I argue that, if God exists, moral facts ontologically depend on him. After distinguishing a variety of ways in which moral facts might ontologically depend on God, I focus my attention on the most prominent and most well-developed account of the relationship between God and morality viz., the account developed by Robert Adams in his Finite and Infinite Goods. Adams’ account consists of two parts—an account of deontic moral properties and an account of axiological moral properties. Adams’ account of deontic moral properties is a version of divine command theory according to which the property of being morally right (obligatory) and the property of being morally wrong are identical to the property of being commanded by God and the property of being forbidden by God, respectively. I argue that although Adams’ divine command theory is not vulnerable to many prominent objections that afflict other versions of divine command theory, his view is, nevertheless, both unmotivated and implausible. Next, I explain Adams’ account of axiological properties, which is a particular version of what I call “theistic valuational particularism.” According to Adams’ theistic valuational particularism, the property of being intrinsically good or excellent is identical to the property of faithfully and holistically resembling God. I argue that because Adams’ conception of excellence is so broad, there are some things that have the property of being excellent but fail to resemble God. I argue that the same problem afflicts other, modified versions of theistic valuational particularism, including one that is defended by Scott Hill and another that is championed by Mark Murphy. Nevertheless, I argue that this problem does not afflict what I call “theistic moral valuational particularism,” the view that moral goodness is identical to the property of resembling God in certain, specified ways. Furthermore, I argue that, if God exists, theistic moral valuational particularism is not only well motivated theologically, but it can withstand the two most prominent objections that have been lodged against it, viz., the arbitrariness objection and the divine ascription problem.

In july 1999, the former President Lee of R.O.C. made a response to questions submitted by the reporter of Deutsche Welle radio station from German. Lee brought up an idea that the cross-strait relationship is "as a state-to-state relationship or at least a special state-to-state relationship." Thus, the statement caused different reflection from internal and international. The statement of "a special state-to-state relationship" that represents in sovereignty and the statehood between the cross-strait relationship abandons the "one China" principle that R.C.C.insisted in the past but differs from the view of P.R.C.. Certainly, P.R.C. criticized such kind of statement that violates "one China" principle and blocks the process of the national unification.Soon, P.R.C. unilaterally declared the fundation of the exchange and the discussion not existed any more. After a series of verbally disparaged and militarily intimidated from P.R.C. and not supported from U.S.A. government, R.O.C. has obviously shrunken back in the statement of "a special state-to-state relationship".Even after the D.D.P. which was definded independential party won the president campain of 2000, the president elect Cheng didn't show out his view of suportting "a special state-to-state relationship" and amending constitution and as soon as possible that brought up before the president campain. Therefor, in the process after bringing up "a special state-to-state relationship", it show out an epitome of the sovereignty conflict between the cross-strait. In fact, the statement of sovereignty that the R.O.C government declared from 1949 had been suppressed by P.R.C.. In the international politics, it bulges out the difficult position of R.O.C.'s sovereignty. The thesis, "the sovereignty between R.O.C. and P.R.C.", investigates the sovereignty issue between the cross-strait from 1949 to 2000. It founds on an approach of international politics and international law. Though sovereignty is the issue of international law. But the thesis supposes an idea that the sovereignty issue between the cross-strait is an political issue more than a legal. The thesis would prove this view by describing the international political events and bringing up a series of international contracts, official proclamation of the sovereignty issue between the cross-strait from 1949.So, the conclusion of the thesis would bring up a point, that is the difficult position of R.O.C.'s sovereignty.