本文主要分三大部分，首先從「新現實主義」、「新自由主義」與「善治」等三個角度，探索歐盟 (European Union/EU) 對中國政策的產出背景與運作邏輯。其次，本文將從實踐面著手，從歐盟與中國對彼此發表的八份文件，分析歐盟對中國政策的具體實踐，並檢視歐盟與中國在「軍售」、「WTO與市場經濟地位」以及「人權」三個問題上的互動與折衝。最後，本文將檢討與評估歐盟對中國政策的運作成效，以及歐盟內部成員國的立場對於歐盟對中國政策產出的影響，並展望歐盟的中國政策對其區域與全球戰略佈局的未來發展..

This article is divided into three major parts. It first explores the background and logic of EU's China policy from three aspectds : Neo-Realism, Neo-Liberalism and Good Governance. It then turns to practices and reviews EU's China policy based on eight documents issued by EU and China. It analyzes the reciprocity, negotiation, and compromise between EU and China on three issues of arms sales, WTO and market economy status, and human rights. In the final part, it reviews and evaluates the effect of EU's China policy and its mem..

本文所要探討的是一個尚未回答的問題，也就是歐盟的法律地位問題，換句話說，歐盟在法律上屬於哪一類型的政治組織? 很顯然的，以傳統法律術語裡面所定義的聯邦去定位歐盟並不合適。目前的歐盟，既不是聯邦，也不應視為聯邦。當然，她也不能被稱為一個國家，因為她並沒有也不願爭取做為一個國家所必須具備的最高決策權力。根據歐盟憲法條約草案第一條第十一項第二款的規定，歐盟任何一種權力的取得以歐盟成員國的個別授權為限。因此，如何定義歐盟，至今還沒有人給過一個大家都能接受的答案。 筆者認為，給予歐..

The article deals with an unanswered question of how the legal status of the European Union may be characterized. In other words: What kind of political community the EU belongs to? It is rather easy to demonstrate that the juridical terms, which were used traditionally to define federally organized political units, are not appropriate to characterize the European Union. It may not be treated as a confederation of soveregin states nor as a federal state, and the EU itself resists being called a state at all. It is because that the EU do..