Integration under 'One Country, Two Systems' - The Case of Mainland China and Hong Kong-

Ever since the handover of the territory in 1997, Hong Kong has had its own unique law and its own economic system and international legal personality, and has not been integrated with Mainland China. The Basic Law guarantees the uniqueness of the Hong Kong SAR until 2047. But close economic ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland will promote closer economic integration. The Basic Law limits only a customs union and the introduction of a single currency, but not the formation of a Free Trade Agreement (hereafter FTA) and monetary union. FTA has already been realized in the form of the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (hereafter CEPA). The Hong Kong SAR government, including the bureaucrat as well as the Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa, was opposed to, and hesitant towards, the formation of a regional trade agreement with the Mainland, but the business community made them to adopt a positive attitude towards the CEPA. It is unclear how much integration can been deepened, but it can be argued that the current policy of the Hong Kong SAR is too supportive of business, and an excessive degree of economic integration may threaten the uniqueness of Hong Kong. But if Hong Kong achieves democracy and enjoys complete autonomy, it will be easy for economic integration to co-exist with the 'One Country, Two Systems' approach, in the interests of the business community and of the citizens of the SAR.

台湾WTO加盟後の対中政策手段とFTA外交

WTO加盟は台湾にとって、初めての国連組織への加盟となる。また、FTAへの参加資格を得た点において大きな外交得点であった。しかし、中国との経済関係の自由化を迫られるデメリットがあるが、中国との政治的な緊張関係を利用して台湾は自由化を遅らせることもできる。一方、他のWTOメンバーとのFTA締結は法的障害を除去しても、中国の反対がネックとなっている。

アジアは一つになれるか？: ASEAN型「統合」からの脱却の必要性

東アジア共同体の議論は、FTAが基礎になる。だが、FTA自体が本当の統合なのか疑問が残る。もし、アジアがEU型の本格的な深い統合を目指すなら、ASEAN中心主義や中国の深い関与が足かせになる。経済発展と民主化が一定水準に達したアジアやオセアニアの先進国による新たな統合の核が必要である。

一国両制下における統合：中国大陸と香港を中心に

香港返還は一国両制のもと、統一を果たしても領域ごとの制度統合を行わなかった。しかし、密接な経済交流の存在は、領域間の統合を不可避なものにする。現在の香港SAR基本法の元で、どの程度の統合が可能なのか、あるいは可能性があるのかを検討した。さらに経済統合と民主主義のトレードオフの関係も指摘している。

Trajectories and outcomes of the 'Arab Spring' : comparing Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria

Almost three years have passed since the 'Arab Spring' began in late 2010. In the major sites of popular uprisings, political conditions remain unsettled or violent. Despite similarities in their original opposition to authoritarian rule, the outcomes differed from country to country. In Tunisia and Egypt, processes of transiting from authoritarian rule produced contrasting consequences for democratic politics. Uprisings led to armed rebellion in Libya and Syria, but whereas Gaddafi was overthrown, Asad was not. What explains the different trajectories and outcomes of the Arab Spring? How were these shaped by the power structure and levels of social control of the pre-uprising regimes and their state institutions, on the one hand, and by the character of the societies and oppositional forces that rose against them? Comparing Tunisia with Egypt, and Libya with Syria, this paper discusses various factors that account for variations in the trajectories and outcomes of the Arab Spring, namely, the legacy of the previous regime, institutional and constitutional choices during "transition" from authoritarian rule, socioeconomic conditions, and the presence of absence of ethnic, sectarian and geographic diversity.