嘉靖三十二(1553)年，葡萄牙人賄賂廣東官員，以「水溼貢物」為由遷入澳門，自此澳門成為葡萄牙人在華的聚居地，而明、清兩朝皆對澳內葡人實行治理。然而，光緒十三(1887)年清朝確立葡國永居管理澳門的地位，由此澳門成為了葡國的殖民地，在以後一百多年時間，澳門相關糾紛都是構成中葡交涉的重要部分，直到1999年葡國正式將澳門主權歸還中華人民共和國，中國才重新治理澳門。 澳門擁有複雜的歷史背景，加上，礙於時代氛圍影響，學界一般認為明、清兩朝視澳門為涉外問題，繼之將澳門史、中葡關係史兩種截然不同的概念混為一談，在這種「後見之明」的史觀之下，又利用錯誤的「朝貢體系」論的各種觀點來詮釋中葡關係史與澳門史，以致既有明、清澳門史研究無法體現中國各個時期治理澳門的意義，而且，既有的中葡關係史、澳門史論述皆存在諸多與史實矛盾之處，特別是在清代的部分。現今學界已出現全面推翻「朝貢體系」論的研究，有見及此，本研究利用「同時代史觀」，試圖站在清朝的立場，重新理解中葡關係與澳門問題。 本研究除了緒論與結論外，共分三章。首先從清朝對外多元關係當中，重新審視中葡關係，得知清代中葡關係非「朝貢體系」論所指的「天朝VS朝貢國」的不平等關係，而清朝只不過視葡國為遠在海外的小國，兩國不存在正式國交關係，由於清朝視澳門為非「涉外」事務，而是「內政」問題，因此不會將澳門問題放在中葡關係討論。在釐清中葡關係與澳門治理性質後，本文第二、三章分別從中國的視角，重新詮釋明、清澳內葡人的司法治理、互市制度。 通過以上三章，不僅能看到本文重建了有別於既有澳門史所呈現的歷史面貌，解決了既有澳門史論述的謬誤與矛盾，也明確區分了出明、清兩朝治理澳門不同的意涵。 / Since the 32nd year of the reign of Emperor Jiajing of the reign of the Ming Dynasty, Portuguese people had bribed the officials of Guangdong, China, and had entered Macao by saying that “their goods had got wet.” Macao since then had become a Portuguese settlement in China, and the Portuguese in Macao had been governed by the governments of China during the Ming and the Qing dynasties. However, in the 13th year of the reign of Emperor Guangxu of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese government recognized that the rights of Portuguese that enable them to permanently live and manage Macao. As such, Macao became a colony of Portugal. During the following one hundred years, Macao had been treated as a part of the diplomacy between China and Portuguese. Until 1999, the Portuguese government returned Macao to the Peoples Republic of China, and Macao has therefore been governed by the Chinese government again. Macao owns a complicated historical background. In addition, due to the social context, the academic circle generally believe that the issues in Macao in the Ming and the Qing dynasties had been treated as issues of diplomacy, and researchers usually mix up the two fundamentally different concepts, history of Macao and history of China-Portugal relationship. Such historical outlook of “hindsight” and the incorrect views of the study of “the Tribute System” have led to the incapability of the study of Macao history of the Ming and the Qing dynasties in presenting the significance of the governance of Macao in various periods of time. Moreover, the existing study of history of China-Portugal relationship and of history of Macao contradicts each other in terms of the historical “facts” provided, especially in the part of the Qing dynasty. Currently, the study of “the Tribute System” has been proved erroneous in the academic circle, thus this essay, with the “synchronized historical outlook,” aims at re-exploring the China-Portugal relationship and the issues of Macao in the point of view of the Qing dynasty. Besides the introduction and the conclusion, this thesis has three chapters in total. In the first chapter, the author reviews China-Portugal relationship from the perspective of the various diplomatic relationship between China in the Qing dynasty and other countries, and realizes that China-Portugal relationship had not been the unequal relationship as “Mandate heaven VS tribute states” stated in the study of the “Tribute System”. Furthermore, the government of the Qing dynasty had treated Portugal as a small country overseas, and the two countries had not had official diplomatic relationship. Since the government of the Qing dynasty had viewed the issues of Macao as domestic issues rather than those of diplomacy, the issues of Macao had not been brought up in the discussion of China-Portugal relationship. Clarifying China-Portugal relationship and the nature of the governance of Macao, the second and the third chapters respectively, from a perspective of China’s domestic governance, re-present the justice and trading system of the Portuguese people in Macao during the periods of the Ming and the Qing dynasties. With the three chapters, this thesis does not only reconstruct the history presented by the history of Macao and solve the existing fallacies and conflicts, but also clearly distinguishes the different significance of the governance of Macao in the Ming and the Qing dynasties.

La nature des litiges relatifs à l'appréciation médicale de l'état du malade ou de la victime d'un accident du travail ou d'une maladie professionnelle, a conduit à l'organisation extra-judiciaire d'une expertise médicale dite "technique", les litiges relatifs aux états d'incapacité incombant directement à des juridictions spécialisées (contentieux technique).L'expert, désigné d'un commun accord entre le médecin-conseil et le médecin traitant, est saisi par la caisse en vue de l'examen clinique du malade ou de la victime, à l'aide d'un protocole. La procédure est assortie de brefs délais et l'avis de l'expert, qui s'impose aux parties, peut être contesté dans le cadre du contentieux général.La mise en œuvre de la procédure s'impose à la juridiction (qui fixe la mission et prend la décision), quand la difficulté d'ordre médical survient en cours d'instance. Cette obligation, née du caractère substantiel des formalités, dont a pu découler la force probante de l'avis de l'expert à l'égard du juge, est exceptionnelle en droit français.La question est bien celle des fonctions respectives de l'expert et du juge, quand la CEDH vise à étendre le principe du procès équitable à la phase expertale, de telle sorte que pourrait naître un droit général d'accès à l'expertise et d'y être assisté par un technicien, ce que l'on peut observer dans l'expertise médicale.La thèse vise à prôner l'extension du régime de l'expertise médicale à l'exception propre aux accidents du travail et maladies professionnelles dans le domaine agricole, dont le régime est inspiré du droit commun, le contentieux technique paraissant pouvoir lui-même être étendu à cette exception, alors que la Cour de cassation (rapports 2010 et 2011) recommande son intégration au contentieux général. / The nature of the disputes related to the medical appraisal of the state of the sick person, or of the victim of an accident at work or of a professional illness, led to manage an extra judicial medical evaluation, so called "technical", the disputes related to the states of incapacity being directly devolved to specialized courts (technical litigation). As appointed on the basis of a common agreement between the counseling doctor and the personal practitioner, the medical experts is refered to by the caisse in order to evaluate the medical state of the sick person or of the victim, in accordance to a protocol. The proceeding is concluded in a short delay, ant the opinion of the medical expert, as compulsory for the litigants, is opened to a dispute in the frame of the general litigation.The implementation of the procedure is imperative for the court when a medical difficulty occurs during the judicial proceeding. As rooted in the substantive nature of the formalities, grounding the value of evidence for the expert opinion, this is an exceptional obligation.So that, the point is the distinction between the functions of the medical expert and the court when is met the aim to extend the right to a fair trial to the evaluation stage, ant it could arise a general right to medical evaluation and to be assisted by a specialist, as for the extra judicial proceeding.An objective of the thesis is to propose an extension to the existing exception of the accidents at work or the professional illness in the agricultural area, as shaped by the general legal regime. So that the technical litigation could too receive an extension, completely in opposition to the solution wished by the Cour de cassation (reports 2010, 2011) of an integration to the general litigation