1973年西德聯邦憲法法院作出東、西德基礎條約判決指陳 ”基礎條約的特殊性在於，它雖是一項適用國際法規則、並且具有國際法條約效力的兩國間之雙邊條約，然而這兩個國家卻是一個始終尚存、又保有同一民族的整體德國之兩部份”。西德以「基本法（Das Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, GG）」治國，在政治自由與經濟成長的輝煌成果，對社會主義東德產生催枯拉朽的體系瓦解，並導致兩個德國在1990年10月3日正式復歸「統一」。 國族認同在德國既因為納粹時代的誤用而被視為一種罪惡及禁忌，二次戰後的德國人，既不能像其他國族國家的人民一般以土地作為政治共同體認同的對象，也不能繼續以國族為認同的對象，乃發展出以體制為認同的對象。統一後德國經濟的表現與落差，不如原先之預測與期待，隨之而來的是，認同自己是「德東人」的前東德人卻越來越多。1990年統一之初，有六成一的東德人回答自己是「德國人」，到了2000年時，認同自己是「東德人」的竟高達七成七。以歷史的角度來看，所謂的日耳曼民族「統一」，在漫長的歷史長河裏，是否竟成短暫一瞬？國族認同其實是不斷「轉變」、需要被「建構」？ 德東人的國族認同似乎印證此一說法。 / The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court in the Basic Treaty of 1973 stated “ The specialty of the treaty is that it applies to, as well as effects, a bilateral international treaty between two states which are existing for long and keep the same nation in the two divisions of the entire Germany as a whole.” The significant political freedoms and economic prosperity that West Germany established under the Grundgesetz (Basic Law), which across the border many of East Germany’s citizens looked to, eventually led to the collapse of socialist and the consequent official unification of two German states into one again on 3rd October 1990. Due to the Nazis’ distortion of national identity, as well as the changing border in historical Germany, an ideology of identity in political communities has appeared on “systems” for the postwar German, rather than on “nations” or “lands” as for people in other nation state. Alongside the social unequal and decline derived from the disappointing economic performance after unification, more and more pre East German now declare themselves “East German”. In 1990, 61% of pre East German recognized “German”, while in 2000 77% of those recognized “East German”. From the historical point of view, the so called “Germanic unification” ultimate becomes a short memory in the long history? National identity actually transforms and needs to be continuously constructed? The terms of pre East German seem in support of this indication.

國族是什麼？國族主義又是什麼？ 面對許許多多歧異又紛雜的關於國族與國族主義的論述，本論文嘗試另闢蹊徑，從哲學層面來闡釋這一問題。本文區分國族之形成的主觀條件與客觀條件，認為國族不同於國家與民族，不能單純以客觀條件作為依據，而是必須以主觀條件作為依據。本文又進一步區分形式條件與實質條件，認為主觀條件中必須同時包括形式條件與實質條件，也就是說，一群人若要組成一個國族共同體，這些人必須是出於各自之自由意志，決定共同組成一個不同於其他之團體的共同體，而且要尋找並形成某種歸屬核心，當做共同體之根本質素，使之成為維繫共同體之長久存續的道德基礎。 本文以羅爾斯的政治自由主義與民族觀點作為論述根基，由此開展一種新的國族觀點，一種特殊的、只在自由主義式的民主政治體制中存在的政治共同體。並認為，人類理性必然要求人類朝這樣的政治共同體邁進，使每個人的自由都夠有最合理的、最和諧的發展，而不致釀成戰爭衝突。 / What is “nation”? And what is “nationalism”? There are many diverse and conflicting theories about nations and nationalism. We look into these theories and then abandon them because there are too many definitions. We believe that the nation is a special and unique political community and it accrues only in the liberal constitutional democracy of the modern period. There are two kinds of conditions for the construction of a nation: the subjective condition and the objective conditions. The former is an inner characteristic, while the later are external features. Unlike a state or a people, a nation must be founded the subjective condition as much as the objective conditions. In other words, the subjective condition, human beings’ free will, is the essential bedrock for the construction of a nation. In this perspective, we further distinguish the formal condition from the substantive condition. The formal condition has no content; its only function is pure decision-making. If a group of people is willing to associate together and form a community, it’s necessary for them not only to make a decision but also to decide what community they want to be. Furthermore, they have to search for and fashion their own defining core as the underlying element of the community as well as the moral foundation for the continuance of the community. Based on John Rawls’ political liberalism and his views about peoples, this paper evolves a new viewpoint of the nation as a unique political community that exists only in the liberal democracy. We also assume it is required by human reason that mankind should move forward to such a political community, enabling everyone to develop his or her liberty in the most reasonable and harmonious way without leading to wars and conflicts.