搜尋結果 Search Result

搜尋結果 : 和"EC"有關的資料, 共有864筆
離岸風電與漁業之衝突與調和:日本新潟縣和韓國新安郡協調機制分析
Balancing Offshore Wind Energy and Fisheries: A Comparative Analysis of Coordination Mechanisms in Niigata Prefecture, Japan, and Sin-an Gun, South Korea
黃慧慈 施怡君
即將出版
63卷2期(2024/06/01)

近年來,亞太地區的風電新增裝置容量居於全球領先地位,占2021年全球離岸風電新增裝置容量的84%。然而,亞太各國在推動離岸風電建設的同時,也普遍面臨「多重使用衝突」的問題,尤其以漁業補償引發的爭議最為複雜。在處理離岸風電與漁業使用衝突方面,日本與韓國的經驗尤為重要。這兩個國家除了漁業補償的金錢補償機制之外,還採用多元的協調策略。因此,本研究旨在探討日本與韓國如何以更多元和更具有包容性的協調機制來處理離岸風電與漁業衝突的問題。 在再生能源協調機制的相關研究中,「共同所有權」(Co-..

In recent years, the Asia-Pacific region has taken the lead globally in wind power capacity additions, accounting for 84% of the global offshore wind power capacity added in 2021. However, the promotion of offshore wind power construction in various Asia-Pacific countries has faced the controversy of “conflict of multiple uses” with the coordination of fishery compensation disputes being the most complex. This study explores the possibility of establishing a new form of participation mechanism, in addition to the monetary compen..

解析霸權應對崛起強權策略-美中兩強在關鍵新興科技之權力競爭的理論啟示
Analyzing Hegemon’s Strategies for Tackling with Rising Power-Theoretical Implications from Observing the Power Competition between the U.S. and China on Critical Technologies
陳欣之 (Hsin-chih Chen)
63卷1期(2024/03/01)

霸權應對崛起強權的具體策略,是觀察美中兩強權力競爭的重要課題。國際關係受到霸權權力衰落宿命論的影響,無視霸權是戮力科技創新的國際層級結構產物。本文試圖從領導長周期論的視角,勾勒科技創新對於霸權維繫其全球主導地位的重要性,提出霸權面對崛起強權科技創新追趕挑戰的分析架構。本文解析冷戰時期美國回應蘇聯地緣戰略與日本科技創新威脅的不同面貌,辨識美國為延緩中國科技創新追趕速度,在關鍵新興尖端科技領域,所採取的出口管制、自強自固、阻絕圍堵與吸融匯濟等四種策略,並分析美國所遭遇的挑戰與契機。本文發現,..

The specific strategies employed by a hegemon in dealing with rising powers are a crucial aspect of understanding the power competition between the United States and China. International relations paradigms have been influenced by the notion of the inevitable decline of hegemonic power, often disregarding the fact that a hegemon is a product of international-level efforts in science and technological innovation. This article aims to delineate the significance of technological innovation in maintaining global dominance for a hegemon with the..

為什麼不中立了? 從關鍵時刻、地緣政治與決策模式分析瑞典與芬蘭中立政策調整
Why is Neutrality no longer an Option? An Analysis of the Adjustments of the Neutral Policies in Sweden and Finland from Critical Moments, Geopolitics and Decision-making Patterns
楊三億 (San-yi Yang)
63卷1期(2024/03/01)

瑞典與芬蘭是歐洲實施中立政策歷史相當悠久的國家,長期以來這兩國選擇中立作為外交政策主軸,不過2022年2月俄烏戰爭爆發後這兩國決意擺脫中立、改以申請加入北約為其新的外交目標,此種策略轉變對兩國與歐洲安全形成很大衝擊。芬蘭已於2023年4月4日加入北約,2023年7月北約峰會召開之際,土耳其與匈牙利亦表態支持瑞典入約。本文所欲探討者乃是分析這兩國為何調整其長久以來堅守的中立政策理念,過往多數觀點認為瑞、芬兩國拋棄中立乃因俄烏戰爭威脅所致,但實際觀察兩國政策演變,俄烏戰爭僅是政策轉折最後階段..

Sweden and Finland are countries with a long history of neutral policies, and they have traditionally chosen neutrality as their main direction for foreign policy. However, after the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War in February 2022, both countries have decided to abandon neutrality and adopt joining NATO as their new security strategy. This disruptive evolution of diplomatic strategy has had a significant impact on the security of both countries and Europe as a whole. As of the writing of this article, Finland has already joined NATO on..

霸權妥協:解析各國為何遵循數位服務稅多邊建制
A Hegemon’s Compromise: Explaining States’ Compliance with the Multilateral Digital Service Tax Regime
蘇翊豪 (Yi-hao Su)
63卷1期(2024/03/01)

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..

美中貿易戰後的國際結構:政治兩極化會造成貿易關係兩極化嗎?
International Structure of the Post US-China Trade War: Political Bipolarization Leads to Bipolarization in International Trade?
林偉修 (Wei-hsiu Lin)
63卷1期(2024/03/01)

美中貿易戰宣告了兩國在國際政治的競爭局勢正式展開,2019年後的疫情更形加劇了兩國彼此的競爭關係。然而,美中對立下新冷戰的政治兩極化一定會造成國際貿易關係的兩極化嗎?世界各國真的會各自歸隊,在美國與中國之間擇一而處,形成兩極對立的局勢嗎?還是口頭上與行為上有差異,仍然依照國家自身的利益分別和美國和中國進行實質上的往來。本文即探討這個問題,比較疫情前後,國際貿易局勢的變化到底是趨向兩極化還是非兩極化。本文認為,新冷戰的局勢下,美中對立造成的政治兩極化無法避免,但政治兩極化不等於貿易關係兩極..

The U.S.-China trade war indicates a confrontation between the U.S. and China, and the pandemic problem since 2019 deteriorates the confrontation. However, will political polarization due to the new cold war between the U.S. and China lead to economic polarization? Do countries in the whole world choose their own sides between the U.S. and China, establishing two blocs and competing? Or countries in the whole world behave inconsistently in terms of verbal promises and practical actions. National interest is still their benchmark to have sub..

top