淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-2205200814164700
中文論文名稱 歐盟多層級治理分析-德國、英國及其地方當局參與歐盟政策制定之研究
英文論文名稱 Analysis of Multi-Level Governance in the EU: Cases of Germany, UK and Their Regional and Local Authorities Participation in EU Policy-making
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 歐洲研究所博士班
系所名稱(英) Graduate Institute of European Studies
學年度 96
學期 2
出版年 97
研究生中文姓名 許琇媛
研究生英文姓名 Shiou-Iuan Hsu
電子信箱 katharina.hsu@gmail.com
學號 890030025
學位類別 博士
語文別 中文
口試日期 2008-06-18
論文頁數 260頁
口試委員 指導教授-王泰銓
委員-許智偉
委員-沈玄池
委員-洪德欽
委員-鄒忠科
委員-王泰銓
中文關鍵字 歐盟  多層級治理  開放性協調治理  輔助原則  德國各邦  英國地方與區域當局  政策制定 
英文關鍵字 EU  Multi-level governance  Open method coordination  Principle of subsidiarity  German Bundeslaender  British regional and local authorities  Policy-making 
學科別分類
中文摘要 歐盟統合過程中,政策制定主導權由原本國家這個單一行為者所掌控,逐漸產生決策權向上、向下、向旁的分別分散給歐盟超國家層級、次國家層級與相關利益團體等,此一現象已引起國外學界廣泛的討論與注意,也因此有學者們提出所謂的『多層級治理』途徑來解釋動態的歐盟決策機制運作。國外學者Gary Marks及Liesbet Hooghe等人為提出歐盟『多層級治理』模式的先驅,其論點主張,從1980年代起歐洲之整合已逐漸衍生出多層級的治理模式,由於歐洲的整合,促使國家參與決策機制之權利逐步移轉到歐盟及其國內的區域與地方政府。

本論文以聯邦制的德國和單一國家制的英國來進行個案研究,希望藉此以德、英兩個不同國家的典型,探討歐盟『多層級治理』現況所呈現的個別差異性與同質性。

論文分成七章:第一章導論、第二章歐盟政策制定所衍生之權限問題、第三章歐盟政策制定的多層級決策模式、第四章德國個案研究、第五章英國個案研究、第六章歐盟多層級理論的評估與展望、第七章結論。

歐盟決策的『多層級治理』機制具備幾項特質:1.多重利益投入與產出具備合法性、2.否決權未必形成歐盟決策之障礙、3.決策機制仍存在合法性與透明性等相關問題。『多層級治理』確實提供了一個重要的研究途徑來解釋歐盟具動態性、複雜性、處於持續變動中的決策機制與發展。

觀察德國結構基金計劃擬定的參與程度,可明顯感受德國各邦在計劃擬定扮演一個相當主動的角色,可依循各邦區域發展自身的利益與關切議題,在相關各廳的領導與監督下,擬定結構基金的執行計劃,因此這部分給予第三層級相當大的參與空間。

英國與聯邦制的德國相當的不同。在保守黨執政下,『多層級治理』的機制發展是十分受到限制的。在工黨上台執政後,『多層級治理』的決策機制才得有發展的空間。英國雖然經歷憲政的改革,但整體而言,英國中央政府仍然較不願意放棄控管歐盟基金的權力,由於區域基金分配仍然屬於高政治敏感議題部分,因此就算工黨執政,地方政府參與的權限仍然有限。
英文摘要 The European Union (EU) is struggling to go forwards into a closer political integration. Since its creation in 1950s, there are lots of revolutions and key developments in the EU. European integration has been undoubtedly formed different levels: supranational, national, sub-national (regional and local authorities) and interest groups in the EU’s policy-making system. Therefore, some scholars use so-called “Multi-level governance, MLG” approach to analyze the system. Some pioneer scholars, such as Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe, depicted European integration as the “MLG” status in which the policy-making competences of the governments have been transferred upward to the EU level, downward to the local and regional level, sideward to interest groups and social partners since the 1980’s.

My Dissertation will discuss and analyze this “MLG” theory and phenomenon in the European Union, and I’m going to compare the situation of Germany with UK to draw a conclusion of the difference and similarity of this trend.

This dissertation consists of seven chapters: Chapter 1 Introduction, Chapter 2 Competence issues deriving from the EU policy-making, Chapter 3 Multi-level governance applying in the EU policy-making, Chapter 4 Germany as a case study, Chapter 5 United Kingdom as a case study, Chapter 6 Assessment and prospects of the “MLG”, Chapter 7 Conclusion.

From some perspectives of challenges and problems may be faced in the EU complicated policy-making procedures, it is found that MLG is favorable for input and output of the interests; veto of actors would not necessary be any obstacles to the policy-making procedures; “MLG” actually faces the transparency and democratic accountability challenges and problems.

“MLG” actually provides an essential approach to analyze the dynamism and complexity of the policy-making in the EU. There are getting more and more related literature discussing this topic in different aspects. It is believed that this research approach would reach maturity.

Observing the participation of Germany in the structural funds planning, the German Länder plays an active role and is equipped with autonomy, which obviously reveals the MLG mechanism. In spite of the political devolution in the UK, the regional and local authorities have only limited chances to participate in the structural funds planning, which is still a sensitive and high politics issue.
論文目次 章節目次
第一章、導論 1
第一節 、研究動機與目的 1
第二節 、相關文獻評述 3
第三節 、研究方法與架構 7
壹 、研究方法 7
贰 、論文研究架構 9
叁 、論文章節安排 10
第四節 、相關名詞解釋 11
第二章 、歐盟政策制定所衍生之權限問題 17
第一節 、會員國國家主權之爭議 17
壹 、國家中心治理途徑 18
贰 、多層級治理途徑 19
叁 、國家主權式微 20
第二節 、歐盟與會員國間的權限劃分現況 26
壹 、權限劃分的發展背景 26
贰 、歐盟現行權限劃分之現況與發展 28
叁 、權限種類劃分之發展與落實 34
肆 、《歐盟憲法條約》中權限劃分之三項原則 36
伍 、《歐盟憲法條約》與《里斯本條約》對於權限種類之劃分 42
第三節 、輔助原則與比例原則之適用與落實狀況 50
壹 、輔助原則在共同體立法過程中的落實狀況 50
贰 、歐洲法院判例對輔助與比例原則的影響 53
第三章 、歐盟政策制定的多層級決策模式 57
第一節 、歐盟多層級治理研究途徑 57
壹 、多層級治理論點之產生 57
贰 、多層級治理之定義與特點 60
第二節 、以多層級治理觀點探討歐盟之決策模式 70
壹 、相互調解模式 71
贰 、政府間協調模式 72
叁 、層級(超國家層級)模式 75
肆 、共同決定模式 76
伍 、歐盟區域委員會的設置及其扮演的角色 83
陸、第三層級區域代表的影響力 87
第四章 、個案研究:以德國結構基金的運作及法源為例 97
第一節 、運作的事實描述 97
壹 、結構基金的初始發展與起源 97
贰 、一九八八年結構基金的改革 100
叁 、一九九三年結構基金的改革 100
肆 、一九九九年結構基金的改革 102
伍 、歐盟區域政策與結構基金發展之重要階段 106
陸、現階段歐盟結構基金政策計畫的形成方式 108
第二節 、運作衍生的法律及體制問題 109
壹 、德國《基本法》中對聯邦政府與各邦之權限劃分規範 109
贰 、德國國內聯邦體制的決策特質 117
第三節 、德國參與歐盟多層級決策的機制 130
壹 、德國在歐盟決策體系之模式─多層級治理 130
贰 、以德國下薩克森邦結構基金的運作為探討案例 134
第五章 、個案研究:以英國結構基金的運作及法源為例 141
第一節 、運作的事實描述 141
壹 、英國的夥伴原則與多層級治理 143
贰 、英國的附加原則與多層級治理 147
第二節 、運作衍生的法律及體制問題 150
壹 、英國中央與地方政府之權限劃分規範 150
贰 、英國體制的決策特質 153
第三節 、英國參與歐盟多層級決策的機制 155
壹 、立法準備階段 155
贰 、執行政策階段 163
第六章 、歐盟多層級理論的評估及展望 165
第一節 、『多層級治理』理論評估 165
壹 、利益的投入與產出 167
贰 、否決權在決策過程中所扮演之角色 167
叁 、決策機制之合法性與透明性 168
第二節 、多層級治理新趨勢 169
壹 、開放性協調模式的興起 170
贰 、傳統共同體模式 177
叁 、開放性協調模式 178
第三節 、理論未來發展及展望 179
第七章 、結論 185
第一節 、主要研究發現 185
壹 、『多層級治理』相當適合解釋歐盟具動態性、複雜性的決策機制 185
贰 、德國與英國多層級決策的差異性 187
叁 、區域行為者扮演的角色 190
第二節 、後續研究建議 191
參考書目 193
附錄 211


圖表目次
圖表 1分析歐盟多層級治理決策架構圖 9
圖表 2研究架構圖 10
圖表 3共同決定程序流程 80
圖表 4英格蘭行政區組成架構圖 152

表格目次
表格 1現行條約與歐盟憲法條約比較 46
表格 2共同決定程序適用議題內容 81
表格 3歐盟結構基金三階段目標與基金項目之比較 104
表格 4區域政策與結構基金發展之重要階段表 106
表格 5德國各邦在參議院的席次數 123
表格 6一九九五年下薩克森邦結構基金政策的領導與相關專責部會表 139
表格 7英國各類地方政府層級議會(COUNCILS)的總數表 153
表格 8英國不同層級政府所負責的政策權限表 154



參考文獻 中文文獻

專書
1. 王泰銓(1997)。《歐洲共同體法總論》。台北:三民書局。
2. 王泰銓主編,許琇媛、張怡菁翻譯與助理編輯(2006)。《歐洲聯盟條約與歐洲共同體條約譯文及重要參考文件》。台北:翰蘆圖書。
3. 王皓昱(1997)。《歐洲合眾國:歐洲政治統合理想之實踐》。台北:揚智文化。
4. 沈玄池、洪德欽主編(1998)。《歐洲聯盟理論與政策》。台北:中央研究院歐美研究所。
5. 洪德欽主編(2007)。《歐盟憲法》。台北:中央研究院歐美研究所。
6. 張亞中(1998)。《歐洲統合:政府間主義與超國家主義的互動》。台北:揚智文化。
7. 陳麗娟(2005)。《歐洲共同體法導論》。台北:五南圖書。
8. 陳麗娟(1999)。《阿姆斯特丹條約解讀》。台北:五南圖書。
9. 黃偉峰等合著(2003)。《歐洲聯盟的組織與運作》。台北:五南圖書。
10. 黃偉峰等合著(2007)。《歐洲聯盟的組織與運作》。台北:五南圖書(再版)。

期刊論文
1. 王玉葉(1999)。〈歐洲聯盟之輔助原則〉,《歐美研究》,第30卷2期,89年6月,頁21-24。
2. 王鶴(1993)。〈評歐共體的輔助性原則〉。《歐洲》。北京:歐洲雜誌社,第11卷第2期,1993年。
3. 吳東野(1994)。〈歐洲聯盟條約「輔助原則」條款之理論分析〉,《問題與研究》,第33卷11期,1994年11月。
4. 周德旺(1995)。〈《馬斯垂克條約》基本原則之研究〉。《問題與研究》。台北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心,第34卷8期,1995年8月。
5. 洪德欽(2007)。〈歐盟憲法之法理分析〉。《歐美研究》,第37卷第2期,頁253-321。
6. 曾華群(2000)。〈歐共體明示與隱含締約權力淺析〉,《廈門大學學報(哲學社會科學版)》,2000年第1期,頁74-82。
7. 黃偉峰(2003)。〈剖析歐洲聯盟正在成型的治理體系〉。《歐美研究》,第33卷第2期,頁291-344。
8. 黃錦堂(1991)。〈德國聯邦體制之研究〉。《美歐月刊》。第9卷第6期,頁27-43。
9. 郭秋慶(1998)。〈歐洲統合過程中國家主權的弱化或強化-從歐洲聯盟的決策過程論起〉,《東海學報》,39 (5):73-95。
10. 許琇媛(2003)。〈歐盟多層級治理模式-以德國下薩克森邦結構基金的運作為例〉。《淡江人文社會學刊》,第16期,頁77-108。
11. 許琇媛(2005)。〈從《歐盟憲法條約》探討歐盟與會員國間之權限劃分〉。《歐洲國際評論》,第1期,嘉義:南華大學出版,頁65-102。
12. 藍玉春(2005)。〈歐盟多層次治理:論點與現象〉。《政治科學論叢》,第24期,頁49-76。

西文文獻
1. Andenas, Mads. and Usher, John A. eds. (2003). The Treaty of Nice and beyond: Enlargement and Constitutional Reform. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 17-19, 23-26.
2. Ansell, C., Parsons, C. and Darden, K. (1997). Dual Networks in European Regional Development Policy?, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 35, No.3, pp. 347-375.
3. Appleton, J (1992). “European Integration and the German Länder: Lost Competence or Found Opportunity?”, in: G. Matto and A. Shingleton (eds.). Germany at the Grossroads. Foreign and Domestic Policy Issues. Boulder: Westview.
4. Bache, Ian (1999). “The Extended Gatekeeper: Central Government and the Implementation of EC Regional Policy in Britain”, Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.: 6 (1). pp. 28-45.
5. Bache, Ian and Flinders, Matthew eds. (2004). Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Benz, Arthur (1998). “German Regions in the European Union: from Joint Policy-making to Multi-level governance”, in Regions in Europe.London: Routledge, pp. 111-129.
7. Benz, Arthur (2000). “Two Types of Multi-level Governance: Intergovernmental Relations in German and EU Regional Policy”, in Regional and Federal Studies, Vol. 10:3, pp. 21-44.
8. Borchardt, K. D. (1996). Die rechtlichen Grundlagen der Europäischen Union. Heidelberg: Müller.
9. Borchmsnn, Michael. “Die Europäischen Gemeinschaften im Brennpunt politischer Aktivität der Bundesländer,” in Die Offentliche Verwaltung, 41 Jg./1988, p.340ff.
10. Borkenhagen, F. H. U., & Godry, R. (1992). Die Länder und die Ergebnisse des Gipfels von Maastricht. Das Parlament, Nr. 24, 5th June 1992, pp. 5-20.
11. Börzel, T. (2002). “States and Regions in the European Union”. Institutional Adaptation in Germany and Spain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 77.
12. Börzel, Tanja (1998). “Rediscovering Policy Networks as a Modern Form of Government”. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 5, pp. 354-59.
13. Bovens, Mark (1998). The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45-60.
14. Bullmann, Udo/ Eißel, Dieter. “Europa der Regionen: Entwicklung und Perspektiven”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Bonn: B20-21/93, 1993, pp. 3-15.
15. Bundesrat (1992, June 5). Drucksache 213/92.
16. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, “Kommunalpolitik”. Informationen zur politischen Bildung. Bonn: 1. Quartal, 1994, pp. 3-38.
17. Burgess, Michael (2000). Federalism and European Union: The building of Europe, 1950-2000. London: Routledge.
18. Caporaso, James A. and Keeler, John S. (1995). “The European Community and Regional Integration Theory”, in Rhodes, Carolyn and Mazey, Sonia (eds.). The State of the European Union: Building a European Polity. Colo.: Lynne Rienner.
19. Clement, W. (2001) Europa gestalten-nicht verwalten. Die Kompetenzordnung der europäischen Union nach Nizza. Berlin: Humboldt University.
20. Committee of the Regions, Regional and Local Government in the European Union: Responsibilities and Resources, CdR- Studies E-1/2001, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000.
21. De Búrca, G. and de Witte, B. (2002) “The Delimitation of powers between the EU and its member states”, in Anthony Arnull and Daniel Wincott (eds.). Accountability and legitimacy in the European Union. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 210.
22. De Búrca, G.. “Reappraising subsidiarity’s significance after Amsterdam”, Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper 7/1999.
23. De Witte, Bruno (ed.). Ten Reflections on the Constitutional Treaty for Europe. Florence: RSCAS and Academy of European Law, 2003.
24. Deeg, R. (1995). “Germany’s Länder and the Federalization of the European Union”, in: C. Rhodes and S. Mazey (eds.). The State of the European Union: Building a European Policy? Boulder: Lynne Riener.
25. Donoth, H.-P. (1996). Die Bundesländer in der Europäischen Union: die bundesstaatliche Ordnung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland bei der Verwirklichung der Europäischen Union- eine Analyse unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des neugefaßten Art. 23 GG. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.
26. Easton, David (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life, New York: John Wiley.
27. Estella, Antonio (2002). The EU Principle of Subsidiarity and its Critique. New York: Oxford University Press.
28. Europäische Kommission (1994). Die Druchführung der Strukturfondsreform 1992. Vierter Jahresbericht. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
29. Europäische Kommission/ Vertretung in der Bundesrepublick (1994). Strukturfondsförderung der Europäischen Union (1994-1999): Mittel und Möglichkeiten für Deutschland. Bonn.
30. European Commission (2003). Draft Constitution citizens’ guide Presentation to citizens. Luxembourg: European Commission Secretariat General, pp.3-4.
31. European Commission (2003). Report from the Commission on European Governance, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, p. 35-36.
32. European Communities (2003). Territorial cohesion in Europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
33. European Union. Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. In Official Journal of the European Union. C169/3.Brussels, 2003.07.18.
34. Garrett, Geoffrey (1992). “International Cooperation and Institutional Choice: The European Community’s Internal Market” International Organization, Vol. 46, pp. 533-60.
35. Garrett, Geoffrey (1995). “The Politics of Legal Integration in the European Union” International Organization, Vol. 49, pp.171-81.
36. Gerster, F. “Die Europaministerkonferez der Länder : Aufgaben, Themen und Selbstverständnis”. Integration. Vol.16, No.2, 1993.
37. Greenwood, J. (2003). Interest Representation in the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, p.231.
38. Heinelt, H., & Randall, S. (Eds.). (1996). Policy networks and European Structural Funds. England: Avebury.
39. Herdegen, M. “After the TV Judgement of the German Constitutional Court: Decision-Making within the EU Council and the German Länder”. Common Market Law Review. Vol.32, No.6., 1995.
40. Héritier, Adrienne (1999). “Elements of democratic Legitimation in Europe: an Alternative Perspective”, in Journal of European Public Policy, 6: pp. 269-282.
41. Hessische Landeszentrale für poltische Bildung eds.(1988). “Föderlismus in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft– Allgemeine Grundsätze– Zehn muenchner Thesen zu Europapolitik .Beschluss der Jahreslonferenz der Ministerpräsidenten der deurtschen Bundesländer vom 21. bis 23. Oktober in München,” in Europa im Werden, Blaue Reihe 15, p.23f.
42. Hoffmann, Stanley (1966). “Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation-State and the Case of Western Europe”, Daedalus, Vol.95, pp. 862-914.
43. Hoffmann, Stanley (1982). “Reflections on the Nation-State in Western Europe Today” Journal of Common Market Studies Vol. 21, pp. 21-37.
44. Hooghe, Liesbet (1995). “Subnational Mobilization in the European Union”. West European Politics. Vol. 18, pp. 175-198.
45. Hooghe, Liesbet (1998). “EU Cohesion Policy and Competing Models of Capitalism”, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol.36(4). pp. 457-77.
46. Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks Gary (1996). “Contending Models of Governance in the EU”, in A. Cafruny and C. Lankowski(eds). Europe’s Ambiguous Unity(Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner). p. 365.
47. Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks, Gary (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
48. Hooghe, Liesbet and Marks, Gary (2003). “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review. Vol. 97, No. 6. pp. 233-243.
49. Hooghe, Liesbet ed. (1996). Cohesion Policy and European Integration: Building Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50. Hopkins, John (2002). Devolution in Context: Regional, Federal and devolved government in the European Union. London: Cavendish Publishing.
51. Höreth, Marcus. When Dreams Come Ture: The Role of Powerful Regions in Future Europe, ZEI Discussion Paper C121, 2003.
52. Hrbek, R. “German Federalism and the Challenge of European Integration”, in C. Jeffery and P. Savigear (eds.) (1991). German Federalism Today. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
53. Hrbek, Rudolf (1997). “Die Auswirkungen der EU-Integration auf den Förderalismus in Deutschland”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Bonn: B24/97, pp. 12-21.
54. Hsu, Shiou-Iuan (許琇媛,2006). “Observing EU’s Policy-making: from the View of Multilevel Governance”, in European Constitution and European Integration 2nd Edition, Graduate Institute of European Studies, Tamkang University, pp. 199-219.
55. Ipsen, H. P. (1966). Als Bundesstaat in der Gemeinschaft. In: Festschrift für Walter Hallstein, Frankfurt an Main: Klostermann, 248-265.
56. Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kohler-Koch, Beate (1995). “Regieren im dynamiscen Mehrebenensystem” in Jachtenfuchs, Markus and Kohler-Koch, Beate eds. Europäische Integration. Opladen: Leske und Budrich, pp. 15-44.
57. Jeffery, C. (1996) “Towards a ‘Third Level’ in Europe? The German Länder in the European Union”. Political Studies. Vol.44, No.2.
58. Jeffery, C. (1996). “Regional Information Offices in Brussels and Multi-level Governance in the EU: A UK-German Comparison”, Regional and Federal Studies, 6(2). pp. 183-203.
59. Jeffery, C. (1997). Regional Information Offices in Brussels and Multi-Level Governance in the EU: A UK-German comparison? In Jeffery, C. ed.. The Regional Dimension of the European Union, Great Britain: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd. pp. 183-203.
60. Jeffery, C. “The German Länder and the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference”. Regional and Federal Studies. Vol.5, No.3., 1995.
61. Jeffery, C. “The Länder Strike Back: Structure and Procedures of European Policy-Making in the German Federal System”. University of Leicester Discussion Papers in Federal Studies. No.FS94/4, 1994.
62. Jeffery, C. “The Non-Reform of the German Federal System after Unification”. West European Politics. Vol.18, No.2., 1995.
63. Jeffery, C. “Towards a ‘Third Level’ in Europe? The German Länder in the European Union”. Political Studies. Vol.44, No.2., 1996.
64. Keating, M. (2004). Regions and the Convention on the Future of Europe?, South European Society and Politics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 192-207.
65. Keating, M. and Hooghe, L. (2001). By-passing the nation-state? Regions and the EU policy process? In J. Richardson(ed.). European Union: Power and Policy Making, London: Routledge, pp. 239-255.
66. Kelleher, J., Batterbury, S., andStern, E. (1999). The Thematic Evaluation of the Partnership Principle: Final Synthesis Report. (London: The Tavistock Institute Evaluation Development and Review Unit)
67. Klatt, Hartmut (1982). “Parlamentarisches System und bundesstaatliche Ordnung”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. B 31/1982, pp. 3-24.
68. Klaus, H. (1996). Die deutschen Bundesländer und die Europäische Union: Die Mitwirkung der Länder am EU- Integrationsprozeß seit dem Vertrag von Maastricht. Greifswald: SH-Verlag.
69. Laufer, Heinz/ Münch, Ursula. (1997). Das föderative System der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, pp. 230-231.
70. Loughlin, J. (2001). Introduction: the transformation of the Democratic State in Western Europe? In Loughlin, J. (ed.). Subnational Democracy in the European Union: Challenges and Opportunities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-33).
71. Loughlin, John (ed.) (2001). Subnational Democracy in the European Union: Challenges and Opportunities. New York: Oxford University Press.
72. Männle, Ursula. “Grundlagen und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten des Förderalismus in Deutschland”. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte. Bonn: B24/97, 1997, pp. 3-11.
73. Marks, Gary (1992). “Structural Policy in the European Community” in Sbragia, Alberta. Euro-Politics: Institutions and Policy-Making in the New European Community. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, pp. 191-224.
74. Marks, Gary (1993). “Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC” in Cafruny, Alan W. and Rosenthal, Glenda G., The State of the European Community: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond, Vol. 2. Colo.: Lynne Rienner, pp. 391-411.
75. Marks, Gary (1996). Exploring and explaining variation in cohesion policy. In L. Hooghe (ed.). Cohesion policy and European integration: Building multi-level governance. Oxford: Claredon Press.
76. Mayer, Franz. (2004) Competences-Reloaded? The Vertical Division of Powers in the EU after the New European Constitution, in Weiler and Eisgruber, eds., Altneuland: The EU Constitution in a Contextual Perspective, Jean Monnet Working Paper 5/04.
77. Milward, Alan (1992). The European Rescue of the Nation-State. Berkeley: University of California Press.
78. Moore, C. (2006a). Conflicts in Representing the Regions in Brussels: the Case of Wales?, Regional Studies, 40(7). pp. 793-799.
79. Moore, C. (2006b). Why the Länder continue to strengthen their representations in Brussels?, German Politics 15(2). pp. 192-205.
80. Moravcsik, Andrew (1991). “Negotiating the Single European Act: National Interests and Conventional Statecraft in the European Community” International Organization. Vol. 45, pp. 651-88.
81. Moravcsik, Andrew (1993). “Preferences and Power in the European Community: A Liberal Intergovernmental Approach” Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 31, pp. 473-524.
82. Moravcsik, Andrew (1998). The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht. New York: Cornell University Press.
83. Morawitz, R. (1994). Die Zusammenarbeit von Bund und Länder bei Vorhaben der Europäischen Union. Bonn: Europa Union Verlag.
84. N. Chryssochoou, Dimitris (2001). Theorizing European Integration. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
85. Neumann, Franz. “Mehr Demokratie in der Bonner Republik? Keine oder zaghafte Schritte der Gemeinsamen Verfassungskommission von Bundestag und Bundesrat”. Gegenwartskunde. Opladen: 2/1994, 1994, pp. 155-171.
86. Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (1995). Entwicklung ländlicher Räume in Niedersachsen, Ziel 5b Einheitliches Programmplanungsdokument 1994-1999. Hannover.
87. O’Neill, Michael (1996). The Politics of European Integration. London: Routlege.
88. Pollack, Mark A. (2003). The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency and Agenda Setting in the EU. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89. Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung (1994). Was tut die Europäischen Union für unseren Arbeitsmarkt, Fördermittel aus dem Europäischen Sozialfonds. Bonn.
90. Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung. (1998) Europäische Union/ Europäische Gemeischaft: Die Vertrag von Masstricht mit den deutschen Begleitgesetzen, Bonn: Europa Union Verlag.
91. Provisional Consolidated Version of the Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. In IGC Document. CIG 86/04. Brussels, 2004.06.25.
92. Rosamond, Bend (2000). Theories of European Integration. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
93. Sandholtz, Wayne & Sweet, Alec Stone (1998). European Integration and Supranational Governance, Oxford University Press
94. Scharpf, Fritz W. (1994). “Community and Autonomy: Multi-Level Policy-Making in the European Union”, Journal of European Public Policy. Vol. 1, pp. 219-42.
95. Scharpf, Fritz W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic? . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
96. Scharpf, Fritz W. (2000). Notes toward a Theory of Multilevel Governing in Europe, MPIfG Discussion Paper 00/05, Köln: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, pp. 11-26.
97. Schmidt, Manfred G. (2000). Demokratietheorien, Opladen: Leske & Budrich (3rd). pp. 204-214.
98. Schmidt, Manfred G. (2007). Das politische System Deutschlands, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.
99. Scottish Parliament (2002). European Committee, 5th Report 2002, An Inquiry into Scotland Representation in the European Union, SP Paper 676.
100. Sloat, Amanda (2002). Scotland in Europe: a study of multi-level governance. Germany: Peter Lang.
101. Stephen, G., & Bache, I. (Eds.). (2001). Politics in the European Union. New York:Oxford University Press.
102. Su, Hungdah (蘇宏達,2004). “Can Constitution-building advance European integration? A three-pillared institutionalist analysis” in European Integration Vol. 26. No. 4, 2004, pp. 353-378.
103. Swenden, Wilfried. (2004). “Is the European Union in need of a competence catalogue? Insights from comparative Federalism”. In Journal of Common Market Studies (JCMs). Vol. 42. Nummer 2. pp. 371-392.
104. Taylor, Paul (1991). “The European Community and the State: Assumptions, Theories, and Propositions”, Review of International Studies. Vol.17, pp.109-25.
105.Taylor, Paul (1997). The European Union in the 1990’s, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
106.Thurich, Eckart. “Bund und Länder”. Them aim Unterricht. Bonn: 6/1997, 1997, pp. 3-31.
107.Toth, A. G. (1994). A legal analysis of subsidiarity. In David O'ffeeffe & Patrick M. Twomey (Ed.). Legal issues of the Masstricht Treaty. London: Wiley Chancery Law. p. 38.
108. Tsebelis, George (2002). Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work. Princeton University Press.
109. Umbach, Maiken (ed.) (2002). German Federalism- Past, Present, Future. New York: Palgrave.
110. Von Bogdandy, Armin. and Bast, Jürgen. “The European Union’s vertical order of competences: the current law and proposals for its reform” in Common Market Law Review 39, 2002, pp. 227-268.
111. Wallace, William (2000). “Collective Governance: The EU Political Process”, in Policy-Making in the European Union, Wallace, H. & Wallace, W., Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 526-527.
112. Ward, K. (1996). “Rereading Urban Regime Theory: a Sympathetic Critique”, Geoforum(Elservier Science Ltd). Vol:27:4, pp.427-38.
113. Weatherill, Stephen (2003). Cases & Materials on EU Law(6th Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.
114. Weidenfeld, Werner./ Wessels, Wolfgang eds. (1986). Wege Zur Europeaischen Union.Vom Vertrag zur Verfassung, Bonn:Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung.

法律文件
1. Case C-376/98, Tobacco Advertising case.
2. Council Regulation (EEC) 2052/88, OJ L 185, 15.7.1988, pp. 9–20.
3. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJC 115 of 9 May 2008.
4. Deutschland (1994). Grundgesetz. München : Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
5. Opinion (1/75) 1975 ECJ, Case 41/76 Donckerwolcke, Case 174/84 Bulk Oil, Case 50/76 Amsterdam Bulb, Case 31/74 Galli, Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm v Bundeskartellamt.
6. Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated text), OJC 325 of 24 December 2002.
7. Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, OJC 310, 16 December 2004.
8.Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 December 2007, OJC 306 of 17 December 2007.
9.Treaty on European Union (consolidated text), OJC 325 of 24 December 2002.

網路文獻資料
1. Die Bundesregierung 德國聯邦政府官方網站
http://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Homepage/home.html
2. Eur-Lex Database歐盟法律資料庫
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/
3. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/prord/prords/prds1_en.htm,出自於歐盟官方網,執委會區域政策中結構基金的簡介與運作。
4. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/funds/prord/prords/history_en.htm,出自於歐盟官方網,執委會區域政策中結構基金的歷史發展與沿革。
5. Committee of the Regions歐盟區域委員會官方網站
http://www.cor.europa.eu/
6. Subsidiarity Monitoring Network 輔助原則監測網絡
http://subsidiarity.cor.europa.eu/
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2008-07-23公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2008-07-23起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信