「第三屆聯合國海洋法會議」係迄今為止，聯合國所召開時間最長且規模最大的一次國際立法會議，部分學者將此會議的成功，歸因於「包裹交易」或「大國政治」的折衝。本文援引社會學領域的相關討論，使用 「意義框架」取代溫特的「共享概念」，對國際關係領域中的國際會議決策制定提出分析架構與可操作的觀察指標。此分析架構中的意義框架與行 為體行為兩者互為因果，處於一種動態的建構關係，而「共同期待」係為兩者的中介，若符合期待，兩者便趨於穩定;反之，則面臨調整。本文透過自1930年「國際法編纂會議」到1982年「..

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) might be the largest and longest international law codification conference thus far. Some scholars attribute the success of this conference to the “package deal” or “great power politics.” This paper adopts the view of constructivism and cites relevant discussions in the field of sociology and replaces Wendt’s “shared ideas” with “meaning framework” for proposing a new analysis framework with operational indicators fo..

東南亞國家協會(東協)於 2009 年成立東協政府間人權委員會，一反其 40 年來對聯合國倡議成立區域人權機制之漠視。究竟東協為何成立區域人權機構?現有的文獻已從理性論和觀念論兩種研究途徑探討過，但其解釋 力各有不足。本文仍從理性論的觀點出發，但不同於文獻所強調的東協集體理性，本文強調個別會員國的理性，因為以往文獻在分析層次的選擇上採取了較宏觀的視角，但結果卻是無法完全解釋東權會的成立。本文仍採用理性論的研究途徑，但補充以較微觀的視角，主張東協成立東權會是東..

The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)was created in 2009 by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN), a move contrary to its ignoring of the United Nations’ forty-year advocacy. Why did ASEAN member states create the AICHR? A review of the literature found two types of arguments: rationalist and ideationalist, but neither of them is satisfactory enough to explain why the AICHR was created. This article adopts a rationalist perspective with the emphasis on ASEAN member states’ indi..

權力與國家利益是國際政治研究的主要探討因素，也是國際關係學界戰後研究的起點，本文認為「權力」決定「國家利益」，進而限制「國家行為」的觀點 ，在國際人權規範下未必依舊是當代國際政治與國家行為的鐵律。從冷戰後國際社會的維持和平行動來看，有相當程度國家武力干預並非出於國家利益的動機，亦非與地緣戰略有關，而只是為了去維持國際社會的價值，一種強調人權價值、避免種族淨化的發生。這種國際社會的價值 (人性尊嚴、法治、民主) ，某種程度存有所謂規範制約權力的成分，強調權力的使用來自合法性，而這規範的形塑..

Power and national interest constitute an important research topic in the study of international politics, and can be seen as the starting point for the study of international relations in the post-war period. A number of scholars have asserted that “power” determines “national interest." Such a view, however, can result in an excessively restricted understanding of “national behavior," since the relationship between contemporary international politics and national behavior is not necessarily an ironclad on..