我國實務見解對於載貨證券仲裁條款，拘泥於當事人簽名與否，不符國際公約與英美法制，亦抵觸仲裁法。按仲裁法理，載貨證券載有仲裁條款，而未抵觸相關定型化契約規範時，透過載貨證券交付，構成當事人仲裁合意;海商法第 78 條允許運送關係當事人約定仲裁地與仲裁規則，並視為仲裁協議一部份，明文承認載貨證券仲裁條款效力。關於載貨證券引置傭船契約仲裁條款之效力，因仲裁法強調仲裁合意之彰顯，故引置條款未指明引用傭船契約仲裁條款者，應認為未形成仲裁合意;反之、若明確指向傭船契約仲..

Regarding the formality of arbitration clause on bills of lading, our judiciary opinions are insistent upon the signature requirement of the involving parties, which contradict not only the international conventions and the Anglo-American legislations, but also our Arbitration Law. Under the Arbitration Law, a bill of lading containing an arbitration clause that constitutes consent to arbitration by exchange of letter or other communications between parties if the rules for adhesive contract terms are satisfied. Article 78 of..

國家機關(the State)是否利用國家資源干預市場(the Market)、國家機關是否應選擇某些特定產業加以扶植(selective policy)?這些投入資源是否能被有效達成發展的目的?是政治經濟學界有關「新古典經濟學派」與 「發展型國家學派」爭辯的焦點。在東協國家中，同樣自 1970 年代發展汽車產業，為何泰國與馬來西亞的汽車產業發展出現差距?差距是否源自國家機關與產業政策互動的結果?本研究藉由探討馬來西亞與泰國汽車產業的發展歷程，試圖比較與論證..

Whether should the state interfere the market by using state resources? Should the state cultivate certain industries? Does the state resources work to help the state achieve developmental goals? These are the arguments between the ‘New Classical Economics School’ and the ‘National Development School’. Automobile industries in both Thailand and Malaysia developed in the 1970s with governmental interference but the development in the two countries diverged. Does the difference come from the interactions..