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..

本文探究歐盟整合過程中出現的多樣性整合模式，並進而探討不同的整合模式對兩岸關係的適用性為何。依據「國家認同與定位的相關性」及「是否為領導或創始國」等兩項變數，本文區分出歐盟四種整合模式:德國模式對整合運動的承諾與支持度最高，其次為芬蘭模式與法國模式，英國模式則為最低。基於台灣與中國大陸政府對台灣主權存在爭議的現實，持願景路線的德國或法國模式均無法適用於兩岸關係的整合模式，兩岸整合前景最好的情況為芬蘭模式，最不理想為英國模式。模型化的結果因而可以解釋為何兩岸日..

This paper investigates the diverse approaches of EU members’ integration with the EU through modeling, and assesses the applicability of each model to the Taiwan-China relations. Building upon two variables – ‘the association with national identity and reorientation’, and ‘being the leading or founding member’ – four EU members’ integrative models stand out. The German model is proven to be the most integrationist, followed by the Finnish and the French models. The UK model app..