本研究目的在建立美國傳統戰略模糊與臺灣避險策略間之理論關聯性。主要假設當臺灣從美國獲得較多且明確之安全承諾時，將可能更依賴美國安全保護傘，進而降低自身制定外交政策之自主與靈活性。過去數十年，華盛頓持續且長期的安全承諾，即有可能限制臺灣的避險策略選擇。本研究的實證證據，主要探討川普與拜登政府任內，華府戰略模糊逐漸轉變為戰略清晰下，臺北在美中兩強之間的外交政策。此外，藉由將避險的理論「模型化」，並區別避險與樞紐的關係，是本文另一個研究貢獻。

The study aims to establish a theoretical connection between strategic ambiguity and hedging policy. The assumption is that as Taiwan receives more security assurance and clarity from the United States, it may rely more on the U.S. security umbrella, reducing its autonomy and flexibility in crafting its foreign policy. Over time, consistent and prolonged security commitments from the United States could limit Taiwan’s hedging options, as it increasingly aligns with the U.S. position. The empirical evidence in this article explores how..

近年來，中美兩強權在印太地區的戰略競爭愈演愈烈。特別是在基礎建設上，所謂的聯通性戰略，更是兩國在印太地區較量的指標。隨著經濟的快速發展，印太地區對數位化所需的基礎建設越顯急迫。在新冠疫情後，印太國家更加關注高質量的網路基礎設施以及一些關鍵的數據驅動技術，包括人工智慧（AI）。因應此需求，中國早在「一帶一路」（Belt and Road Initiative, BRI）的旗幟下，提倡「數位絲綢之路」（Digital Silk Road, DSR），積極推進數位基礎設施合作。美國則提出了「自..

In recent years, the strategic competition between China and the United States in the Indo-Pacific region has intensified, particularly in the realm of infrastructure development. The concept of connectivity has become a key indicator of this competition, as both countries seek to expand their influence in the region. With the rapid economic growth, the demand for digitalizationrelated infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific region has become increasingly critical. In the post pandemic period, Indo-Pacific countries are more concerned about high..

對於強權並存且有爆發戰爭可能性的國際格局，戰爭由誰引發在學界的論點迥異。權力轉移理論認為崛起國基於不滿現狀，會對主導強權發起戰爭；另有聲音則認為衰退的國家基於預防性動機，會對崛起的對手採取行動；然而，權力轉移理論與預防性動機的論述，主要關注於戰爭的發動，此觀點反映一種以「戰爭」進行解析的框架，即探討國與國之間是否會發生戰爭。本研究則以另一個「非戰爭的攻防」的分析框架，論述主導強權與崛起國之間在兵戎之外的攻防行動。本文以美國在2022年施行的晶片與科學法案為例，論述美國對中國採行的非戰爭預..

In the international arena where powerful nations coexist, and the possibility of war exists, there are differing opinions on who triggers wars. Power transition theory suggests that a rising power will initiate war against a dominant power out of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Other argue that the declining state is motivated by preventive motivation to take action against rising adversary. However, both the power transition theory and the preventive motivation argument primarily focus on the initiation of war. This perspective refle..

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..

能源憲章條約於1998年生效，目前有54個簽署方，大部分位於歐洲與中亞地區。其目的為保障外國投資人免受地主國不當之管制或政治干預，包括訴諸投資人與地主國爭端解決機制之途徑。2018年啟動該條約之現代化談判，歷經約五年談判後，2022年6月24日能源憲章大會通過原則性協議，完成ECT之修正內容。雖然談判結果未將化石燃料投資排除於保障範圍之外，不過該條約現代化所帶來之實質性改變仍有所進展。儘管如此，部分歐盟會員國宣布退出能源憲章條約，歐盟執委會亦隨之展開協調歐盟及其會員國退出該條約。根據該條..

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) came into force in 1998 and is currently signed by 54 countries, mostly in Europe and Central Asia. Its purpose is to protect foreign investments from regulatory or political interferences of host State, including through investor-State dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). A negotiation to modernize the agreement was launched in 2018. On 24 June 2022, after five years of negotiations, the Energy Charter Conference Member States reached an Agreement in Principle regarding revisions to the ECT. Despite a crushin..