查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 重塑臺灣主權問題--國際法論述的變遷與競逐(1945~1979)=Reframing the Question of Taiwan's Sovereignty: Evolution and Contestation of International Law Discourses from 1945~1979 |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 廖柏翔; | 書刊名 | 中研院法學期刊 |
| 卷 期 | 37 2025.09[民114.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁185-272 |
| 分類號 | 571.16 |
| 關鍵詞 | 中華民國臺灣國家屬性; 臺灣國際法地位; 國家同一性; 國家延續性; 國家繼承; 臺灣法律史; 兩岸關係; Statehood of the Republic of China (Taiwan); International legal status of Taiwan; State identity; State continuity; State succession; Taiwan legal history; Cross-strait relations; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 本文以法律史研究方法,考察1945年至1979年間臺灣主權問題 之國際法論述,旨在脈絡化論述背景及論述間關聯性,並藉此反 思:背景差異下,當代研究者是否仍需沿用過往框架?有沒有哪項 國際法論述有助於鞏固中華民國(臺灣)國家地位,卻未獲重視? 本文在結論提出五項論點:一、1945年至1979年間對於臺灣主權問 題討論,有著「臺灣是否是中國領土?」及「兩岸是否存在兩個國 家?」兩對立觀點之五階段變化與競逐。二、國際法文獻與相關國 家的政策間,有著三種類型的互動關係。三、James Crawford在 1979年對臺灣主權提出的觀察,受到五項非法律因素影響。四、 「中國國家地位在1949年前後具備延續性」此項前提,雖獲過往立 場相異之論述接受,然此前提值得重新檢視。五、重塑臺灣主權問 題為:為什麼以國家同一性而言,中華民國(臺灣)和中華人民共 和國都不是1945年的中華民國? |
| 英文摘要 | This article employs legal history research methodologies to examine international legal discourse on Taiwan’s sovereignty from 1945 to 1979. It aims to contextualize the discourse of this period, and explore the interrelationships that existed at the time, to invite critical reassessment of whether contemporary researchers should continue employing past analytical frameworks given the contextual differences. Additionally, it seeks to reveal potentially overlooked international legal perspectives that could consolidate the statehood of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Finally, this article responds to the above through the following five arguments: First, international legal discourse from 1945 to 1979 evolved through five stages of competition between two opposing characterizations, each asking: “Is Taiwan part of Chinese territory?” and “Do two states exist across the Taiwan Strait?” Second, international legal scholarship can be identified as having interacted with the policies of pertinent states in three identifiable ways. Third, five extra-legal factors shaped James Crawford’s 1979 observations on Taiwan’s sovereignty. Fourth, the presupposition that China’s state continuity remained unbroken before and after 1949—although accepted across otherwise opposing viewpoints—merits contemporary reexamination. Fifth, the question of Taiwan’s sovereignty should be reframed as: Why, in terms of state identity, are neither the Republic of China (Taiwan) nor the People’s Republic of China the Republic of China of 1945? |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。