企業併購法經由政府全力推動下，民國91年初立法通過，同時修訂公平交易法及證券交易法，掀起我國企業併購熱潮。然而，快速立法之後果即缺乏相關法令間互相配合，企業併購法與公司法、金融控股公司法、金融機構合併法相關法規有重疊之處，財政部亦陸續發布相關解釋函令，於實務上因併購產生之相關稅務爭訟，以企業併購交易以所得稅之課徵引發較多爭議。 　　 　　企業併購係企業追求利潤的手段之一，最終的目的係為追求經濟的提升，故我國歷經多次修法，以求減低企業併購所可能發生之障礙。但在企業併購實務中，法律風險並非併購雙方唯一之考量，財務風險、管理風險及稅務風險亦為併購時均應納入之考量。本研究為求企業併購之順利，以稅務爭議所帶來之風險為中心，探討目前稽徵實務上常出現的爭議，以法律割裂適用、虧損扣抵之繼受、租稅優惠之繼受、商譽認定及攤銷，以及視為股利此五個爭點為研究中心，蒐集相關文獻、期刊雜誌及法律規範開始研究，並從司法案例做個案討論，就企業併購實務提出研究結果及建議，使在企業併購過程中能妥善對風險有所控制，提高企業併購的成功率，減少企業併購失敗所來的社會成本耗損，以提高社會資源之利用。 / With the effort to legislation by government, mergers and acquisitions Act was enacted in early 2002. In the meanwhile, the Fair Trade Act and the Securities Exchange Act were amended. However, the consequences of rapid legislation lead to Merger and Acquisition Act overlap in Company Act, Financial Holding Company Law, and relevant laws and regulations. Ministry of Finance has also been released many tax regulations of income tax levied on corporate mergers and acquisitions, which lead to much controversy. In the practice of mergers and acquisitions, legal risk is not only the consideration, but also financial risk, management risk and tax risk should be considered. For completing mergers and acquisitions smoothly, this essay is from the viewpoint of tax dispute, studying the division of laws, succession to loss carry forwards, succession to tax incentives, the recognition and amortization of goodwill, and constructive dividend income. According to these five disputes, the relevant literature, journals and laws are included in this essay. Consequence and recommendations from the judicial cases are provided to mergers and acquisitions practice so that the risks can be properly controlled to some extent, improving the success rate of mergers and acquisitions, reducing the social costs of mergers and acquisitions, and improving the use of social resources.

由於過去曾有少數論文提及保險爭議之處理方式，但隨著保險實務運作日趨靈活及仲裁法之修改，對於有關保險爭議仲裁卻少有文章論述或論述不深。 本篇論文主要在闡述仲裁制度地運作下，保險爭議如何圓滿迅速地解決。因此本文將首先介紹各種解決爭議的方法，如：申訴、協商或和解、調停或調解、仲裁、訴訟及其他爭議處理方法。再者，討論仲裁協議中有關仲裁協議之形式要件及提交仲裁用語之各項疑問。進而討論保險爭議仲裁制度運作時，可能面臨提交仲裁範圍為何、保險契約仲裁條款是否構成書面合意之仲裁協議及保險契約仲裁條款究竟可拘束哪些對象等等問題。並蒐集國內外之保險仲裁條款，加以分析、評論其優劣。最後於結論時，說明保險公司應如何妥善處理爭議，以及哪些險種適合利用仲裁排解紛爭，如何訂定保險爭議仲裁範圍較妥適，並於論文節末建議相關機構努力之方向。 / There were used to a few papers or articles studying in the insurance dispute resolutions in past years. As by Arbitration Act has modified creatively in 1998, a lot of insurance companies have begun to manage claim arguments between insurer and insured to Arbitration; however, few articles discuss in relating to insurance dispute arbitration or just refer it but not deeply enough. The objective of the paper is to explain how Arbitration to resolve insurance disputes perfectly and fast. First, this paper introduces some usual dispute solutions, for example: complaint, negotiation or compromise, mediation or conciliation, arbitration, litigation, and alternative dispute resolutions. Second, talking about how parties of the insurance contract make an effective arbitration agreement? What conditions should be fulfilled? What words used to refer to arbitration may fear of contradiction? Third, researching materials relating to the problems of insurance dispute arbitration, including what kinds of disputes are sued to refer to arbitration? Does the insurance arbitration clause constitute an effective arbitration agreement with mutual agreement? Whom an arbitration agreement is binding upon? Fourth, the paper analyses domestic and foreign insurance arbitration clauses, at the same time, tries to discuss their advantages or disadvantages. At the end of this paper, suggesting how the insurance company resolves insurance disputes, analyzing what kinds of policies are sued to arbitration, how the insurers to make useful and effective insurance arbitration clauses and how all the parties to make an effort to insurance dispute arbitration.

Due to the globalization of economy, the protection of intellectual property rights becomes very important, not only on a national and local basis but also on an international basis. The evidence is coming from the negotiation and ultimately the inclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, or Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, into the World Trade Organization. In the TRIPS Agreement, one of the protections to a local intellectual property on an international level is the protection of geographical indications, and such protection can be found in Articles 22 through 24 of the TRIPS Agreement. Geographical indications identify goods as originating in a particular territory or region, and also indicate quality by letting consumers know that the goods come from an area where a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of the goods is essentially attributable to their geographical origin. The protection of geographical indications has always been on the table and been mentioned in various international treaties, and eventually came together under the TRIPS Agreement. The different ways for geographical indications protection is examined in order to understand the different national regulations used in various countries as a tool to protect the geographical indications, hence, to protect intellectual property rights. The major issue regards the scope of protection is the extension of the TRIPS Article 23; diverse opinions and suggestions are coming from US and EU, the two biggest sovereignties. This also can be seen in the result of the WTO dispute case of EC – Trademarks and Geographical Indications. The future developments such as the negotiations for a multilateral system of register for geographical indications, the progress of developing countries toward protection of geographical indications and the involvement of the traditional knowledge, all play very crucial roles on the enforcement of geographical indications protection. This paper will explore all these matters.

勞雇關係幾乎為每個人重要的社會身分，人生中有絕大部分的時間，都作為一個「勞工」在生活著，勞資爭議調解為勞工用以實踐「權利」主要途徑，因而，本研究聚焦於勞資爭議調解中的糾紛、話語以及其中之權力關係，採用法律的文化分析取徑，以描繪出「權利」在勞資爭議調解中，如何地透過眾人之手、努力、血汗「打造」而成的過程。 　　為什麼政府人員、調解人盡心盡力地處理當事人的勞資糾紛，甚至是調解人表示其較為偏向勞工的情況下，多數的勞工還是對於勞資爭議調解的結果不甚滿意？本研究的問題意識為：權利如何在勞資爭議調解中「打造」以及「被打造」？本研究透過非參與式觀察十一個案件，訪談七名勞工、五名勞資爭議調解之調解人以及相關政府文書之分析，以期回應本研究之問題意識。 　　本研究認為勞資爭議調解中的格式化過程是具有「任意性」的，從糾紛到案件的過程中會貼上什麼樣的「標籤」，當事人對此失去控制，因此對於糾紛的轉化感到無力。而在以法律、證據、法律文件等法律話語為主的勞資爭議調解中，一個糾紛如何被「命名」為案件，則涉及了命名的權力競逐。調解為雙方合意作成的決定，調解人未如法官具有國家賦予命名的強制力，需要透過「資源的動員」以取得命名之權力，勞資雙方也透過專業人士的轉譯，將日常語言轉譯為法律語言，以爭奪命名之權力，而此過程牽涉當事人的經濟上實力，因而在勞資爭議調解中再現了社會階層結構。 　　在觀察勞資爭議調解中勞工的法意識，我發現傳統的「認份」、「互相觀」與現代法律權利之交織，影響了勞工的法律行動。而勞工進入勞資爭議調解時，期望勞資爭議調解如同父母官為其主持公道，但又因勞資糾紛的格式化、權力不平等結構之延伸等權利實現之困境，使得勞工對勞資爭議調解在「期待與失望中擺盪」，然而，即使失望，仍僅得再回到該程序再度主張權利，而在勞工透過勞資爭議調解與雇主拉開距離的同時，也拉近了與國家的距離－即使對於國家感到失望。 　　本研究指出了一個對於糾紛解決機制研究之可能分析框架：「糾紛的格式化」、「話語模式」、「法意識」，在此研究框架之下，得以分析糾紛解決機制中權力關係的運作過程。最後，本研究認為權利是在一場場的爭戰中實現，並非是抽象而先驗的存在，而是在一個個的行動中「打造」而成。

根據過去研究發現，電視新聞已成為台灣地區民眾主要的消息來源，而轉型期的台灣 社會，各種不同層面的社會衡突正與日俱增，電視以其社會公器的本質所提供的公共 議壇，如何在有限的時間內，讓社會上各種聲音都有機會出現在新聞中，這就牽涉到 消息來源選取的問題；此外，電視媒介對消息來源所作不同程度的處理，亦是一種社 會權力的展現，有其重要的社會意義。 本研究乃以電視新聞中的爭議性新聞為對象，研究新聞中之消息來源以及對於消息來 源的處理方式，並藉此探討不同特性之消息來源的言論導向。 本研究共分四章，約五萬四千字。第一章為研究動機、目的以及文獻探討。第二章為 研究方法，詳述其抽樣與內容分析之類目建構。第三章為研究結果報告。第四章則對 結果提出討論與建議，並說明其研究限制。

「Wason選擇作業」是推理心理學領域中相當經典的作業，由於原版的 「Wason 選擇作業」正確率相當低，引發許多學者相繼投入研究，並形成了各種理論。例如「實用推理基模理論」、「社會契約理論」、「相配偏誤理論」、「訊息獲得量理論」、「關聯性理論」等等。歷經約四十年的研究，「Wason選擇作業」從經典的推理作業至今則被許多研究者質疑其成為研究推理歷程作業的 適當性，有些研究者則認為「Wason選擇作業」應被視為決策作業而非推理作業，並認為參與者在這個作業上不會表現出合於邏輯的推理能力。本研究重新以「規範性理性」的角度探究參與者在這個作業上的表現。研究一以「命題解讀作業」做為輔助，發現至少三成的參與者在傳統抽象型式的「Wason選擇作業」中的選擇行為是符合邏輯對應的，這樣的比例並不低於「命題解讀作業」本身的「正確」率。由於在傳統「Wason選擇作業」上要有「正確」表現須正確解讀命題且無其他形式誤解題意再加上符合邏輯的選擇歷程，低正確率可能僅是各歷程「正確」率相乘的效果，而非「選擇歷程」不具邏輯性所致。研究二則以「雙思考系統理論」的觀點設計有利於「系統二」(即分析性系統)歷程表現的評估型「Wason選擇作業」，實驗一與實驗二分別有約四成及五成七的參與者表現符合「規範性理性」的預期。本研究認為過去多數「Wason選擇作業」的研究著重在研究「系統一」(即聯結性系統)的歷程，故未能觀察到參與者高程度的邏輯表現。本研究結果顯示「規範性理性」在「Wason選擇作業」仍扮演重要角色。本研究最後提出新的研究取向並討論「理性爭議」的課題。

從1968年的《中俄尼布楚條約》到2004年的《中俄國界東段補充協定》，中俄邊界爭議談判歷時三百多年，在這漫長的期間內彼此的國界線也曾數度遷移。本文探討兩國國界複雜多變的形成過程，來歸納出造成雙方邊界變動的結構性因素為何。 一般習慣將中俄國界區分為東、中、西三段，這其實是經過長期的歷史演變而來的概念，早期的邊界條約並非一定是依此方式分段簽訂。若依此地理分法，雖可詳細了解各段邊界的演變經過，但部分涵蓋範圍較廣的條約將被迫拆散或是重複討論，失去了完整性。因此本論文以歷史事件的順序為章節安排，如此一方面可顧及條約的完整性，二方面也較易釐清各階段的歷史脈絡。 此外，本論文的研究重點強調在各重要邊界條約的談判經過，藉著中俄雙方互相角力的過程，來剖析出兩國國界線擴張與限縮的關鍵因素，最後並以條件的滿足來解釋中俄國界得以確定。 / From “The Treaty of Nerchinsk”(1689) to “The Supplementary Agreement on the Eastern Section of the China-Russia Boundary Line”(2004), negotiations on the Chinese-Russian border disputes lasted more than 300 years. In this prolonged period the demarcation line of boundaries changed several times. This thesis explores the structural factors of the complex forming process of Sino-Russian borderlines. Actually, the conventional concept of the three border sections of east, central, and west between China and Russia comes from the long-term historical evolution. The early boundary treaties were not necessarily signed by both sides section by section. If we use the geographical taxonomy as the thesis’s analytical structure, we may understand each border section’s formation in details, but we will not capture the whole picture of Sino-Russian border negotiations because some broad-scoped treaties which comprised not just one specific border section have to be divided into sections or resulted into overlapped discussion accordingly. Alternatively, the organization of this study takes historical events chronologically to maintain the border treaties’ wholeness in their precise historical contexts. Moreover, this thesis emphasizes the negotiation processes of important boundary treaties between China and Russia in terms of comparative power strength, which decided the expansion or shrinkage of each other’s boundary and the final settlement of Sino-Russian border dispute.

本研究以上海市社會局為主體，探討其從1945年10月至1949年4月間各項業務執行的情況及其市民生活的關係。首先從社會局的職權與人事談起，社會局最早成立於1927年7月，負責農工商業相關行業的註冊、處理勞資糾紛與相關統計。一年後職權增加了對人民團體和社會福利機構的管理，也負責各種度量衡器具的檢定，戰後再增加糧食管理及書報影劇審查兩項工作。就人事方面而言，社會局局長以吳開先在任的時間最長，同時他也出任市黨部的執行委員會委員。另外針對1948年社會局全體公務員的學經歷進行分析，發現49歲以下的職員占絕大多數，以學歷而言，超過半數的男性職員受過不同程度的高等教育，女性職員是以中學學歷者占多數，附屬機構的公務員則更年輕，學歷也相對較低。與戰前的社會局相比最大的特點在小學以下的成員大幅減少和隨著局長異動而大量換人的情形也不復存在。 本研究的其他部分皆與社會局如何執行它的職權有關，分為四大主題：(1)報紙、雜誌、通訊社審查；(2)電影戲劇審查；(3)調整工資及調解勞資爭議；(4)對人民團體的管理。 在報紙、雜誌、通訊社審查部分，共舉行了三次大規模清查措施，只有1949年3-4月的「報刊總清查」才有比較主動的抽查措施。在獲准發行的報紙與雜誌中有一個特點，就是越晚獲得許可的刊物轉呈次數越多，可見社會局沒有最終決定權。在沒有獲得發行的報紙與雜誌中，社會局常以「申請手續不完整」的理由(包括各種文字)讓申請案無法通過，數量上甚至多過發行後才被查禁的。 社會局對電影影片的審查是某種形式上的複審，重點是核對內政部發給的准演執照是否相符。劇團、票房和俱樂部審查強調的重點是表演內容，包括所有劇本、科白與節目流程都要申請核准方能表演。總計3202部電影中未通過審查的只有28部，凡是有墮落的、不符現實的場景與情節都會被要求刪減或修改。劇本審查方面，可能出於受戰爭影響無暇創作或比較容易通過審查，大多以重演舊的劇目為主。 工人工資的調整以市政府每月發佈的生活費指數乘上1937年6月的底薪為計算方式，與糧食價格互相比較，貨幣購買力逐確實漸下降，使得多數工人不足以養家活口，所以勞資爭議越來越多。而就勞資爭議進行分析，以有沒有發生罷工停業分為兩類，有罷工停業的案件有589件，沒有罷工停業的則有5521件。就行業類別來看，與上海的產業結構相符，以紡織業最多。從具體的個案討論中，社會局確實努力促成和解，但卻沒有能力預防與阻止勞資爭議與暴力衝突。 人民團體分為資方的同業公會、勞方的工會、與一般民眾的社會團體，三者的數量在戰後四年間皆有顯著的成長。從電影院公會的例子可以看出，公會與社會局爭執的焦點在票價的調整，還有公會也必須負責各種臨時性或經常性的賑災捐款。相關資料也顯示，社會局對於勞工福利設施推行不力，也無法控制工會基層組織，在那些被共產黨吸收的工會中，社會局只能在警察局取締之後，解散工會再加以重組，無法有效防止共產黨的滲透。社會團體的問題在於社會局僅僅做到登記的工作而無法加以有效的管理，即使是國民黨成立的團體也是如此。 整體來說，社會局在這四年的時間裡，雖然進行很多種的社會統計，也透過機關刊物向民眾進行法令宣傳，但被動的登記成效比較好而主動執行力不足，其中又以無法有效防止勞資爭議與積極管理各種人民團體為主要缺點。 / This thesis draws on archival data from Shanghai’s Bureau of Social Affairs (Shehui ju 社會局) to examine how this organization undertook its duties between October 1945 and April 1949 (the period of the Chinese Civil War), as well as its impact on the lives of ordinary citizens. Founded in July 1927, the Bureau was initially responsible for the registration of agricultural and industrial sectors, resolution of wage disputes, and compilation of business statistics. It was subsequently burdened with additional duties, including the oversight of civic organizations and social welfare institutions, examination of measurement tools, regulation of foodstuffs, and censorship of publications. The thesis begins with a discussion on the Bureau’s administrative structure and personnel. Director Wu Kaixian had the longest incumbency of all the staff members, and also served as a commissioner in the Executive Committee of the KMT’s City Party Office. In terms of the backgrounds of public servants who worked at the Bureau, the data collected indicates that in the year 1948 most were less than 49 years of age. Over half of the male civil servants had received various higher education degrees, while the most of the women merely had secondary educations. The staff members of the Bureau’s affiliated institutions were generally younger and had lower educational levels. The period covered by this study differed from the prewar years in witnessing fewer people with only preliminary educational background, while personnel changes became less relevant following the appointment of new Directors. The rest of the thesis centers on how the Bureau executed its authority and carried out its duties, with the subject matter being divided into the following four categories: 1) Censorship of newspapers, magazines, and news agencies; 2) Censorship of motion pictures and dramas; 3) Reconciliation of wage and labor disputes; 4) Governance of civic organizations. Three large-scale censorship campaigns involving newspapers, magazines, and news agencies were undertaken, but only the “General Censorship” from March to April 1949 witnessed proactive measures. In considering censored newspapers and magazines, it seems especially noteworthy that the latter publications were released more often than being transferred, which suggests that the Bureau did not have the authority to make final decisions. The reason given by the Bureau for banning certain newspapers and magazines from publication was usually “incomplete application procedure.” The quantity of such publications was even greater than those banned after publication. The Bureau’s process of re-examining motion pictures focused on the validity of licenses issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The criteria of censorship adopted by theatres, box offices, and clubs placed greater emphasis on performance content, including scripts, voiceover, and program rundowns. Of 3,202 movies examined by the Bureau, only 28 failed to pass, with discouraging and unrealistic scenarios usually being deleted or modified. Most of the adopted scripts were somewhat dated, perhaps due to wartime lack of creativity and productivity. The adjustment of the labor wages was based on the product of the government-issued monthly cost of living index multiplied by salary levels of July 1937. Against the background of rising food prices, purchasing power parity proved relatively low, which rendered blue-collar workers less able to sustain their families and sparked increasing wage disputes. Such conflicts can be categorized by whether or not they resulted in strikes, with those triggering strikes numbering 589 and those that did not 5,521. Like Shanghai’s overall industrial structure, the textile industry led others in terms of such disputes. The Bureau did intervene by trying to promote reconciliation, yet it failed to prevent such disputes and resulting acts of violence. Civic organizations included employers’ associations, labor unions, and ordinary social groups formed by citizens. The number of all three kinds of organizations increased significantly during the four years of the Chinese Civil War. As can be seen in the case of the Cinema Association, the major point of conflict between Bureau and the Association centered on adjustments of ticket prices and the Association’s assuming responsibility for all kinds of charitable donations on a regular or temporary basis. The records reveal that the Bureau was not serious about the welfare infrastructure for laborers, and proved unable to control the grassroots organization of the labor unions. The Bureau could not prevent the Communist Party from exerting increasing influence over unions, but did dissolve them after police crackdowns and then attempted to reorganize them. The main issue with these civic organizations was that the Bureau was only in charge of registration yet proved unable to manage effective mobilization, a phenomenon that applied even to those organized by the KMT. In conclusion, the thesis argues that during the four years covered by this study, despite the fact that the Bureau was able to compile extensive sociological statistics and disseminate rules of law via its publications, its ability to execute policy decisions turned out to be far less effective. Moreover, the Bureau could not effectively suppress labor disputes and mobilize relevant civic organizations.

長久以來，政府部門在特別權力關係的思維框架下，漠視公務人員有追求良好的薪資福利與人性化管理的需求，也經常刻意忽視公務員團體勞動權。另一方面，公務員也被認為是社會中保守穩定的一群，然隨環境的變化，公務員除須承受服務對象所施予之壓力外，更窮於應付政策更迭，因而職場上隱藏著行政管理僵化、工作氣氛不良的情況，使得公務員職業尊嚴日益低落，所以，公僕實在難為。此值新政府新政之際，實有必要全面檢討公共部門內部的勞雇關係，以新的思維變革組織文化，賦予公務人員勞動權參與組織管理。 我國憲法第十四條規定：「人民有集會及結社之自由。」惟就廣義公共部門而言，我國公營事業員工及公立學校教師，皆有法律規定得參加或組織工會以主張切身利益之相關意見，唯獨常業文官卻無任何可發聲的管道。又由於「公務人員協會法草案」於八十九年九月經考試院審議通過，有關公務人員勞動權制度之設計實令人期待，倘該法能順利完成立法，我國公務人員即能依法參加或組織協會，必定對現有的公共部門勞雇關係體制造成衝擊。鑑於美國公共部門工會組織發展之歷史背景與公務員勞動權之制度規範，資料相當豐富完整，頗有攻錯之處。 是以，本論文即就美國聯邦公務人員勞動三權，即團結權、團體協商權及罷工權之意涵、公部門工會組織、制度沿革、運作情形、當前發展及勞雇關係所生之影響等相關問題詳加探討，並針對我國考試院公務人員協會法草案之立法背景、研擬過程、特色及主要內容，與重要議題等加以介紹、評析，試圖以美國經驗提出我國未來可能遭遇的問題並研擬建議意見。最後，期能從美國公務人員勞動權的理論與實際，與我國公營事業工會適用之「工會法」，公立教師會適用之「教師法」及考試院「公務人員協會法草案」，與美國「聯邦公務員勞雇關係條例」作橫斷面之比較，希冀從中擷取若干合理可行之建議，供作我國未來制度興革之參考。

從個體決策制定（decision-making）的角度觀之，參與談判、創造合約，是一種既可學習處世又可瞭解「人性」的雙贏作為。個體在歷經集體談判的互動（interaction）過程後，所獲得的償值（payoffs），也許會超越前述的期望效益；然而，對於「急需達成協議卻失敗者」或「被迫達成協議者」而言，因為無法如願以償，付出與耗損的心力，往住令人無法說服自己──這樣的結果符合吾人之期望（expectancy）──於是，個體理性（individual rationality）與集體理性（collective rationality）間的弔詭（paradox）又乍然若現。 仲裁人以中立第三者的角色，受理談判參與者的爭議，裁決爭議各造的償值，是聯結個體與集體理性的制度設計之一。然而，不同的仲裁制度所依循的特定仲裁程序，及其所隱含的偏差（bias），對交付仲裁的爭議各造及仲裁人決策模式所產生的影響，著實不容忽略。 本文的旨趣在於對仲裁制度及程序所隱含的偏差進行實驗比較，以博奕理論（game theory）為分析工具，來檢視下列三個變項所形成的二種關係： 一、在最終報價仲裁（final-offer arbitration）制度之下，仲裁人的特定偏好（preferences）對爭議兩造的影響，觀察的指標為爭議率及各造的報價策略； 二、不同仲裁制度及程序對仲裁人從事仲裁判斷之影響，觀察的指標為仲裁判斷分布（distribution of arbitration awards）。 本文的結論將藉由前述二種關係的檢證結果，來觀察「爭議兩造」、「仲裁人」及「仲裁制度」三個變項的交集點──仲裁判斷（arbitration awards）──對爭議兩造在重複競局(repeated game)中報價策略的影響，並試圖探究如何縮短個體理性與集體理性之間的落差，冀能透過制度設計來提供爭議各造誠實報價的誘因，並進一步促使仲裁人在從事判斷時能秉公處理，藉以回歸仲裁公平與專業的本質。 Ashenfelter, Orley, Currie, Janet, Farber, Henry S., and Matthew Spiegel. 1992. An Experimental Comparison of Dispute Rates in Alternative Arbitration Systems. Econometrica 60(6):1407-1433. Ashenfelter, Orley. 1987. Arbitrator Behavior. American Economic Review 77(2):342-346. Ashenfelter, Orley, and David E.Bloom. 1984. Models of Arbitrator Behavior: Theory and Evidence. American Economic Review 74(1):111-124. Ashenfelter, Orley, and George E. Johnson. 1969. Bargaining Theory, Trade Unions, and Industrial Strike Activity. American Economic Review 59:35-49. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Berk, Jonathan B., Hughson, Eric, and Kirk Vandezande. 1996. The Price Is Right, But Are the Bids? An Investigation of Rational Decision Theory. American Economic Review 86(4):954-970. Bloom, David E., and Christopher L. Cavanagh. 1987. Negotiator Behavior under Arbitraion. American Economic Review 77(2):353-358. Bloom, David E., and Christopher L. Cavanagh. 1986. A Analysis of the Selection of Arbitrators. American Economic Review 76(3):408-422. Bogdanor, Vernon. (Ed.). 1987. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Institutions. London: Basil Blackwell Ltd. Bolton, Gary E., and Elena Katok. 1998. Reinterpreting Arbitration’s Nacotic Effect: An Experimental Study of Learning in Repeated Bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior 25:1-33. Brams, Steven J. 1990. Negotiation Games: Applying Game Theory to Bargaining and Arbitration. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. Brams, Steven J., and Alan D.Taylor. 1996. Fair Division: From Cake-Cutting to Dispute Resolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brams, Steven J., Kilgour, D. Marc, and Samuel Merrill III. 1991. Arbitration Procedures. In Negotiation Analysis, ed. H. Peyton Young. Michigan: Michigan University Press. Bruce, Christopher J., and Jo Carby-Hall. 1991. Rethinking Labour-Management Relations: the Case for Arbitration. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, Inc. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Newman, David, and Alvin Rabushka. 1985. Forecasting Political Events: The future of Hong Kong. New Haven: Yale University Press. Campa, Jose Manuel, and P. H. Kevin Chang. 1996. Arbitrage-Based Tests of Target-Zone Credibility: Evidence from ERM Cross-Rate Options. American Economic Review 86(4):726-740. Coase, Ronald H. 1988. The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Coleman, James S. 1990. The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Dunlop, John T. 1984. Dispute Resolution: Negotiation and Consensus Building. New York: Auburn House. Erev, Ido, and Alvin E. Roth. 1998. Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcement Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria. American Economic Review 88(4):849-881. Farber, Henry S. 1980b. Does Final-Offer Arbitration Encourage Bargaining? Proceeding of the Thirty-third Annual Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 219-226. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1986.The General Basis of Arbitrator Behavior: An Empirical Analysis of Conventional and Final-Offer Arbitration. Econometrica 54(6): 1503-1528. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1987. Why is there Disagreement in Bargaining? American Economic Review 77(2):347-352. Farber, Henry S., and Max H. Bazerman. 1989. Divergent Expectations as a Cause of Disagreement in Bargaining: Evidence from a Comparison of Arbitration Schemes. Quartely Journal of Economics 104:99-120. Feuille, Peter, Delaney, John Thomas, and Wallace Hendricks. 1985. The Impact of Interest Arbitration on Police Contracts. Industrial Relations 24(2):161-181. Fizel, John. 1996. Bias in Salary Arbitration: The Case of Major League Baseball. Applied Economics 28(2):255-265. Flanagan, Robert J. 1991. Socrates Confronts Final-Offer Selection. Industrial Relations 30(1):163-167. Frederick, David M., Kaempfer, William H., Ross, Martin T., and Richard L. Wobbekind. 1998. Arbitration versus Negotiation: The Risk Aversion of Players. Applied Economics Letters 5(3):187-190. Friedman, Clara H. 1995. Between Management and Labour: Oral Histories of Arbitration. New York: Twayne Publishers. Gallagher, Daniel G., and M. D. Chaubey. 1982. Impasse Behavior and Tri-Offer Arbitration in Iowa. Industrial Relations 21(2): 129-148. Gardner, Roy. 1995. Games for Business and Economics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gibbons, Robert. 1988. Learning in Equilibrium Models of Arbitration. American Economic Review 78(5):896-912. Goodin, Robert E. 1996. The Theory of Institutional Design. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, Lavinia.Ed. 1993. Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain. California: Sage Publications. Hebdon, Robert P., and Robert N. Stern. 1998. Tradeoffs among Expressions of Industrial Conflict: Public Sector Strike Bans and Grievance Arbitration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51(2):204-221. Hammond III, John S, Keeney, Ralph L., and Howard Raiffa. 1998. Smart Choices: a practical guide to making better decision. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Kanowitz, Leo. 1986. Alternative Dispute Resolution: Cases and Materials. Minnesota: West Publishing Co. Kellor, Frances. 1972. American Arbitration: It’s History, Functions and Achievements. New York: Kennikat. Kressel, Kenneth, Pruitt, Dean G., and Associations. 1989. Mediation Research: The Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kichan, Thomas A., Mironi, Mordehai, Ehrenberg, Ronald G., Baderschneider, Jean, and Todd Jick. 1979. Dispute Resolution under Fact-finding and Arbitration: An Empirical Evaluation. New York: American Arbitration Association. Kremenyuk, Victor A. Ed. International Negotiation: Analysis, Approach, Issues. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lester, Richard. 1984. Labor Arbitration in State and Local Government. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Long, Gary, and Peter Feuille. 1974. Final-Offer Arbitration: “Sudden Death”in Eugene. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 27(2):186-203. McCall, Brian P. 1990. Interest Arbitration and the Incentive to Bargain. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34(1):151-167. Morrow, James D. 1994. Game Theory for Political Scientist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nicholson, Micheal. 1991. Negotiation, Agreement and Conflict Resolution: The Role of Rational Approaches and their Criticism. In New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict Transformation, ed. Raimo Vayrynen. London: Sage. Olson, Carig A. 1980. The Impact of Arbitration on the Wages of Firefighters. Industrial Relations 19(3):325-337. Olson, Carig A., and Barbara L. Rau. 1997. Learning from Interest Arbitraion: the Next Round. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(2):237-215. Olson, Carig A., Dell’omo, Gregory G., and Paul Jarley. 1992. A Comparison of Interest Arbitrator Decision-Making in Experimental and Field Setting. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 45(4):711-723. Olson, Mancur Jr. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ordeshook, Peter C. 1986. Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborne Martin J., and Ariel Rubinstein. 1998. Games with procedurally Rational Players. American Economic Review 88(4):835-847. Ostrom, Vincent., Feeny, David., and Hartmut Picht 1988. Rethinking Institutional Analysis and Development: Issues, Alternatives, and Choices. San Francisco: International Center for Economics Growth. Powell, W. W., and P. J. DiMaggio. (Ed.). 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Raiffa, Howard. 1996. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge: Havard University Press. Raiffa, Howard. 1995. Analytical Barriers. In Barriers to Conflict Resolution, ed. Kenneth J. Arrow et al. California: The Stanford Center on Conflict & Negotiation. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press. Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Schellenberg, James A. 1996. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: State University of New York Press. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1976(1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row. Simpson, Patricia A., and Joseph J Martocchio. 1997. The Influence of Work History Factors on Arbitraion Outcomes. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50(2):252-267. Speight, Alan E. H., and Dennis A. Thomas. 1997a. Conventional Arbitration in the Professional Footballer’s Labour Market: an Assessment of the FLAC Experience. Industrial Relations Journal 28(3):221-235. Speight, Alan E. H., and Dennis A. Thomas. 1997b. Football League Transfers: A Comparison of Negotiated Fees with Arbitration Settlements. Applied Economics Letters 4:41-44. Stone, I. F. 1988. The Trial of Socrates. Boston: Brown & Co. Thornton, Robert J., and Perry A. Zirkel. 1990. The Consistency and Predictability of Grievance Arbitration Awards. Industrial and Labor Relation Review 43(2):294-307. Vickerey, William. 1960. Utility, Strategy, and Social Decision Rules. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 74(4):507-511. Weimer, David L. 1995. Institutional Design. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publisher. Zigarelli, Michael A. 1996. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms and Teacher Bargaining Outcomes. Journal of Labor Research 17(1):135-148. 毛慶生等合著 民88年 《經濟學》，二版，台北：華泰文化事業公司。 王躍生 民86年 《新制度主義》，台北：揚智文化。 吳秀光 民86年b 〈理性抉擇途徑與兩岸關係研究〉，中國大陸研究，第38卷，第3期，頁58-65。 吳秀光 民87年 《政府談判之博奕理論分析》，台北：時英出版社。 沈清松 民79年 《人我交融：自我成熟與人際關係》，台北：時英出版社。 林添貴譯；Alfred D. Wilhelm, Jr.著 民84年 《談判桌上的中國人》，台北：新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。 胡國才譯；Henry A. Kissinger著 民71年 《核子武器與外交政策》，台北：黎明文化事業股份有限公司。 徐仁輝 民88年 《當代預算改革的制度性研究》，台北：智勝文化。 陳坤銘、李華夏譯；Coase, Ronald. H. 著 民84年 《廠商、市場與法律》，台北：遠流出版公司。 陳煥文 民88年 《仲裁法逐條釋義》，台北：自刊。 陳煥文 民83年 《國際仲裁法專論》，台北：五南圖書出版公司。 陳順發譯；Avinash K. Dixit and Barry J. Nalebuff著 民85年 《大謀略：遊戲理論的全方位運用》，台北：牛頓出版股份有限公司。 陳欽春 民87年 國土規劃期未報告，台北：國立台北大學。 黃宏義譯；Roger Fisher and William Ury著 民75年 《哈佛談判術》，台北：長河出版社。 詹中原 民86年 《危機管理上課講義》。 孫本初譯；Brody, Richard A., and Adand C. N. Brownstein著 民72年 《實驗方法與模擬》，台北：幼獅文化事業公司。 新新聞編輯小組譯；Nancy B. Tucker著 民84年 《不確定的友情：台灣、香港與美國，1945至1992》，台北：新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。 楊崇森等合著 民88年 《仲裁法新論》，台北：中華民國仲裁協會。 賓靜蓀譯；Max H. Bazerman and Margart A. Neale著 民82年 《樂在談判》（Negotiation Rationally, 1992），台北：天下遠見出版股份有限公司。 謝復生 民79年 《民意、制衡與效率──論民主的價值》，台北：敦煌書局。 謝瑤玲譯；Herb Cohen著 民80年 《談判的技巧》，台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。 劉瑞華譯；North, Douglass C. 著 民83年 《制度、制度變遷與經濟成就》，台北：時報文化。 鄧方譯；Kreps, D. M. 著 民85年 《賽局理論與經濟模型》，台北：五南圖書出版公司。 鄧東濱等編著 民80年 《個體經濟學理論》，台北：三民書局。 董安琪譯；Olson, Mancur著 民78年 《集體行動的邏輯》，台北：遠流出版公司。 薛密譯；Simon Singh著 民87年 《費瑪的最後定理》，台北：臺灣商務。 蕭全政 民86年 〈組織與制度的政治經濟分析〉，《暨大學報》，第一卷，第一期，頁1-16。 藍瀛芳 民87年 〈從德國新仲裁法看我國新仲裁法〉，《商務仲裁》，第51期，頁1-23。