本文以「邊緣性」(marginality)的概念,詮釋小國愛沙尼亞(Estonia)的安全政策。「邊緣性」兼具地緣政治、認同、權力關係等多重意涵,適合用以探討小國的安全政策。從此觀點來看,位居邊緣位置的小國,不必然總是受制於中心或大國主導的秩序;由於前者本身是構成秩序的一部分,它也具有影響中心的可能性。後冷戰時期的愛沙尼亞,在外交與安全政策上可說由俄羅斯轉向西方。在這個置換中心的過程中,它一方面向新的中心(北約與歐盟)表達向心力,積極參與其主導的秩序,另一方面也藉由強調其特殊性,而影響北約與歐盟對俄羅斯與其他後蘇聯時期國家的政策。儘管有這些正面的事例,愛沙尼亞的策略卻也有其限制,例如它的觀點與批判,最終無法影響德國與俄羅斯主導的天然氣管線計畫。中心與邊緣的關係,因而是動態且有不同可能性的。
This paper attempts to (re)interpret Estonia’s security policy by adopting the concept of “marginality,” an idea that bears such elements as geopolitics, identity, size and power relations, and is therefore suitable for studying small states’ security policies. A small state located at the margin is not necessarily constrained by or subjected to the great power at the center, because as a constituent part of the very relationship, the margin always has certain potential to exert influence on the center. In the case of post-Cold War Estonia, the state has undergone a reorientation of foreign and security policy away from Russia and towards the West. In this process of “center- substitution,” Estonia has shown a great commitment to the new center by actively taking part in the order(s) constructed by the NATO (the United States in particular) and the EU. In addition, through exploiting its marginal position between Russia and the West, Estonia also seeks to shape the attitude of the NATO and EU towards the old center, Russia, and other post- Soviet states. Despite these positive practices, there are also limits to Estonia’s room of maneuver. An example in this regard can be found in Estonia’s failed attempts to overturn the “Nord Stream” gas pipeline project conducted and promoted by Germany and Russia. The relationships between a center and a margin therefore are dynamic and can have various outcomes.
台灣四大族群的比例,在過去有戶籍資料身分可供參考,而在民國 81 年之戶籍法新修正規定,除原住民身分與族別外,其他族群並不記載。因此族群間的明顯分界線一夕消失,然而四大族群仍然存在。 欲瞭解現今台灣四大族群間的人口比例,通婚情況是必要瞭解的問題。本研究發現,過去傳統以父親為主要認同的方式,正逐漸發生變化,而這與父母親輩之族群通婚有相當大的關係。尤其以目前台灣在社會政治上,皆以台灣優先為本位,而本省閩南族群又為優勢族群,因此只要與本省閩南..
There used to be household registration data on the percentage of the major four Taiwanese ethnic groups. However, based on the amended Household Registration Law in 1992, only indigenous people and their tribes are identified in the database. While the distinct categorization among the four groups blurred overnight, the four groups remain. In order to understand the population percentage among the four groups, it’s necessary to understand the inter-group marriage. In this research, it has found that the trad..
中日第二次戰爭(即對日抗戰,1937~1945 年)時期,交戰各方為爭奪南洋華僑群眾支持,遂發展政治論述(discourse)。由於「國族」(nation)並非東亞固有觀念,因此華僑國族認同成為當時重要課題。本研究將以戰時各方之調查報告、政策文獻、外交檔案為核心,研究「國共汪日」四方之華僑政治論述基礎、主要政策與華僑群體的應對過程。研究發現:華僑社群原接受中國傳統思想,以各種親屬與文化關係維繫對中國認同,故國民政府在當時以各種團體為中介,實行「抗日救國」的國..
During the Second Sino-Japanese War, a.k.a. War of Resistance (1937~1945), both China and Japan attempted to gain support from overseas Chinese using their different political discourses. The concept of “nation” was not originated in East Asia but highly propagandized during this war period. This article analyzed and compared various discourses on overseas Chinese mobilization submitted by four actors─Chiang(Choung- ching government ), Wang ( Nanking government ), Mao ( Yen-an government), and Empire Japan ─ using..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.