請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9421
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 吳玉山 | |
dc.contributor.author | Yu-chung Shen | en |
dc.contributor.author | 沈有忠 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-20T20:21:49Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-02-03 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-20T20:21:49Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2009-02-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2009 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2009-02-02 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考書目
中文部分 王文霞,1980,〈威瑪共和失敗之探討:由經濟發展談起〉,《成功大學歷史學系歷史學報》,7: 221-252。 王文霞,1984,〈威瑪共和的政治〉,《成功大學歷史學系歷史學報》,11: 127-170。 伍碧雯,2000,〈德國史學界對於「威瑪共和時期」的研究趨勢〉,《東吳歷史學報》,6: 185-198。 李永熾,1999,〈從協議會到國民議會:威瑪德國的考驗〉,《當代》,140: 28-39。 李鳳玉,2001,《半總統制下的總統干政與政府穩定》,台北:國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 沈有忠,2004,〈半總統制下的權力集散與政府穩定:台灣與威瑪共和的比較〉,《台灣民主季刊》,1(3): 99-130。 沈有忠,2005,〈制度制約下的行政與立法關係:以我國九七憲改後的憲政運作為例〉,《政治科學論叢》,23: 27-60。 沈有忠,2006,〈從帝國到共和〉,《問題與研究》,45 (1): 29-51。 呂炳寬、徐正戎,2005,《半總統制的理論與實際》,台北:鼎茂出版。 吳文程,1996,《政黨與選舉概論》,台北:五南圖書出版公司。 吳玉山,2000,《俄羅斯轉型1992-1999:一個政治經濟學的分析》,台北:五南出版。 吳玉山,2001,〈制度、結構與政治穩定〉,《政治學報》,32: 1-30。 吳玉山,2002,〈半總統制下內閣組成與政治穩定:比較俄羅斯、波蘭與中華民國」,《俄羅斯學報》,2: 229-265。 吳東野,1996a,〈「半總統制」政府體系之理論與實際〉,《問題與研究》,35 (8): 37-49。 吳東野,1996b,〈「半總統制」之探討〉,《美歐月刊》,11 (1): 72-85。 林繼文,2000,〈半總統制下的三角政治均衡〉,林繼文(編),《政治制度》,台北:中央研究院社科所。 林繼文,2003,〈憲法作為一種制度〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,5: 35-74。 洪茂雄,1990,〈威瑪憲法制訂過程與影響〉,《歷史月刊》,31: 25-32。 洪茂雄,1991,〈希特勒的黑手與威瑪憲法〉,《歷史月刊》,40: 104-109。 姚志剛等,1994,《法國第五共和的憲政運作》,台北:業強出版。 徐正戎、呂炳寬,2002,〈九七憲改後的憲政運作〉,《問題與研究》,41(1),1-24。 郭恆鈺,1999a,《德意志共和國史話》,台北:三民書局。 郭恆鈺,1999b,《希特勒與「第三帝國」興亡史話》,台北:三民書局。 蔡宗珍,1999,〈威瑪憲法與政黨政治〉,《當代》,140: 75-76。 蔡宗珍,2002,〈關於威瑪憲法的幾點思考〉,翁岳生教授祝壽論文編輯委員會(主編),《當代公法新論(上)》。 蔡宗珍,2003,〈卡爾史密特之憲法概念析論〉,《政治與社會哲學評論》,5: 75-122。 劉致賢,2001,《穩定半總統體系在府會關係轉變下的運作》,台北:國立台灣大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 劉淑惠,1994,〈法國第五共和的國會〉,姚志剛等合著,《法國第五共和的憲政運作》,台北:業強出版。 劉鋒(譯),2004,卡爾˙施密特(Carl Schmitt)著,《憲法學說》,台北:聯經出版。 羅志淵,1969,〈威瑪憲法與威瑪共和〉,《憲法論叢》,台北:商務出版。 外文部分 Albertin, Lother. 1997. “Die Auflösung der bürgerlichen Mitte und die Krise des parlamentarischen System von Weimar.” Herausgegeben von Eberhard Kolb, Demokratie in der Krise. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Anckar, Dag. 1992. “Finland: Dualism and Consensual Rule.” In Parliamentary Change in the Nordic Countries, ed. Erik Damgaard. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press Anschütz, Gerhard. 1960. Die Verfassung des deutschen Reichs. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Verlag. Apelt, Willibalt. 1964. Geschichte der Weimarer Verfassung. München: C.H. Beck Verlag. Arter, David. 1987. Politics and Policy-Making in Finland. New York: ST. Nartin’s Press. Arter, David. 1999a. “From Class Party to Catchall Party? The Adaptation of the Finnish Agrarian-Center Party.” Scandinavian Political Studies 22(2): 157-180. Arter, David. 1999b. “Finland.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bahro, Horst H. 1999. “Virtues and Vices of Semi-presidential Government.” Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy 11(1): 1-37. Bahro, Horst H., Bernhard H. Bayerlein, and Ernst Veser. 1998. “Duverger's Concept: Semi-Presidential Government Revisited.” European Journal of Political Research 34: 201-224. Balderston, Theo. 2002. Economics and Politics in the Weimar Republic. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bastian, Sunil and Robin Luckham. 2003. “The Politics of Institutional Choice.” In Can Democracy be Designed? eds. Sunil Bastian and Robin Luckham. New York: Zed Books. Berchtold, Klaus. 1998. Verfassungsgeschichte der Republik Österreich. Wien: Springer Verlag. Bergsträsser, Ludwig. 1952. Geschichte der Politischen Parteien in Deutschland. München: Isar Verlag. Bernhard, Michael. 1997. “Semipresidentialism, Charisma, and Democratic Institutions in Poland.” In Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics, ed. Kurt von Mettenheim. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Berthold, Lutz. 1997. “Konstruktives Mißtrauensvotum in der Weimarer Staatsrechtslehre.” Der Staat 36(1): 81-94. Blachly, Frederick F. and Miriam E. Oatman. 1928. The Government and Administration of Germany. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press. Blondel, Jean. 1992. “Dual Leadership in the Contemporary World.” In Parliamentary Versus Presidential Government, ed. Arend Lijphard. New York: Oxford University Press. Boldt, Hans. 1988. “Die Weimarer Reichsverfassung.” Herausgegeben von Karl Dietrich Bracher, Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Boldt, Hans. 1997. “Die Stellung von Parlament und Parteien in der Weimarer Reichsverfassung.” Herausgegeben von Eberhard Kolb, Demokratie in der Krise. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Bookbinder, Paul. 1996. Weimar Germany: The Republic of the Reasonable. New York: Manchester University Press. Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1962. “Parteienstaat, Präsidialsystem, Notstand.” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 3(3): 212-225. Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1964. Deutschland: Zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur. München: Scherz Verlag. Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1983. “Weimar- Krise und Zerstörung einer parlamentarischen Demokratie.” Herausgegeben von Martin Broszat, Deutschlands Weg in die Diktatur. Berlin: Siedler Verlag. Bracher, Karl Dietrich. 1984. Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag. Brandt, Hartwig. 1998. Der lange Weg in die demokratische Moderne: Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte von 1800 bis 1945. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Verlag. Brunet, René. 1922. The New German Constitution. New York: Alfred. A. Knopf Press. Brüning, Heinrich. 1970. Heinrich Brüning: Memoiren 1918-1934. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt Verlag. Bunce, Valerie. 1997. “Presidents and the Transition in Eastern Europe.” In Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics, ed. Kurt von Mettenheim. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Carr, William. 1979. A History of Germany 1815-1945. London: Edward Arnold Press. Carr, William. 1991. A History of Germany 1815-1990. London: Edward Arnold Press. Cerar, Miro. 1999. “Slovenia.” InSemi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cheibub, José Antonio and Fernando Limongi. 2002. “Democratic Institutions and Regime Survival: Parliamentary and Presidential Democracies Reconsidered.” Annual Review of Political Sciences 5: 151-179. Cheibub, José Antonio. 2007. Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Constantinesco, Vlad and Stéphane Pierré-Caps. 2006. “France: The Quest for Political Responsibility of the President in the Fifth Republic.” European Constitutional Law Review 2: 341-357. Coram, Bruce Talbot. 1996. “Second Best Theories and the Implications for Institutional Design.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E. Goodin. New York: Cambridge University Press. Crowther, William. 2008. “Moldova’s Transition from Semi-Presidentialism: Parliamentary Intentions Presidential Outcome.” Paper presented at the International Conference of Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy, October 17-18, Taipei, Taiwan. Dill, Marshall. 1961. Germany: A Modern History. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Dreier, Horst. 1998. Grundgesetz. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Verlag. Duverger, Maurice. 1959. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen & Co. Duverger, Maurice. 1980. “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidentialist Government.” European Journal of Political Research 8(2): 165-187. Easter, Gerald M. 1997. “Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in Russia and NIS.” World Politics 49(2): 184-211. Elgie, Robert. 1999a. “The Politics of Semi-Presidentialism.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elgie, Robert. 1999b. “France.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elgie, Robert. 2004. “Semi-Presidentialism: Concepts, Consequences and Contesting Explanations” Political Studies Review 2: 314-330. Elster, Jon, Claus Offe, and Ulrich K. Preuß. 1998. Institutional Design in Post-communist Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press. Endemann, Helen. 1999. Das Regierungssystem Finnlands. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Erdem, Ebru. 2001. “Geography of Institutional Choice: Presidential and Parliamentary Systems.” Field paper of Stanford University. Falter, Jürgen W. 1991. Hitlers Wähler. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. Feldman, Gerald D. 1993. The Great Disorder: Politics, Economics, and Society in the German Inflation 1914-1924. New York: Oxford University Press. Finger, August. 1923. Das Staatsrecht des Deutschen Reichs: Der Verfassung vom 11. August 1919. Stuttgart: Verlag von Ferdinand Enke. Fischer, Klaus P. 1995. Nazi Germany: A New History. New York: Continuum. Friedrich, Carl J. 1933. “The Development of Executive Power in Germany.” The American Political Science Review 27(2): 185-203. Friedrich, Manfred. 1997. Geschichte der deutschen Staatsrechtswissenschaft. Berlin: Dunker & Humboldt Verlag. Fromme, Friedrich Karl. 1999. Von der Weimarer Verfassung zum Bonner Grundgesetz. Berlin: Dunker & Humblot Verlag. Frye, Timothy. 1997. “A Politics of Institutional Choice : Post-Communist Presidencies,” Comparative Political Studies, 30, 5: 523-552. Fulbrook, Mary. 1990. A Concise History of Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ganev, Venelin I. 1997. “Emergency Powers and the New East European Constitutions.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 45: 585-612. Ganev, Venelin I. 1999. “Bulgaria.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gillessen, Günther. 2000. Hugo Preuss: Studien zur Ideen- und Verfassungsgeschichte der Weimarer Republik: Erstveröffentlichung der Dissertation von 1955. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot Verkag. Goodin, Robert E. 1996. “Institutions and Their Design.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E. Goodin. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grawert, Rolf. 1989. “Reich und Republik- Die Form des Staates von Weimar: Ein Rückblick auf die Verfassungsberatungen im Jahre 1919.” Der Staat 28(3): 487-489. Gusy, Christoph. 1991. Weimar- die Wehrlos Republik? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Verlag. Gusy, Christoph. 1997. Die Weimarer Reichsverfassung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Verlag. Haffner, Sebastian, et al. 2002. Versailles: Aus der Sicht von Zeitzeugen. München: Herbig Verlag. Haffner, Sebastian. 2004. Die deutsche Revolution 1918-19. Hamburg: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag. Hamilton, Richard F. 1982. Who Voted for Hitler? Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Hartung, Fritz. 1950. Deutsche Verfassungsgeschite. Stuttgart: K. F. Koehler Verlag. Haungs, Peter. 1968. Reichspräsident und parlamentarische Kabinettsregierung. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag. Heiber, Helmut. 1993. The Weimar Republic. Translated by W.E. Yuill. Cambridge: Blackwell. Heper, Metin. 1997. “Introduction of Institutions and Democratic Statecraft.” In Institutions and Democratic Statecraft, eds. Metin Heper, Ali Kazancigil, and Bert A. Rockman. Boulder, Colorado: Westview. Hiden, J. W. 1996. The Weimar Republic. London and New York: Longman. Holzer, Jerzy. 2002. “The Heritage of the First World War.” In Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919-39, eds. Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Jeremy Mitchell. New York: Palgrave Press. Horowitz, Donald L. 2002. “Constitutional Design: Proposals Versus Processes.” In The Architecture of Democracy, ed. Andrew Reynolds. New York: Oxford University Press. Hubatsch, Walther. 1966. Hindenburg und der Staat. Göttingen: Musterschmidt Verlag. Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1966. Dokumente zur Deutschen Verfassunsgeschichte. Band III. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1984. Deutsche Verfassunsgeschichte seit 1789. Band VII: Ausbau, Schutz und Untergang der Weimarer Republik. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1988. Deutsche Verfassunsgeschichte seit 1789. Band III: Bismarck und das Reich. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1992. Deutsche Verfassunsgeschichte seit 1789. Band V: Weltkrieg, Revolution und Reichserneuerung. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Huber, Ernst Rudolf. 1993. Deutsche Verfassunsgeschichte seit 1789. Band VI: Die Weimarer Reichsverfassung. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Huber, John D. 1996. “The Vote of Confidence in Parliamentary Democracies.” American Political Science Review 90(2): 269-282. Hürten, Heinz. 1987. “Reichswehr und Politik.” Herausgegeben von Gerhard Schulz, Weimarer Republik. Würzburg: Poletz Verlag. Jasiewicz, Krzysztof. 1997. “Poland: Walesa’s Legacy to the Presidency.” In Postcommunist Presidents, ed. Ray Taras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, Janet Buttolph and Richard A. Joslyn. 1991. Political Science Research Methods. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. Junker, Detlef. 1994. “Die letzte Alternative zu Hitler.“ Herausgegeben von Christoph Gradmann und Oliver von Mengersen, Das Ende der Weimarer Republik und die Nationalsozialistische Machtergreifung. Heidelberg: Manutius Verlag. Karvonen, Lauri and Sven Quenter. 2002. “Electoral Systems, Party System Fragmentation and Government Instability.” In Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919-39, eds. Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Jeremy Mitchell. New York: Palgrave Press. Karvonen, Lauri. 1984. “High-Level Foreign Policy Coordination: A Finnish Example.” Cooperation and Conflict 19: 135-155. Keeler, John T. S. and Martin A. Schain. 1997. “Institutions, Political Poker, and Regime Evolution in France.” In Presidential Institutions and Democratic Politics, ed. Kurt von Mettenheim. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Kelsen, Hans. 1931. Wer soll der Hüter der Verfassung sein? Berlin: C. Schulze & Co., GMBH,. Gräfenheinieben. Kennedy, Ellen. 2004. Constitutional Failure: Carl Schmitt in Weimar. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Kolb, Eberhard. 1987. “Vom Kaiserreich zur Republik.” Herausgegeben von Gerhard Schulz, Weimarer Republik. Würzburg: Poletz Verlag. Kolb, Eberhard. 1988. The Weimar Republic. Translated by P. S. Falla. New York: Routledge Press. Kolb, Eberhard. 2002. Die Weimarer Republik. München: Oldenbourg Verlag. Langewiesche, Dieter. 1998. 1848 und 1918: Zwei deutsche Revolutionen. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Lijphart, Arend and Carlos H. Waisman. 1996. “Institutional Design and Democratization.” In Institutional Design in New Democracies, eds. Arend Lijphart and Carlos H. Waisman. Oxford: Westview Press. Lijphart, Arend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review 65: 682-693. Lin, Jih-wen. 2002. “Democratic Stability under Taiwan's Semi-Presidentialist Costitution: Implications for Cross-Strait Relations.” Issues & Studies 38(1): 47-79. Linz, Juan J. 1990a. “The Perils of Presidentialism.” Journal of Democracy 1(1): 51-69. Linz, Juan J. 1990b. “The Virtues of Parliamentarism.” Journal of Democracy 1(4): 73-91. Linz, Juan J. (ed.). 1994. The Failure of Presidential Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Linz, Juan J. and Alfred Stepan. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Lösche, Peter. 1997. “Parteienstaat Bonn- Parteienstaat Weimar?” Herausgegeben von Eberhard Kolb, Demokratie in der Krise. München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag. Mainwaring, Scott and Matthew S. Shugart (eds.). 1997. Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Maser, Werner. 1987. Friedrich Ebert: Der erste deutsche Reichspräsident. München: Droemer Knaur Verlag. Mauersberg, Jasper. 1991. Ideen und Konzeption Hugo Preuß’ für die Verfassung der deutschen Republik 1919 und ihre Durchsetzung im Verfassungswerk von Weimar. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag. McAllister, Ian and Stephen White. 2007. “Political Parties and Democratic Consolidation in Post-Communist Societies.” Party Politics 13(2): 197-216. Menger, Christian-Friedrich. 1993. Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte der Neuzeit. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Juristischer Verlag. Metcalf, Lee Kendall. 2000. “Measuring Presidential Power.” Comparative Political Studies 33(5): 660-685. Michalka, Wolfgang and Gottfried Niedhart. 2002. Deutsche Geschichte 1918-1933: Dokumente zur Innen und Außenpolitik. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Moestrup, Sophia. 2007. “Semi-presidentialism in Young Democracies.” In Semi-Presidentialism outside Europe, eds. Ropbert Elgie and Sophia Moestrup. Londen and New York: Routledge Press. Möller, Horst. 2004. Die Weimarer Republik: Eine unvollendete Demokratie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Mommsen, Hans. 2004. Aufstieg und Untergang der Republik von Weimar. Berlin: Ullstein Verlag. Mühlhausen, Walter. 1997. “Reichspräsident und Sozialdemokratie: Friedrich Ebert und seine Partei 1919-1925.” Herausgegeben von Eberhard Kolb, Friedrich Ebert als Reichspräsident. München: R. Ordenbourg Verlag. Müller, Wolfgang C. 1999. “Austria.”In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Bruce and World Press. Neumann, Sigmund. 1986. Die Parteien der Weimarer Republik. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Nicholls, A. J. 2000. Weimar and the Rise of Hitler. Hampshire: Macmillan Education Ltd. Nolte, Ernst. 2006. Die Weimarer Republik. München: Herbig Verlag. North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nousiainen, Jaakko. 1971. The Finnish Political System. Translated by John H. Hodgson. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Nousiainen, Jaakko. 2001. “From Semi-presidentialism to Parliamentary Government: Political and Constitutional Developments in Finland.” Scandinavian Political Studies 24(2): 95-109. Nousiainen, Jaakko. 2007. “The Finnish System of Government: From A Mixed Constitution to Parliamentarism.” Text is available at the constitution home page of the Ministry of Justice, Finland. Website: http://www.om.fi/21910.htm. O’Kane, Rosemary H. T. 2004. Paths to Democracy. London and New York: Routledge. Oehme, Walter. 1962. Die Weimarer Nationalversammlung: Erinnerungen. Berlin: Rütten und Loening Verlag. Paloheimo, Heikki. 2001. “Divided Government in Finland: From a Semi-Presidential to a Parliamentary Democracy.” In Divided Government in Comparative Perspective, ed. Robert Elgie. New York: Oxford University Press. Paloheimo, Heikki. 2003. “The Rising Power of the Prime Minister in Finland.” Scandinavian Political Studies 26(3): 219-243. Pasquino, Ginafranco. 1997. “Semi-presidentialism: A Political Model at Work.” European Journal of Political Research 31(1-2): 128-137. Pettit, Philip. 1996. “Institutional Design and Rational Choice.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E. Goodin. New York: Cambridge University Press. Peukert, Detlev J. K. 1987. The Weimar Republic: The Crisis of Classical Modernity. Translated from the German by Richard Deveson. New York: Hill and Wang. Pollock, James Kerr. 1928. “The German Elections of 1928.” The American Political Science Review 22(3): 698-705. Pollock, James Kerr. 1929. “The German Party System.” The American Political Science Review 23(4): 859-891. Pollock, James Kerr. 1930. “The German Reichstag Elections of 1930” The American Political Science Review 24(4): 989-995. Pollock, James Kerr. 1938. The Government of Greater Germany. New York: D. Van Nostrand Press. Preuß, Hugo. 1926. Staat, Recht und Freiheit: Aus 40 Jahren Deutscher Politik und Geschichte. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr Verlag. Protsyk, Oleh. 2003. “Troubled Semi-Presidentialism: Stability of the Constitutional System and Cabinet in Ukraine.” Europe-Asia Studies 55(7): 1077-1095. Raunio, Tapio and Matti Wiberg. 2003. “Finland: Polarized Pluralism in the Shadow of a Strong President.” In Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, eds. Kaara Strøm, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raunio, Tapio. 2004. “The Changing Finnish Democracy: Stronger Parliamentary Accountability, Coalescing Political Parties and Weaker External Constraints.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27(2): 133-152. Redslob, Robert. 1918. Die parlamentarische Regierung in ihrer wahren und unechten Form. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Verlag. Reynolds Andrew (ed.). 2002. The Architecture of Democracy. Oxford : Oxford University Press Richter, Ludwig. 1997. “Der Reichspräsident bestimmt die Politik und der Reichskanzler deckt sie: Friedrich Ebert und die Bildung der Weimar.” Herausgegeben von Eberhard Kolb, Friedrich Ebert als Reichspräsident. München: R. Ordenbourg Verlag. Richter, Ludwig. 1998. “Reichspraesident und Ausnahmegewalt: Die Genese des Artikels 48 in den Beratungen der Weimar Nationalversammlung.” Der Staat 37(2): 221-247. Ritter, Gerhard A. and Susanne Miller. 1983. Die Deutsche Revolution 1918-1919. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Rödder, Andreas. 1999. “Weimar und die deutsche Verfassung.” Herausgegeben von Andreas Rödder, Weimar und die deutsche Verfassung. Hamburg: Klett-Cotta Verlag. Rogers, Lindsay, Freda Foerster, and Sanford Schwarz. 1932. “Aspects of German Political Institutions.” Political Science Quarterly 47(3): 321-351. Roper, Steven D. 2002. “Are All Semipresidential Regimes the Same?” Comparative Politics 34(3): 253-272. Rossiter, Clinton. 2002. Constitutional Dictatorship. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers. Rueschemeyer, Dietrich. 2003. “Can One or Few Cases Yield Theoretical Gains?” In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer. New York: Cambridge. Saalfeld, Thomas. 2002. “The Impact of the World Economic Crisis and Political Reactions.” In Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, 1919-39, eds. Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Jeremy Mitchell. New York: Palgrave Press. Sani, Giacomo and Giovanni Sartori. 1985. “Polarization, Fragmentation and Competition in Western Democracies.” In Western European Party Systems: Continuity and Change, eds. Hans Daalder and Peter Mair. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sartori, Giovanni. 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering (second edition). New York: New York University Press. Schanbacher, Eberhard. 1982. Parlamentarische Wahlen und Wahlsystem in der Weimarer Republik. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag. Schiffers, Reinhard. 1971. Elemente direkter Demokratie im Weimarer Regierungssystem. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag. Schmidt-Bleibtreu, Bruno. 2008. Kommentar zum Grundgesetz. 11. Auflage. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag. Schmitt, Carl. 1928. Verfassungslehre. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Schmitt, Carl. 1931. Der Hüter der Verfassung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Schulz, Gerhard. 1987. “Verfassung, Regierung und politisches System der Republik.” Herausgegeben von Gerhard Schulz, Weimarer Republik. Würzburg: Poletz Verlag. Schulze, Hagen .1998. Kleine Deutsche Geschichte. Translated by Deborah Lucas Schnider. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Shen, Yu-chung. 2008. “Semi-presidentialism in Weimar Republic: A Failure Attempt on Democracy.” Paper presented at the International Conference of Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy, October 17-18, Taipei, Taiwan. Shepard, Walter James. 1919. “The New Government in Germany.” The American Political Science Review 13(3): 361-378. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. “Political Deals in Institutional Settings.” In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Robert E. Goodin. New York: Cambridge University Press. Shugart, Matthew Soberg and John M. Carey. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siaroff, Alan. 2003. “Comparative Presidencies.” European Journal of Political Research 43(2): 287-312. Skach, Cindy. 2005. Borrowing Constitutional Designs. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Stepan, Alfred and Cindy Skach. 1993. “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation.” World Politics 46(1): 1-22. Stepan, Alfred and Suleiman N. Ezra. 1995. “The French Fifth Republci: A Model for Import? Reflections on Poland and Brazil.” In Politics, Society and Democracy: Comparative Studies, eds. Chehabi H.E. and Stepan A. Oxford: Westview Press. Stephens, John D. and Gerhard Kümmel. 2002. “Class Structure and Democratization.” In Authoritarianism and Democracy in Europe, eds. Dirk Berg-Schlosser and Jeremy Mitchell. New York: Palgrave Press. Stolleis, Michael. 2002. Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. Strik, Peter. 2002. “Hugo Preuss, German Political Thought and the Weimar Constitution.” History of Political Thought 23(3): 497-516. Thames, Frank C. 2007. “Discipline and Party Institutionalization in Post-Soviet Legislature.” Party Politics 15(4): 456-477. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Urbanavicius, Dainius. 1999. “Lithuania.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Evera, Stephen. 1997. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Vogt, Martin. 1988. “Parteien in der Weimarer Republik.” Herausgegeben von Karl Dietrich Bracher, Die Weimarer Republik 1918-1933. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. von Beyme, Klaus. 2001. “Institutional Engineering and Transition to Democracy.” In Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe, ed. Jan Zielonka. New York: Oxford University Press. Ware, Alan. 1996. Political Parties and Party Systems. New York: Oxford. Watkins, Frederick Mindell. 1939. The Failure of Constitutional Emergency Powers under the Germany Republic. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Weber, Klaus-Dieter. 2001. Das Büro des Reichspräsidenten 1919-1934. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Weber, Max. 1947. Schriften zur theoretischen Soziologie, zur Soziologie der Politik. Frankfurt am Main: Erschienen bei Georg Kurt Schauer. Weber, Werner. 1958. Spannungen und Kräfte im westdeutschen Verfassungssystem. Stuttgart: Friedrich Vorwerk Verlag. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. 2003. Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte. Vierter Band. Vom Beginn des Ersten Weltkriegs bis zur Gründung der beiden deutschen Staaten 1914-1949. München: C. H. Beck Verlag. Welan, Manfried. 1992. Der Bundespräsident: Kein Kaiser in der Republik. Wien: Böhlau Verlag. Welan, Manfried. 1999. Demokratie auf Österreichisch. Wien: Czernin Verlag. White, Stephen. 1999. “Russia.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Will, Martin. 2004. “Die Kabinettsbildung am 30. Januar 1933 vor dem Hintergrund des Verfassungswandels in der Spätphase der Weimarer Republik.” Der Staat 43 (1): 121-143. Wilson, Andrew. 1999. “Ukraine.” In Semi-Presidentialism in Europe, ed. Robert Elgie. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilson, Frank L. 2002. “The Study of Political Institutions.” In New Directions in Comparative Politics, ed. Howard J. Wiarda. Cambridge: Westview Press. Winkler, Heinrich August. 2002. Der lange Weg nach Westen: Deutsche Geschichte 1806-1933. Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung. Winkler, Heinrich August. 2005. Weimar 1918-1933. München: Verlag C. H. Beck. Witt, Peter-Christian. 1987. Friedrich Ebert. Bonn: Neue Gesellschaft Verlag. Wright, Jonathan. 2002. Gustav Stresemann: Weimar’s Greatest Statesman. New York: Oxford University Press. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2000. “The ROC’s Semi-presidentialism at Work: Unstable Compromise, Not Cohabitation.” Issues and Studies 36(5): 1-40. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2003. Triangular Interactions under Semi-Presidentialism: A Typological Exposition. Paper presented at the conference of Semi-Presidentialism and Nascent Democracies, October 24-25, Taipei, Taiwan. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2005. “Appointing the Prime Minister under Incongruence.” Taiwan Journal Democracy 1(1): 103-132. Wu, Yu-Shan. 2008. “Study of Semi-Presidentialism: A Holistic Approach.” Paper was presented at the International Conference of Semi-Presidentialism and Democracy, October 17-18, Taipei, Taiwan. Wucher, Albert. 1991. Marksteine der deutschen Zeitgeschichte: 1914-1945. Darmstadt: Societäts Verlag. Zielonka, Jan. 2001. Democratic Consolidation in Eastern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/9421 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 半總統制研究是當代憲政研究中的重要子題。在這個子題中,威瑪共和是相當重要的早期個案。當我們進一步比較威瑪憲法和其他半總統制國家的憲法時可以發現,威瑪和這些國家在憲法的理論上仍舊存在差異。本論文分為三個部分對威瑪的半總統制作討論。首先,本論文將回答在何種情況下,威瑪共和會設計出一部具有半總統制色彩的憲法?而威瑪憲法在理論上和其他的半總統制憲法有何異同?其次,是什麼原因造成威瑪的半總統制相當不穩定的憲政運作?以及第三,威瑪的半總統制是在何種情況下發生憲政轉型,甚至最後造成民主崩潰?透過對威瑪的討論,本論文希望能夠豐富對半總統制的相關研究,尤其是對採用半總統制新憲法的興民主國家有所啟發。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In the research on semi-presidentialism, the Weimar Republic is always deemed an important historical case. However, when we compare the essence narrowly, we can find some differences between the Weimar Constitution and many other semi-presidential constitutions, especially those Eastern and Central Europe as well as the French Fifth Republic (the typical semi-presidential regime). Therefore, Weimar’s experience is worth to be discussed for the many newer semi-presidential democracies. In this desseration I will discuss the Weimar Republic in three parts. First, why and how the Weimar Republic has designed a semi-presidential constitution? What was the different about the constitutional essence betweenWeimar Republic and other semi-presidential regimes? Second, what were the conditions which, provided by the semi-presidential constitution, have made the Weimar Republic so unstable? And thirdly, in which way the semi-presidential constitution of the Weimar Republic has caused or contributed to its collapse? By this I hope to enrich the constitutional studies and to examine how institutional features can, in combination with other factors, stabilize or destabilize a new democracy, or what caused a transformation of the semi-presidential constitution. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-20T20:21:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-98-D92322001-1.pdf: 2030879 bytes, checksum: 07b77bc43b715138eb65256b38c362a3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 德國威瑪共和半總統制憲法的設計、運作與轉出
目 錄 中文摘要 viii 英文摘要 ix 德文摘要 x 德文縮寫、全文與中文對照表 xi 人名對照表 xi 第一章 緒論 學界對「半總統制」的憲政研究日益重視,早期使用半總統制的威瑪共和也成為研究半總統制的重要素材。透過對威瑪的討論,可以將半總統制從制訂、運作到崩潰的過程作一個憲法生命的討論。 第一節 問題意識:威瑪憲法與當代半總統制的研究 01 第二節 研究方法:單一個案歷史文獻分析法與個案比較 08 第三節 文獻檢閱:理論與個案 11 1-3.1 關於半總統制的定義 12 1-3.2 半總統制的憲政選擇 19 1-3.3 半總統制的憲政運作 24 1-3.4 半總統制的崩潰與憲政轉型 29 1-3.5 關於威瑪共和憲政的其他討論 32 第四節 研究架構、章節安排與研究限制 37 1-4.1 研究架構 37 1-4.2 章節安排 43 1-4.3 研究限制 45 第二章 威瑪共和的建立 威瑪共和是帝制因為戰爭失敗而崩潰後的產物,而不是國內民主條件成熟的結果。憲法因此具有多重的妥協性格,共和也因此欠缺共識、強而有力的領導力量,甚至是相互敵對。這個背景影響憲政運作直至威瑪的崩潰。 第一節 帝國的崩潰:一九一八年的德國革命 49 第二節 左派的分裂與過渡政權:人民代表參政會 55 第三節 民主共和的建立:一九一九年的制憲會議 60 第四節 小結:妥協下的新共和 65 第三章 威瑪憲法的設計與理論 具有妥協性格的威瑪,在憲法上設計了雙層雙元的架構。第一層雙元在於行政與立法的緊張關係,這是十九世紀德國憲政發展的結果。第二層雙元在於行政權的垂直分時雙元體系。在制度上,這是一部典型的半總統制,但在理論上,卻和當代水平分權的半總統制,有著對建立憲政秩序不同的邏輯。雙層雙元的妥協性格影響著半總統制運作的穩定,也成為日後理論與實踐出現落差時,趨於行政獨大進行轉軌的制度條件。 第一節 威瑪憲法的設計:政治上客觀條件與制憲者主觀想像 71 3-1.1 制憲的背景:歷史遺緒、政治條件與政黨主張 72 3-1.2 對新憲法的想像:普洛伊斯的理念 78 第二節 威瑪憲法的架構:總統、國會與內閣 81 3-2.1 總統 82 3-2.2 國會與政府 90 第三節 半總統制的憲法理論:威瑪與其他半總統制國家的比較 93 3-3.1 總統的產生 93 3-3.2 總統的「實權」 97 3-3.3 向國會負責的政府 101 第四節 小結:被視為半總統制的威瑪憲法 106 第四章 威瑪共和的運作:一九一九年至一九三0年 威瑪共和國內的多重分歧以及國際上艱困的處境,導致憲政運作持續的不穩定。議會民主的表現脆弱,「垂直分時」的架構中,預期在承平時期以議會制為主的運作條件並不成熟,政府形式多為消極的、被容忍的少數政府。妥協性格的脆弱性,造成政治發展存在右傾的可能。最終在強化行政的目的下,出現「總統內閣」的結果。 第一節 共和初期的外交困境:凡爾賽與一九二三年的魯爾危機 115 4-1.1 共和初期的外交困境之一:凡爾賽和約 118 4-1.2 共和初期的外交困境之二:魯爾危機 129 第二節 經濟重建與務實外交:道威斯計畫與大聯合內閣的失敗 134 4-2.1 經濟重建:道威斯計畫的實施 135 4-2.2 政治的右傾:第二任總統興登堡的上台 141 4-2.3 議會民主的最後努力:大聯合內閣的組成與失敗 148 第三節 小結:威瑪共和議會民主的脆弱 152 第五章 權力分化與半總統制的憲政運作 威瑪共和在非制度性因素與制度性因素上都有一個分化的權力體系,成為半總統制憲法運作脆弱的原因。其中政治運作包括分化、零和而且存在反體制的政黨,以及府院會三角關係的角力。制度設計則是妥協性格的雙層雙元架構,具有潛在行政優勢,以及一個鼓勵政黨分化的選舉制度。這些都是威瑪共和在建立時對於一些維持共和運作的基本問題,透過妥協而暫時擱置的產物,保留了體制徹底轉軌的非制度與制度條件。 第一節 政治運作的權力集散:政黨體系與府院會三角關係 156 5-1.1 分歧、破碎與零和競爭的政黨體系 156 5-1.2 總統、總理與國會的一致或對立 164 5-1.3 小結:政治運作的權力分化 169 第二節 制度設計的權力集散:政府體制與選舉制度 172 5-2.1 政府體制:總統、總理與國會 172 5-2.2 選舉制度的影響:國會與總統 180 5-2.3 小結:制度設計的權力分化 183 第三節 半總統制的實踐:威瑪與其他半總統制國家的比較 186 5-3.1 政黨體系分化程度的比較 187 5-3.2 總統、總理與國會三角架構的比較 194 5-3.3 制度設計的比較 199 5-3.4 選舉制度的比較 206 第四節 小結:權力分化下的半總統制 212 第六章 威瑪共和的崩潰:一九三0年至一九三三年 雙層雙元的半總統制憲法架構,在國會始終疲軟的情況下,無法落實「垂直分時」中,以議會為核心的憲政預期,並轉變為行政權為核心的憲政秩序。最終在緊急命令權與解散國會兩項制度的交互使用下,架空了國會並建立了憲政威權體制,走向行政獨大。行政立法的緊張關係再度轉由行政權的主導,最終經由反體制政黨的執政結束了威瑪的半總統制民主。 第一節 總統內閣:布呂寧的組閣與失敗 219 第二節 總統內閣的失敗:希特勒的執政 227 第三節 威瑪的崩潰:制度與非制度的影響 235 6-3.1 非制度的影響:經濟、外交危機與共和的妥協性 236 6-3.2 制度的影響:緊急命令與解散國會權的使用 244 第四節 半總統制的延續與轉出:威瑪與芬蘭經驗的比較 252 6-4.1 芬蘭第一共和的半總統制運作:半總統制在危機中的延續 254 6-4.2 芬蘭第二共和的半總統制運作:趨於議會制的轉軌 259 6-4.3 芬蘭在憲法的條文制度上趨於議會制的轉軌過程 264 第五節 小結:半總統制的轉型研究 268 第七章 結論 制度設計受到自身經驗、短期路徑依循與制憲時刻的條件所影響。制度並且扮演中介變項,和非制度性因素一起影響政治運作。威瑪的半總統制在行政權二元化的部分具有垂直分時的特徵,實踐上卻因為議會的脆弱先是歷經一段時間的不穩定,最後進而誘發了行政獨大的結果。威瑪憲法基於德國過去的憲政傳統而制訂,其經驗也成為後來基本法的參考依據。透過對威瑪的討論,更能釐清半總統制憲法的運作條件以及內含的憲法理論。 第一節 進入半總統制:威瑪的制度設計 273 第二節 半總統制的運作:威瑪的不穩定與次類型比較 280 第三節 半總統制的轉出:威瑪的崩潰 287 第四節 終曲:從威瑪到波昂 292 參考書目 301 附錄 一、威瑪共和大事記 321 二、歷屆國會選舉概況 328 三、歷屆總統選舉概況 329 四、歷屆政府組成與解散原因 330 五、威瑪憲法德文原文 331 六、威瑪憲法英文翻譯 363 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 德國威瑪共和半總統制憲法的設計、運作與轉出 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Design, Operation, and Exit of the Semi-Presidential Constitution of the German Weimar Republic | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 97-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王業立,吳東野,林繼文,張嘉尹 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 半總統制,威瑪共和,憲法理論,憲政轉型, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | semi-presidentialism,Weimar Republic,constitutional essence,constitutional transformation., | en |
dc.relation.page | 387 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2009-02-02 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-98-1.pdf | 1.98 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。