was the basis of international order. In contrast, for nearly six centuries, East Asia had the so-called “tribute system,” a hierarchical order where China was the supreme leader. Why? From a realist perspective, the tribute system was just a wrapper over power politics based on material calculations of interest and benefit: East Asian countries had no choice but submission to China’s hegemony. However, from a constructivist perspective, the tribute system was not just caused by China’s hegemony. The shared sino-centric culture in the region was equally important. China gained the legitimacy of leadership due to its cultural achievements. Which of these two arguments is valid? This study attempts to answer this question by exploring China’s closest tributary country, Korea. By tracing Korea’s decision-making processes from 1618 to 1637 in detail, this study can uncover the true logic behind Korea’s submissiveness to China and thus improve our understanding toward the East Asian tribute system. In the end, constructivist perspective is confirmed.
由於提供數位經濟服務的跨國公司不須在市場國建立恆久據點,導致利潤來源地政府無法適用傳統的常設機構原則進行課稅。面對此項國際稅收分配的挑戰,經濟暨合作發展組織(Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD)在2013年公告「防止稅基侵蝕與利潤移轉計畫」 (BEPS),試圖建立一致的課稅替代方案。然而,部分國家後續卻自行開徵數位服務稅,美國川普政府對這些國家威脅使用301條款並發起關稅報復,直到2021年美國拜登政府支..
Host countries cannot tax digital multinational corporations (MNCs) based on the traditional permanent establishment principle because digital services are intangible. To address this challenge, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) initiated the “Base Erosion and Profit Shifting” (BEPS) multilateral regime in 2013. Nonetheless, several host countries hunting for revenue unilaterally adopted digital service taxes, and the US Trump administration responded with Section 301 tariff retaliation from 2019 t..
當中國「對外直接投資」(Foreign Direct Investment,簡稱FDI)大幅湧入世界各國後,被投資國對於中國資金的質疑與恐懼也逐漸浮現,例如:歐洲各國擔憂中資入主後,將降低歐陸勞工的待遇;澳洲民眾與國會反對中資併購國內農場等。然而,上述恐慌卻與文獻資料分析存有歧異, 爬梳有關中國對外直接投資之於被投資國的影響等相關研究後發現,中國資金並未帶來「紅色政治」,且中資與其他國家投資的運作方式亦無明顯差異。雖然中資並未對被投資國產生預期的傷害和損失,..
While foreign direct investment (FDI) flows from China to other countries in the world, some recipients have shown their fear and question toward China’s investment. For instance, European countries are afraid of the degradation of labor and environmental standard after embracing investment from China to their industries;, while Australia’s public and media blame China’s investment on real estate for the rising housing price. However, after carefully reviewing discussions on each case in the literature, it c..
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.