近年來因國際與國內間天災或人為疏失接連發生，對於保險業而言，造成巨額保險金給付之損失，而再保險制度係為有效將風險分散之方式之一。我國保險業對於再保險安排依賴度普遍偏高，惟現行保險法就再保險制度之規範，僅於第三十九條至第四十二條有之，而無完備之立法，從而，再保險契約相關法律問題之研究對於原被保險人、原保險人及再保險人三方當事人而言係成為當前重要之課題。 　 　　再保險契約亦為保險契約之一類，故保險契約之基本原則亦可適用於再保險契約之中，主要有保險利益原則、最高誠信原則、損失填補原則等。其中由損失填補原則衍生出之法律問題，本文將具體探討者有二：一、原被保險人之直接給付請求權。二、再保險人之代位求償權。前者涉及民國九十六年保險法第四十條之修正，係賦予原被保險人對再保險人於另有約定時之直接給付請求權，該修正是否妥適，本文將詳加討論之。後者則為實務與通說容有爭議之問題，即再保險人是否享有代位求償權？原保險人於行使其代位求償權時，是否須將再保險人已為給付之部分扣除？本文亦加以討論之。另就最高誠信原則所衍生之法律問題，則為同一命運原則之解釋適用。實務上以同一命運原則拘束再保險人，使原保險人得以取得再保險保障，惟此原則仍應有其適用界線存在。參酌英美實務見解，本文將討論較常見之優惠賠款條款、懲罰性賠款條款及責任限額條款之解釋適用，並提出建議，以免爭議。希冀透過本文之探討得釐清再保險契約相關法律問題，對於法律工作者或實務工作者提供棉薄之幫助。

對於馬基維利（Niccolò Machiavelli, 1469-1527）政治思想的理解與詮釋解，向來是西方政治思想中爭論的課題。本論文即從個別行動者的角度出發，探討當他們有機會讀了《君王論》和《史論》，對於現實中的政治生活，有什麼體悟？對於自身的政治行動，起了什麼指導作用？針對這個問題，筆者歸納出三個主要的面向，試圖對馬基維利的政治思想，做一較為全面性的敘述。 　　首先，做為一個政治行動者，不論是一城之主，或者是伺機而起的臣民，馬基維利是否為他設下了行為的終極目標？ 　　筆者所欲提出的一個詮釋是，馬基維利在《君王論》中，雖然主要探討君主如何保障其統治地位，但他在一些段落文句中，對於祖國的繁榮昌盛、對於共善，透露出和《史論》一書相同的關懷。他認為理想的政治行動者最終應該為祖國、共善而奉獻。不過他也了解人類的本性是自利的，極容易為了追求財富、名望等個人私欲而忽視公共利益。那麼，要如何讓自私自利的人願意為國家共善服務呢？馬基維利並不採取改變人性的作法，而是藉著重新定義人們所追求的目標──「榮耀」──來解決這個困境。馬基維利主張政治行動的目的在追求榮耀，而惟有振興祖國、完成對公眾有益的壯舉，才能贏得永恆的榮耀。換句話說，政治行動者追求榮耀乃是基於個人欲望的滿足，但在這過程中，國家的共善亦獲得實現與促進。這個「榮耀」論述，正可以將個人私利與祖國共善連結起來。 　　接下來兩個面向則屬於實踐的層次。馬基維利政治思想的第二個面向，即在鋪陳行動者本身應具備哪些條件與特質，才能在權力的舞台上展露頭角、脫穎而出，進而促進共善、光大祖國，獲得榮耀。他運用德行與機運這一組古典的概念來分析政治行動者的崛起與敗亡，其論點存在傳承與具有革命性格之處。 　　第三個面向關注的焦點是，當政治行動者面對創建、改革政治社會等現實課題。關於城邦中政治制度的選擇，在王政與共和之間，馬基維利從效益的角度，認為共和體制最能夠達成與促進國家的共善，使祖國能夠在短時間內成長擴張，達到偉大的地位。然而在共和國中，自由生活有被野心人士腐化的危機，為了防止腐化的發生，必須在制度安排上去節制、疏導人們的野心，並且需要有德行的政治行動者將這些制度落實。要是當行動者身處的城邦已經腐化不堪，馬基維利認為此時惟有採行王政式的權力，也是就是以「一人支配」的形態，以血腥暴力等極端的手段，剷除原先的既得利益者，自由的生活才有可能重新建立。

本文是以新的基點，新的角度－「接受美學」來探討《三國演義》。優秀的文學作品本身就蘊藉著不同層次、不同色調的藝術資訊，就像開採不盡的礦藏一樣，對於不同時代的採掘者總能顯示出新的寓意。因此，每個時代的文學都是站在新的基點上透視以往的文學，由於一代代後世文學的批評和闡釋、發掘和引申，作品的色彩才能更加斑斕，意蘊才能更加豐富。 「文變染乎世情，興廢繫乎時序」一九八0年後大陸地區逐漸出現以「悲劇觀」詮釋《三國演義》的評論文字，《三國演義》的讀者是受了何種召喚？何以會陸續出現「悲劇觀」的評論文字，這種審美意識，與當時的社會、政治、文學風潮有何關係呢？發展情形又如何呢？這是此篇論文第二章所要論述的重點。 本文第三章所探討的是《三國演義》的悲劇意識與中國傳統文化的關係，「望今制奇，參古定法」是一切優秀藝術作品的共同特徵。古希臘的三大悲劇家，在他們現存的三十多種劇作中，除了《波斯人》之外，全部出自古希臘神話和史詩，莎士比亞的悲劇採用的也大多是舊有題材，同樣地羅貫中《三國演義》也不是無源之水，無本之木。 本文第四章是結合《三國演義》的歷史人物和故事，探討《三國演義》之悲劇觀，再將《三國演義》置於西方悲劇美學之中，觀察《三國演義》和西方美學對話之情形。不同時代的不同讀者，對《三國演義》的認識都是不同的，希望透過本論文的觀察，讓更多讀者明白《三國演義》的悲劇特質。

語言是文化的一部分，反映出一個民族的歷史傳統、生活方式與價值判斷，呈現其獨有的世界圖景，並與其他民族有所區別。生活環境的變遷會影響人的思維模式與價值取向，兩次世界大戰是至今為止人類社會所進行最大規模、傷亡最為慘重的全球性戰爭，長期處在戰爭的緊張情緒狀態之下，人的內心變得脆弱敏感，對事物的認知與感受力更加強化並且具體。 戰爭對俄羅斯民族與文化的影響可以從文學、電影、音樂等各方面探討。歌曲是大眾文化之一，歌詞的語言精練，篇幅不長卻具有完整的意境，而且帶有旋律，容易廣為流傳。歌詞的語言能夠概括地表達歌曲的意境與氛圍。本論文希望能透過歌詞文本的詞彙與概念分析，建構出俄羅斯戰爭歌曲的語言世界圖景。 本論文從俄羅斯戰爭歌曲中的關鍵詞彙探討俄羅斯語言文化的重要概念：祖國、勝利、愛、命運、生死與幸福，除了可以具體呈現抽象的俄羅斯民族心智，以語言學習的角度而言，理解這些概念所構成的語言世界圖景有助於了解俄羅斯民族的語言與文化，更能有效掌握重要詞彙的運用。本論文的語料來自俄羅斯戰爭歌曲的歌詞，除可作為語言學習者與教學者的語言文化、歷史主題課程補充教材，對於翻譯領域以及字典編撰領域也提供進一步的思考面向，更可為往後探討不同時代、類型或主題的歌曲中之語言世界圖景的研究提供參考與對照。

No description available.

再保險之目的，在於提供保險人保險保障。其方式乃再保險人就原保險人在原保險契約中所負之給付責任，予以部份或全部的補償。再保險契約就再保險人之再保險給付責任所為之約定，最常見者為「同一命運原則」之約定。依「同一命運條款」之字面解釋，此條款係指再保險人須與原保險人「同一命運」，於原保險人對被保險人為保險給付後，補償原保險人因對被保險人為保險給付所生之損害。 依據損害補償原則，須保險人之保險給付在保險契約及再保險契約之承保範圍內，再保險人始負再保險給付之責任。為了避免嚴格依據損害補償原則解釋再保險人之責任，造成保險人無法取得再保險保障之結果，並提高對於保險人之保障，再保險契約雙方乃藉由同一命運條款的相關約定，約定保險人只須證明其已向被保險人為補償給付且其給付係依「誠信」所為，再保險人即須同其命運，向保險人為補償給付。再保險人此一契約義務，乃再保險契約雙方當事人基於契約自由，於再保險契約中特別加入同一命運條款的結果。 保險人之「誠信」乃同一命運原則適用之基石，此為法院所共同肯認。然而，對於同一命運原則於個案中之具體適用，法院之看法似乎並無足夠的一致性。究竟，決定再保險契約雙方當事人權利義務的同一命運原則，法院如何解釋其適用上發生之爭議？又，法院對於抽象的誠信原則如何解釋？在同一命運原則的背景下，再保險人是否可以提出何種抗辯以免除其保險給付責任？最後，是否這些問題的解答可以有某程度的預測可能性，以供日後再保險契約雙方草擬同一命運條款之參考？ 針對保險人對被保險人所應為之補償，再保險人與原保險人可能有不同解釋，前者認為再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍，應以原保險及再保險約定之範圍為限；後者則認為凡保險人所給付與被保險人者，再保險人皆須與其同一命運，負擔給付責任。縱使再保險契約雙方皆主張其以再保險契約之約定為給付責任範圍之界定基礎，然基於利益彼此對立之立場，雙方對於「契約約定」往往有不同詮釋。再保險契約雙方間之爭議，實務上常見者如，原保險人對被保險人所給付之通融賠款（Ex-gratia payment）、懲罰性賠償（Punitive damages）等，是否屬於再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍？將此類爭議一般化，須探究者為，同一命運條款何種程度限制了再保險人對原保險人之給付表示異議的權利？ 另外，倘若再保險契約中沒有同一命運條款的約定，是否可認為此條款為再保險契約所「默示」（Implied）？此問題涉及同一命運原則的歷史背景，與再保險市場的運作實務息息相關，對於契約的解釋方法也有重要啟示。 同一命運原則為再保險交易發展史上，最常受到爭議的問題之一。現今之再保險交易環境已然愈趨複雜，不僅是所保危險之價額日趨提高，投入再保險交易之保險人數增加且交易類型複雜化，皆使得再保險交易雙方之風險分配及責任分擔，不再可以全然依賴保險人對於誠信原則之遵守。反之，應同時強調再保險與保險之不同，亦即，前者係由專業之保險人為交易雙方而進行之交易，故再保險人應可依其專業，對所保危險主動向保險人提出詢問，此亦顯示了保險人及再保險人間彼此合作愈趨重要，為再保險人負擔再保險給付責任之正當性基礎。本文嘗試處理以上提出的爭議問題，並對可能之解決提出建議。 / The reinsurance loss settlement clause, which appears in a variety of forms of wordings, historically has been one of the most difficult aspects of reinsurance law and practice. In recent days, more and more litigation has arisen as a result of such clauses. This study centers upon the interesting and oftentimes confusing issue of the scope and effect of such clauses, and how they define both the reinsured’s and the reinsurers’ liability. The purpose of reinsurance is to provide insurance protection by the reinsurer for the reinsured, namely, the insurer. At the beginning of reinsurance history when there were only a small number of insurers operating in the insurance market, insurers were fairly familiar with one another, and that resulted in a minimum of formality in doing business. In terms of reinsurance, reinsurers, when asked to pay by their reinsured, normally did not go out of their way to initiate a de novo review or assessment of the risk insured. The main reasons for such practice were, for one, insurers were so familiar with their business partners that they did not see the need for such re-assessment of the risk, and for another, in the past, the nature of the risks insured was not as complicated as those we are faced with nowadays. With a view to enhancing business efficiency and providing better protection for insurers, the parties that engaged in a reinsurance agreement oftentimes would insert into the agreement a “follow the fortunes” or “follow the settlements” clause. Such clauses bound the reinsurers to follow the fortunes/settlements of their reinsured without the reinsured’s liability having been proved, and restrained the reinsurers from refusing to indemnify the reinsured on the ground that liability did not exist under the original policy, provided that the reinsured had acted in a bona fide and businesslike way. In a word, the existence of the loss settlement clause was a logical consequence of the purpose of reinsurance, and the reinsurers’ obligation under such clauses was conditioned on the reinsured’s good faith. Reinsurance loss settlement clauses have been interpreted by the court rather favorably for the reinsured. Courts would normally find coverage for the reinsured, once they decided that the reinsured had acted in good faith in settling with the insured, even if they held that the reinsured had not been legally liable. This fact highlights the importance of the reinsured’s duty of utmost good faith in reinsurance law and practice. However, what exactly is good faith, and what are the reinsured’s obligations under the good faith requirement? Is there a general rule that the courts have developed to justify their finding of the reinsured’s good faith? If good faith, being abstract in itself and susceptible to courts’ subjective discretion, serves as the “standard” to evaluate or define the liability of the parties to a reinsurance agreement, how does it usually function? Does it at times seem so abstract and variable that the reinsurance agreement parties have a hard time predicting their liability under such a standard? Also, in this study, the questions of the implication of loss settlement clauses and the scope or effect of such clauses are explored. The former question asks, where the reinsurance contracts do not contain any “follow the fortunes or settlements” provisions, does the law, custom or practice read into the contracts any obligation on the reinsurer to follow its reinsured’s fortunes or settlements? This question is important in that it deals with the applicability of loss settlement clauses, and thus has a fundamental impact on how reinsurance contracts are interpreted. The latter question aims at clarifying how loss settlement clauses are applied to pertinent areas such as ex gratia payments, punitive damages, reinsurers’ liability caps, payments related to the Wellington Agreement and claims cooperation clauses. Specific examples are given here in order to better understand how loss settlements clauses are put to practical use. Discussion concerned with this question also demonstrates how a loosely worded loss settlement clause could give rise to disputes between the parties. To better define the parties’ rights and obligations under a reinsurance agreement, a more detailed review of how the reinsurance environment as a whole is functioning and how the courts interpret reinsurance loss settlement clauses is required. This issue will be even more worth pondering now that we are seeing a more complex reinsurance market where the parties’ interests are potentially conflicting, which is per se a challenge to the general view that the reinsurers should follow the fortunes or settlements of the reinsured.

台灣早期的幼教發展，於政府長時期疏於管理下，導致現今幼教界存在諸多糾結複雜的問題，這些客觀外在環境條件所產生的問題，直接衝擊幼教核心之一「教師」角色的生存空間。在高師資流動性特質之幼教場域中，那些資深專業工作者如何能夠在所處的社會情境脈動中，長時期持續朝向自我選擇之幼教職業道路推進，為本研究的核心關注。透過一位資深幼教工作經歷的園長之生命視窗—她的工作經驗世界，理解幼師職業生涯運轉歷程的樣貌；並從主體生命故事敘說之縱向歷史回顧中，理解其中透露的重要社會結構變遷訊息。 本研究採取質性研究方法中的傳記研究取向，以德國社會學者Fritz Schütze所發展之「敘述訪談法」(narrative interview)進行資料採集工作，訪談一位具有二十九年幼教工作經歷的幼兒園園長。訪談結果整理為敘述文本後，並參照Fritz Schütze所提出的理論建構分析方案，對文本進行結構描述以及概念抽象化分析的整體形塑，以回應欲探究的問題。 經過資料分析過程，逐漸釋出本研究主體—杏芬園長「不成長就會被淘汰」的生命信念意涵，文本透露出自我完成性在主體生命開展歷程中，為一種突破環境限制與期望朝向更好的動力，促使主體一再超越現實環境的限制，萌生其積極性意義。「不進則退」生命觀於時間流動中架構出主體的生活經驗世界，形成生命能量內塑與外推之上揚動力，於接受工作挑戰與追求成長歷程中蛻變。於是可以看出，環境或自我本身的未確定性，雖然帶來了限制，卻也充滿無限可能性。最後，研究者就文本解析之內容，提出「公私幼消長生態下幼師的生存處境」議題進行探討；並且參照Csikszentmihalyi創造力系統論觀點，建立一個類似的系統原型，從個人、學門及領域三個面向，闡釋研究主體長期安身立命於幼教職業工作中的可能因素。 / “Either growing or eliminating”— A description analysis of a kindergarten teacher’s life revolving Due to the lack of management by the government in Taiwan in early years, there are many problems that exist in the field of early childhood education. Those impact the survival of the key personnel, the teachers, in this field directly. In the social context of high turn over ratio of the teachers in this field, how senior teachers keep standing fast at the post and moving forward is the center concern of this research. By interviewing a senior teacher’s working experience, the researcher gets to know the different patterns of the career of a kindergarten teacher; further more, to comprehend the transition of the social structure from reviewing the history in which the story happened. This research adopts biographic study under the qualitative methodology, and collects the data with “narrative interview” developing by Fritz Schűtze, a Germany sociologist. After interviewing a kindergarten principal, Sin-feng, who has been working for twenty-nine years in the early childhood education field, researcher followed Schűtze’s theory construction and analysis to analyze and shape the structure description and abstract concepts. After the process of data analysis, “either growing or eliminating” shows up to be Principal Sin-feng’s belief. The text shows that in one’s life process, self-completion is a motivation that can break through constrains of environment and head to a better situation. Therefore, we can see that although the uncertainty of environment and oneself can be constrains, it can also bring the unlimited possibility. At the end, researcher raised the topic of “kindergarten teachers’ subsistence in the growth and decline of public and private kindergartens” for discussion. Researcher revised and constructed a similar system from the creativity systematic viewpoint raised by Csikszentmihalyi, to explain the possible reasons, from personal, subject, and field aspects, that make the research object stay in the same career for such a long time.

男同志愛滋病患者的心理狀態一直是美國愛滋病研究的邊疆區域。大多數的國家政策多著重於此一族群的身體狀況以及疾病本身的研究。這些政策往往忽略了自我和解對於男同志愛滋病患者來說的重要性，殊不知自我和解是男同志愛滋病患者對抗全景式迫害的重要策略之一。賴瑞克萊默《正常心》及《我的命運》處處顯示對於此一策略以及國家社會對於男同志愛滋病患之迫害的關注。透過主人公奈得從愛滋鬥士到染病再到自我和解的過程，這兩齣戲劇重砲抨擊了國家社會不公，並同時點出受迫害者對抗這些不公不義的必要性。在此之下，傅科對於權力以及抗拒的討論適足為本論文的理論出發點。本論文藉助傅科的觀點來討論國家社會迫害男同志愛滋病患背後的深層因素，並進一步探討這些被迫害者中可能產生的抗拒策略。本論文分成四個部份：除了導論和結論外，第二章著重美國國家社會對於男同志愛滋病患者的歧視及壓迫，以及形成這些迫害的原因，並進一步檢視《正常心》及《我的命運》裡男同志愛滋病患者的困境。第三章討論這些被迫害者不同的反壓迫策略，以及這些策略對於男同志愛滋病患者身心的影響。 / The psychological condition of the HIV-positive is always peripheral to the governmental studies of HIV/AIDS in the United States. Compared with the governmental studies, Larry Kramer's The Normal Heart (1985) and The Destiny of Me (1992) lay more emphases on the psychological conditions and transformations of the HIV/AIDS patients. These two plays demonstrate the homophobic disciplines and regulations performed against the homosexual HIV-positives in the discourse of HIV/AIDS. In addition, through Ned Weeks's transformation and resistance, these two plays illuminate on the lesson, self-knowledge, and self-reconciliation that empower the diseased gay men to survive in the crisis of HIV/AIDS. This thesis makes resort to the studies of Michel Foucault, particularly his concepts of anatomo-politics and biopolitics as well as his exegeses of the dynamics between the persecutor and the persecuted. Foucault's theories are insightful in understanding the underlying homophobia behind the policies in a normalizing society. His studies envision the possibilities of resistance alongside these homophobic panoptic persecutions. This thesis is divided into four chapters. The second chapter examines the disciplines and regulations over the diseased homosexuals in The Normal Heart and The Destiny of Me. The third chapter focuses on the transformations of Ned from a polemicist to a reconciliationist as well as his resistance to the panoptic persecutions. The concluding chapter reconfirms that the lesson and growth of a gay HIV-positive patient rests on self-reconciliation.