English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 49258/83791 (59%)
Visitors : 7141806      Online Users : 54
RC Version 7.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library & TKU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw:8080/dspace/handle/987654321/77539


    Title: 歐洲聯盟之政治正當性建構
    Other Titles: The construction of the political legitimacy in the European Union
    Authors: 黃英哲;Huang, Ying-Che
    Contributors: 淡江大學歐洲研究所博士班
    郭秋慶
    Keywords: 政治正當性;歐盟民主;績效正當性;歐洲認同;EU's Political legitimacy;EU democracy;performance legitimacy;European identity
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2012-06-21 06:56:59 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 歐盟的政治疆界在外部地緣與權力範圍不斷地伸展的同時,在價值上卻逐漸裂解為「菁英的歐洲」與「人民的歐洲」兩大板塊,尋根究底歸結的核心即是「政治正當性」(political legitimacy)問題,這個問題不在於歐盟菁英的擅權,而在於權責不明;不在於菁英的強勢,而在於缺乏人民的制衡,歐盟不僅是為各國政府設立的,更重要的是為歐洲人民而存在的。

    歐盟政治正當性問題浮出檯面最大的關鍵,在於歐洲整合從「經濟」共同體轉變為「政治」共同體,自從1993年「馬斯垂克條約」生效以來,歐盟體質的轉變讓原本統治與服從的關係進一步弱化,歷次條約改革的腳步明顯跟不上人民信任崩壞的速度;再加上歐盟擴大,短短十年內迅速從十五國擴編為二十七國,尤其是會員國之間經濟結構與區域高度的異質化,政治正當性「問題」日益蔓延成為「危機」。

    本論文認為歐盟的政治正當性概念,從規範(normative)與經驗(empirical)取向涵蓋了民主(Democracy)、績效(Performance)與認同(Identity)三大領域,在建構途徑的階段各有長短期程的優先順次。首先,就績效領域而論,無疑是構成歐盟政治正當性的基礎,歐盟必須在政治、經濟與社會各層級持續透過治理績效,來驗證歐盟存在的價值以及歐洲人民支持的理據;其次,在民主領域方面,「里斯本條約」確立了代議制民主為主、參與式與審議式民主為輔的「歐盟式民主」,而會員國國會勢必扮演更重要的角色;歐洲認同的發展是一個長期的過程,勢必在多層級(multi-level)認同的架構下依附民族認同,以「民族認同+歐洲認同」的形式存在。

    歐盟是獨具一格(sui generis)的政體,其政策領域與實體疆界仍不斷改變,因此,歐盟政體的性質決定了其政治正當性的建構途徑,以民族國家為主體的正當性模式非但無法全盤移植,這種轉移也未必對歐盟正當性產生助益,但可以確定的是,歐盟的正當性建構勢必難以脫離民族國家發展經驗鑿斧的痕跡。
    As the political territory of EU expands in terms of geography and power, its value is increasingly torn between “Europe des elites” and “Europe des citoyens”, with the upper class and the lower class wanting different kinds of Europe. The reason that the gap of the two classes is widening is complex, the core issue, however, lies in the political legitimacy. The problem is not the authoritarianism of the elite class but rather the ambiguity and confusion of authority and liability, not the aggressiveness of the elite but rather the lack of check and balance from the people. It is easy to forget that EU is not established for European governments but for all Europeans.

    The issue of legitimacy arose when the unification of Europe shifts from an economic body to a political body. With the Maastricht Treaty taking effect in 1993, the change of the EU further weakened its governance and its member’s obedience. Amendments of the Treaty have long been outrun by the deterioration of people’s trust. Rapid enlargement of the EU, from fifteen to twenty-seven within ten years, increased the heterogeneity of economic structure and sharpened the regional differences. Political legitimacy deteriorated from an issue to a crisis.

    This dissertation argues that the political legitimacy for the EU had adopted the concepts of the normative and the empirical approach to override those of Democracy, Performance, and Identity, with different sets of priority during the forming phases. First, performance was undoubtedly the foundation of political legitimacy for EU, which had to attest to its own value and to win support from the populace with its performance in political, economic, and social strata. Secondly, the Treaty of Lisbon asserted that the form of EU democracy would primarily be a representative democracy with subordinate participative and deliberative democracy. The national parliaments and their important roles in this democracy are not likely to change structurally in the near future. In the end, the Europe identity must rely on the national identity in a multi-level structure of identity, forming a “national-European” identity.

    EU, a sui generis and emerging governing body, is still changing its political and physical territory. The character of the EU body decides the formation of its political legitimacy. The mode of legitimacy for the national countries cannot be transplanted to nor does it benefit the EU legitimacy. What can be ascertained is that the construction of legitimacy for EU must be influenced by the developmental experiences of the national countries.
    Appears in Collections:[歐洲研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML147View/Open

    All items in 機構典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library & TKU Library IR teams. Copyright ©   - Feedback