By the end of the twentieth century, there were many secessionist groups, but, the move towards Taiwanese secessionism has arguably been the most significant of these. It triggered the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, which resulted in a historical military confrontation between Mainland China and the US. As will be shown, from 1988 to 2000, Lee Teng-hui, as president of Taiwan, manipulated the political Cross-Straits relationship to promote what was ultimately a secessionist policy. This caused Mainland China to react strongly and triggered sharp tension between Taiwan and Mainland China. This thesis considers what motivated Lee Teng-hui to implement a secessionist Cross-Straits policy and why he supported unification while adopting a substantive secessionist policy. It looks at how he was able to instigate Taiwanese hostility towards Mainlanders, to transform the hostility into a sense of Taiwanese national identity and ultimately into Taiwanese secessionist ideology. A historical approach was used in exploring the origins of secessionism, and descriptive and analytical methods to review systematically and comprehensively political developments in the ROC and its civil war, and to study Lee Teng-hui’s life; the national identity of Taiwan and Mainland China; the implementation of Lee Teng-hui’s political Cross-Straits policy; and the reaction of Mainland China. The study showed that the main cause of Taiwanese secessionism was ethnic conflict between Taiwanese and Mainlanders. It originated from the 228 Incident of 1947, in which Mainlander-led troops slaughtered many Taiwanese. Soon after, the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan from Mainland China, and many Taiwanese (including Mainlanders) were killed during the State of Emergency in the 1950s and 1960s. Since the Mainlander-led government fled to Taiwan in its original central government form, the Mainlander élite occupied key positions in the government during the 1950s and 1960s. It resulted in unfair power-sharing for Taiwanese, and caused the Taiwanese élite to believe that they had to establish their own government (nation). Lee Teng-hui had participated in the CCP and had been under political surveillance by the Mainlander-led government for over twenty years. He weathered these political difficulties, but by reasonable inference, there was a close relationship between the political oppression by the Mainlander-led government and his secessionist political Cross-Straits policy. Because Taiwanese residents were indoctrinated by Chiang Ching-kuo and his father, Chiang Kai-shek’s administration for about 40 years, Chinese ideology was dominant and Lee Teng-hui initially paid lip-service to Cross-Strait unification whilst working towards secessionism as reflected in the Chingdao-Lake Incident (1994); the private dialogue between Lee Teng-hui and Shiba Ryotaro (1994); the address at Cornell University (1995); and his two-state theory (1999). However, due to strong pressure from Mainland China, he did not reach his secessionist goal during his presidential term (1988-2000). In conclusion, this thesis shows that Taiwan Island’s geopolitical importance is at the heart of the US’ support for Taiwan’s secession from the Mainland. Therefore, Lee’s secessionist Cross-Strait policy aside, US national interests lie in containing Mainland China and it has, therefore, always played an important role in the secessionist issue and always will. From the perspective of Mainland China, either in terms of nationalism or national security, Taiwan’s secession is a life-and-death issue. If Taiwanese authorities were to declare independence, the only option for Mainland China would be to launch a unification war. For the US, Taiwan is only a pawn that it uses to contain Mainland China. Therefore, in the Cross-Strait issue, the US has more options than Mainland China, namely, to use military intervention in the future to deter Chinese unification or to decide to share common peaceful international relations with Mainland China by accepting Cross-Strait unification. / Thesis (DPhil (International Relations))--University of Pretoria, 2004. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

No description available.

1945年《聯合國憲章》賦予國家有義務針對彼此爭端協議和平解決爭端之方法，並且有權自由選擇和平方法解決爭端。1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》進一步確認《聯合國憲章》的和平解決爭端規範，並在尊重國家主權原則的前提下，特別載明一套關鍵維持世界海洋法制穩定存續的強制爭端解決規定。 中國大陸與東協各國於2002年針對日益激化的南海爭端簽訂《南海各方行為宣言》，其中明文重申《聯合國憲章》以及《海洋法公約》等國際法規範下的和平解決爭端原則。爾後，南海爭端隨著大國政治的發展與抗衡而顯得更加動盪，菲律賓進一步在2013年初將與中國大陸的南海爭端提交到《海洋法公約》強制仲裁程序來解決。因此，本文探討既存的《南海行為宣言》是否構成強制仲裁庭的管轄權障礙，來保障國家有自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利？又《南海行為宣言》在陸菲南海爭端中扮演何種和平解決爭端的角色，並且其意義與不足之處為何？ 在此問題意識下，首先就爭端標的進行分析，採取以國際關係及仲裁庭的角度來檢視陸菲南海爭端的性質。以國際關係的角度來檢視能發揮以下三個作用：一、理解爭端國在國際政治中的實力評估；二、檢視小國採取司法利用，以及與大國結盟以增加抗衡大國之談判籌碼及獲取法律正當性的策略；三、同時考量所涉爭端的政治與法律性質。另一方面，以仲裁庭的角度來檢視則能瞭知法院如何以國際公法原則來判斷爭端性質。 其次整理《海洋法公約》爭端解決機制以及《南海行為宣言》的內容，分析《海洋法公約》強制爭端解決機制設計的立意與《南海行為宣言》的制訂脈絡，得出《南海行為宣言》在《海洋法公約》的規範下僅為一載有「斡旋」精神的協議，爭端解決的責任仍舊交由簽署國解決。 此外，進一步再藉由仲裁庭的裁判，來分析《南海行為宣言》的法律性質。最後本文發現，中國大陸與東協各國所制訂的《南海行為宣言》僅為一重申既存和平解決規範精神的不具法律拘束力之文件，且未替簽署國創設必須由談判來解決爭端的義務。 最後，對於《南海行為宣言》作出整體評價，其彰顯具有國際法所承認之斡旋精神，展現其類似軟法性質的衝突預防之功能，然而《南海行為宣言》不具有法律實質拘束力，因而無法排除基於《海洋法公約》所提起的強制司法管轄。縱然如此，在「跨國法制歷程」概念中，《南海行為宣言》並非毫無建樹，其為透過各國「互動」而產生一行為模式之規範，然而《南海行為宣言》制訂後至仲裁庭啟動期間，並未使得相關國家對該規範進行有力「內化」的工程，使得該項規範的原則無法發揮效用。然此部分之推論尚待進一步詳細論證分析。 綜上所述，本文透過對於《南海行為宣言》之相關分析，認為我方在擬定未來南海政策時應在尊重各國主權原則的前提下，提升自身國家綜合實力以增加對外談判之籌碼，同時應增進國際法中關於和平解決爭端之研究，有效在各種方面落實國際法爭端解決規範的內化進程。

本研究針對企業赴海外上市決策面的三個構面進行探討並以台商為例，首先是探討企業赴海外上市前的動機為何，其次是企業如何選擇海外上市的地點，最後探討這些企業赴海外上市後的效益，也就是企業在海外上市的前、中、後三個不同階段所可能遭遇到的問題進行實務的探討，並以多重個案分析與類型比對的方式，以及一些台商上市現況的統計數字，希望以過去文獻中曾探討的議題來加以研究。 由於過去的研究偏重於台灣、香港、中國大陸三地市場，為了將層面擴大，特別從台商目前赴海外投資最最多的前十名的國家當中，挑出較為重要的六個國家，分別是香港、中國大陸、新加坡、美國、越南、泰國，並研究當地的已上市台商的現況，從當地上市台商所屬產業家數最多者，挑出具代表性的公司，進行個案研究及比較分析。 從個案研究發現，企業赴海外上市的動機，結果是“有利於開拓海外市場”及“易招募優秀人才”的營運面動機較多；企業海外上市地點的選擇，多半因為“市場流動性及規模及本益比”及“資金運用限制”；至於企業赴海外上市後的效益，結果是“提高公司聲譽”及“有助於產品銷售”另外，並發現香港及大陸上市後股東財富增加顯著。 最後，建議企業未來在選擇海外上市地點時，應多方面考量及評估，並非單純僅就幾個因素就決定企業海外的上市地點，應從各利害關係人的角度，去仔細思考在何處上市將是對企業最有利的。 / The research discusses three perspectives on the decision of enterprise go listing abroad and takes Taiwan enterprise as an example. Firstly, to study what are the motives of enterprises go listing abroad. Secondly, to research how enterprises choose listing place abroad. Finally, to discuss the benefits of these enterprises after go listing abroad. That is to say, to discuss the practiced issue that enterprise might encounter with the problems in the three different stages which before, in, after they go listing abroad, and analyze by way of pattern match, and the statistics of present status of some listed Taiwan enterprises with multiple cases, hope to research on the subjects has been discussed in the literature in the past. Because similar researches emphasize three stock markets in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mainland China in the past, in order to expand the scope, especially from the top ten area invested by Taiwan enterprise at present, choosing six comparatively important area, including Hong Kong, Mainland China, Singapore, U.S.A., Vietnam, Thailand, and study the present situation of the already locally listed Taiwan enterprises, find the most ones from the local listed Taiwan enterprise's affiliated industry, choose the representative company, proceed with case study and comparative analysis. Find from case study, the motives of enterprises go listing abroad are " Contribute to exploit the overseas market " and " It is apt to recruit outstanding talents " the operation motives are more; the choices of enterprises’ overseas listing places, mostly because "Liquidity and scale and p/e ratio of stock market" and " Restriction on funding usage " ; and the benefits after listing abroad as for enterprises are " Improve company's reputation " and " Contribute to the product’s selling " In addition, the research shows shareholder's wealth increased apparently after listed in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Finally, the research suggests enterprises while choosing the listing place abroad in the future, it is considered and evaluated that should be in many aspects, not to determine the overseas listing place of enterprises alone simply rely on some factors, should think carefully in where to go listing is the most favorable to enterprise itself in terms of every interested party.

This study acknowledges that historical antipathies towards gay men have marginalised their theatrical representation in the past. However, over the last century a change has occurred in the social location of gay men in Canada (from being marginalised to being included). Given these changes, questions arise as to whether staged representations of gay men are still marginalised today. Given antipathies towards homosexuality and homophobia may contribute to the how theatres determine the riskiness of productions, my investigation sought a correlation between financial risk in theatrical production and the marginalisation of gay representations on stage. Furthermore, given that gay sex itself, and its representation on stage, have been theorised as loci of antipathies to gayness, I investigate the relationship between the visibility and overtness of gay sex in a given play and the production of that play’s proximity to the mainstream. The study located four plays from across the spectrum of production conditions (from high to low financial risk) in BC. Analysis of these four plays shows general trends, not only in the plays’ constructions but also in the material conditions of their productions that indicate that gay representations become more overt, visible and sexually explicit when less financial risk was at stake. Various factors are identified – including the development of the script, the producing theatre, venue, and promotion of the production – that shape gay representation. The analysis reveals that historical theatrical practices, that have had the effect of marginalizing the representations of gays in the past, are still in place. These practices appear more prevalent the higher the financial risk of the production. / The author would like to sincerely thank Ann Wilson, Ric Knowles, Matthew Hayday, Alan Shepard, Sky Gilbert, Daniel MacIvor, Michael Lewis MacLennan, Conrad Alexandrowicz, Chris Grignard, Edward Roy, Brad Fraser, Cole J. Alvis, Jonathan Seinan, David Oiye, Clinton Walker, Sean Cummings, Darrin Hagin, and Chris Galatchian. / SSHRC, The Heather McCallum Scholarship, Lambda Prize for achievement in lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gendered studies.