壹、南海位處於太平洋和印度洋咽喉地帶，是亞洲和大洋洲中繼站，也是中國大陸通往印度、非洲和歐洲各國海上路線的重要門戶。南海連接東北亞和西太平洋到印度洋和中東，跨越南海的國際海上航線，每年全世界有超過一半以上的航運量行經南海；超過80％輸往中共、日本、南韓與我國的石油均通過此海域。對中共地緣戰略價值而言，是未來決定走向藍色海洋，掌握海上交通線，填補美蘇撤離後權力空隙的關鍵位置。 貳、中共建政初期忙於內鬥，無暇顧及海洋發展及權益，周邊國家覬覦南海戰略地位重要及經濟資源豐富，終導致長期紛爭；中共至改革開放後始改變政策，重視海上權益，積極發展海軍。周邊國家除侵佔南海島嶼，並企圖聯合國際力量將南海問題國際化，以制衡中共的強權作為。 參、中共一本慣用之「和戰兩手策略」，對南海地區在戰略考量上主要有二，一是以中國大陸經濟持續發展為目標，希望藉著推行睦鄰外交，營造和平穩定的周邊環境，甚至藉著與東南亞國家的經濟合作，深化彼此間共同利益來排擠其他外國勢力介入地區事務。二是以維護中共在主權、主權權利為目標，希望藉著強化軍事力量來威嚇各國，使區域內國家除在經濟合作外，不敢在主權爭議問題上挑戰中共。 肆、表面上，中共是以「主權屬我，擱置爭議，共同開發，和平解決」為其南海問題的政策立場，甚至以「擱置爭議，共同開發」來隱藏堅持主權毫不妥協的堅定政策。從中共的南海政策的實踐，可歸納為：「主權屬我，擱置爭議，共同開發，和平解決；拒斥強權，掌控區域，和戰兩手，漸次規復。」 伍、當「21世紀將是海洋的世紀」這一理念成為不可逆轉的發展趨勢時，針對南海石油資源而展開的交鋒，己經超越了主權爭端本身，成為南海爭端中最主要出發點。南海主權爭端終極目的是為了爭奪南海石油資源;而南海石油資源的最終佔有是以解決主權爭端形式加以保證。

南海海域以往僅不過是來往商船的航路與漁船作業的漁場，在1960 年代末期，該區域被認定蘊藏豐富的資源後，南海周邊國家開始爭相佔領附近島礁。再加上南海是某些國家戰略物資之必經航路，南海頓時轉變為重要的戰略要域，因多方國家經濟利益交錯複雜的牽扯下，地區亦時有摩擦事件發生，南海從此成為亞太地區的熱點。 外交是內政的延續，外交政策應在維護或爭取國家利益的先決條件下制定，並主導國家整體對外的作為，謀求國家在國際地位中的生存與發展。南海問題涉及國家事務，亦屬外交政策項下之一環，所以中國大陸南海政策，亦受其外交政策指導。中國大陸因為經濟力的發展，帶動了軍事力的茁壯，而使其遠在南海海域的諸島主權得以有軍事力量予以維護。也因其在南海地區的軍力強化，造成南海聲索國 普遍的不安。相對之下，各聲索國亦增購軍備，加強南海防務。再加上美國與東協組織的介入，使南海地區各方較勁的意味濃厚。 當南海各聲索國增購軍備，加強維護其南海所佔島礁主權時，同是南海聲索國的中華民國，雖對於軍事武力的建置從未懈怠，只不過所增強的軍事武力均建置於台澎金馬區域，而對於東沙群島的東沙島及南沙群島的太平島而言，中華民國是不是應當有完善的南海軍事戰略，足以維護其安全。 / The area of the South China Sea was route of the merchant ships coming and going and fishing ground for the fishing boats in the past. In the late 1960s, after this area was found with abundant resources, the surrounding countries of the South China Sea began to occupy the nearby islands and reefs. In addition, the South China Sea is the passage of some countries’ strategic materials; hence, the South China Sea tends to be an important strategic point. Regional frictions occur under the conflict of interests involving a number of surrounding countries. This is why the South China Sea becomes the flash point of Asian-Pacific area. Diplomacy is the continuity of the internal affairs. The foreign policy should be made under the preconditions of maintaining or striving for the interests of the State as well as the guideline for the State，s foreign affairs , seeking the State，s survival and development in the international arena. The issue of the South China Sea involves the national affairs, also affected under the foreign policy, so the policy of the South China Sea should be guided by their individual foreign policies. Mainland China，s military power is supported by its economic growth and cause an uneasy atmosphere for claimant in the area. As each claimant purchases arms and equipments along with the involvement of the U.S. and Association of South-east Asian Nations, the South China Sea becomes the hub of tension. When every claimant of the South China Sea purchases the arms, strengthening to safeguard the islands and reefs sovereign right in the South China Sea, Republic of China , one of the claimants of the South China Sea, although the building of the military power has never been stopped, but the focus has been placed only in Taiwan、Penghu、Kinmen and Matsu area. For Dongsha islands and Taiping island, whether the government of Republic of China should build a complete strategy of the South China Sea to maintain its security remains debatable.

南中國海內有零星島群，其中以南沙群島為最，乃是世上最多國家涉及主權爭端的海域，其背後有當年殖民主義所遺留下來的歷史因素、現代海洋法公約所造成的曖昧不清的劃界以及主權權利劃分的問題，以及海洋資源的爭奪與政治上戰略地位的考量。上述因素相互關連並交織成南沙群島的主權爭議，中華民國、中華人民共和國、越南、菲律賓、馬來西亞與汶萊六方各執一詞，從法理、歷史甚至是國土安全等論點來宣示主權，不過各爭端國在論點上各有利弊，所以南沙群島的主權劃歸至今仍無解。但是即便各方在主權議題上互不相讓，然而就南沙群島主權爭議而言，這些理性的行為者在幾番考量下仍願意共同合作。就目前的情況來看，先行暫時擱置主權，再進行共同開發似乎是唯一可行的方法，特別是合作的目標物為海上石油與油氣資源，因為能源資源乃是具有高度價值的不可再生性資源，而據相關單位估計，目前全球已開發的石油資源即將面臨耗竭狀態，因此潛在的石油存量才更加吸引各國的目光。 / 依照各方的合作意願與態度，本論文將以新自由制度主義中理性選擇下的合作精神與建制概念分析南海共同開發的可適用性與限制性。先論述共同開發的意涵，再闡述新自由制度主義與共同開發的關連性。接者為了配合南海的共同開發，筆者先介紹學者針對南海合作的觀點，再針對一九九零年馬來西亞與泰國暹邏灣大陸架資源共同開發案、二零零二年中國與越南北部灣劃界與漁業協定、二零零五年中、菲、越三國南海聯合海洋地震工作協議與二零零八年中國與菲律賓所發表的有關共同捕魚區的合作建議等四項案例作分析，從實際合作中探討未來針對南沙群島水域的共同開發可行性，並從新自由制度主義探討合作的展望與限制。 / Of all the islands in the South China sea, the island groups of the Spratlys is one of the most keenly disputed territories in Southeast Asia, where overlapping claims for sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction are hotly debated. There are a lot of reasons giving rise to the debate. First some scholars view the problem over the Spratlys as part of the historical legacies left behind by the former Western colonial powers. Second, other scholars place greater emphasis on ambiguous legal aspects of territorial jurisdiction. Third still other scholars emphasize political and geo-strategic considerations to explain the complex situation. Lastly nowadays a lot of studies focus on the possibilities of the discovery of major gas and oil field. Those perspectives above can explain why there is no concrete agreement among the six parties including the Republic of China, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Although the issue of sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction is too complicate to deal with now, those rational actors still may cooperate and jointly explore and exploit. At present the only possible way to joint development is to first put sovereignty aside and then collaborate. / In this thesis, the objective is to analyze the feasibility and limitation of joint development from Neo-liberal Institutionalism which is mainly about cooperation and regime. First I explain what joint development is and then analyze the linkage between Neo-liberal Institutionalism and joint development. And the next part focuses on the Spratly islands and I analyze four cases including the agreement between Malaysia and Thailand on the constitution and other matters relating to the establishment of the joint authority, the agreement between China and Vietnam on Beibu gulf, the joint authority agreement on joint seismic survey of the South China Sea among the oil companies of China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and the recommendation of common fishing zone. I analyze and predict whether the joint development is feasible in the future through the analysis of practical cooperation.