請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99379完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 徐進鈺 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.advisor | Jinn-Yuh Hsu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 游博翔 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author | Bo-Xiang You | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-09-10T16:06:26Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-09-11 | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2025-09-10 | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2025 | - |
| dc.date.submitted | 2025-07-22 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. Abraham, R., Schneider, J., & vom Brocke, J. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 424–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.008
2. Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692299408434268 3. Alami, I., Whiteside, H., Dixon, A. D., & Peck, J. (2023). Making space for the new state capitalism, part II: Relationality, spatiotemporality and uneven development. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 55(3), 621–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X231156913 4. Aus, J. P. (2009). Conjunctural causation in comparative case-oriented research. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9104-4 5. Barlow, J. P. (2016, January 20). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence 6. Bennett, C. J., & Raab, C. D. (2003). Self-Regulatory Instruments. In The Governance of Privacy. Routledge. 7. Branch, J. (2013). The Cartographic State: Maps, Territory, and the Origins of Sovereignty. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644372 8. Brooks, A., & Lorange, A. (2023). “Extraordinary powers for extraordinary times”: A conjunctural analysis of pandemic policing, common sense, and the abolitionist horizon. Crime, Media, Culture, 17416590231205901. https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590231205901 9. Cattaruzza, A., Danet, D., Taillat, S., & Laudrain, A. (2016). Sovereignty in cyberspace: Balkanization or democratization. 2016 International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon US), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/CYCONUS.2016.7836628 10. Charnovitz, S. (2006). Taiwan’s WTO Membership and its International Implications. GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works. https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/403 11. Cheng, H., & Gonzalez-Vicente, R. (2023). For conjunctural geography: From method to counter-hegemonic practice. Dialogues in Human Geography, 20438206231189575. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231189575 12. Chenou, J.-M. (2014). From Cyber-Libertarianism to Neoliberalism: Internet Exceptionalism, Multi-stakeholderism, and the Institutionalisation of Internet Governance in the 1990s. Globalizations, 11(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2014.887387 13. Chouinard, V., & Fincher, R. (1987). State formation in capitalist societies: A conjunctural approach. Antipode, 19(3), 329–353. 14. Cockfield, A. J. (2004). Towards a Law and Technology Theory (SSRN Scholarly Paper 615088). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=615088 15. COOPER, A. F. (2010). Labels Matter: Interpreting Rising States through Acronyms. In A. S. Alexandroff & A. F. Cooper (Eds.), Rising States, Rising Institutions: Challenges for Global Governance (pp. 63–80). Brookings Institution Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpd4f.7 16. Couture, S., & Toupin, S. (2019). What does the notion of “sovereignty” mean when referring to the digital? New Media & Society, 21(10), 2305–2322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819865984 17. Dixon, A. D., Peck, J., Alami, I., & Whiteside, H. (2023). Making space for the new state capitalism, part III: Thinking conjuncturally. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 55(5), 1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X231185587 18. Drake, W. J., Vinton, C. G., & Kleinwächter, W. (2016). Internet Fragmentation: An Overview. Internet Fragmentation: An Overview. Edited by: Drake, William J; Vinton, Cerf G; Kleinwächter, W (2016). Davos: World Economic Forum. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-121102 19. Eichensehr, K. E. (2016). Data Extraterritoriality. Texas Law Review See Also, 95, 145–160. 20. Elden, S. (2010). Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 799–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132510362603 21. Eriksson, J., & Giacomello, G. (2006). The Information Revolution, Security, and International Relations: (IR)relevant Theory? International Political Science Review, 27(3), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512106064462 22. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (pp. viii, 488). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 23. Froomkin, A. (2003). Habermas@Discourse. Net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace. Harvard Law Review, 116. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.363840 24. Fuller, C. (1994). Legal Anthropology,: Legal Pluralism and Legal Thought. Anthropology Today, 10(3), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2783478 25. Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World. Faculty Books. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/175 26. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds.; Reprint, 1989 edition). International Publishers Co. 27. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds.; Reprint, 1989 edition). International Publishers Co. 28. Griffiths, J. (1986). What is Legal Pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 18(24), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.1986.10756387 29. Hall, M. (1988). State and society. The Hard Road to Renewal, 95–122. 30. Hall, S. (1984). The state in question. The Idea of the Modern State, 1–28. 31. Hall, S. (1985). Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post‐structuralist debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360070 32. Hall, S. (2002). Gramsci and us. Antonio Gramsci: Critical Assessments of Leading Political Philosophers, 227–238. 33. Hall, S., & Massey, D. (2010). Interpreting the crisis. Soundings, 44(44), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.3898/136266210791036791 34. Hall, S., Critcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J., & Roberts, B. (2013). Policing the Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/policing-the-crisis-9781137007186/ 35. Harris, S. R. (2001). The Tao of IETF - A Novice’s Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force (Request for Comments RFC 3160). Internet Engineering Task Force. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3160 36. Hart, G. (2024). Modalities of Conjunctural Analysis: “Seeing the Present Differently” through Global Lenses. Antipode, 56(1), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12975 37. Hart, M. (2020). Extraterritorial: A Political Geography of Contemporary Fiction (p. 328 Pages). Columbia University Press. 38. Hildbrandt, M. (2013). Extraterritorial Jurisdiction to Enforce in Cyberspace: Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in Cyberspace Focus - Criminal Jurisdiction: Comparison, History, Theory. University of Toronto Law Journal, 63(2), 196–224. 39. Hudson, A. (1998). Beyond the borders: Globalisation, sovereignty and extra‐territoriality. Geopolitics, 3(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650049808407609 40. Hummel, P., Braun, M., Tretter, M., & Dabrock, P. (2021). Data sovereignty: A review. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 2053951720982012. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720982012 41. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Imagined and invented worlds. Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power, 321-342. 42. Kamara, I. (2017). Co-regulation in EU personal data protection: The case of technical standards and the privacy by design standardisation “mandate.” European Journal of Law and Technology, 8(1). https://ejlt.org/index.php/ejlt/article/view/545 43. Kaminski, M. E. (2021). Technological “Disruption” of the Law’s Imagined Scene: Some Lessons from Lex Informatica Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 36(3), 883–914. 44. Knuth, R. (1999). Sovereignty, Globalism, and Information Flow in Complex Emergencies. The Information Society, 15(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/019722499128637 45. Kurlantzick, J. (2016). State Capitalism: How the Return of Statism is Transforming the World. Oxford University Press. 46. Lambach, D. (2020). The Territorialization of Cyberspace*. International Studies Review, 22(3), 482–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/viz022 47. Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 (2nd Revised ed. edition). Basic Books. 48. Levi-Faur, D. (2005). The Global Diffusion of Regulatory Capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598, 12–32. 49. Levi-Faur, D. (2006). Varieties of Regulatory Capitalism: Getting the Most Out of the Comparative Method. Governance, 19(3), 367–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2006.00322.x 50. Levi-Faur, D. (2013). 13 The Regulatory State and the Developmental State: Towards Polymorphic Comparative Capitalism. In N. K. Dubash & B. Morgan (Eds.), The Rise of the Regulatory State of the South: Infrastructure and Development in Emerging Economies (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677160.003.0013 51. Lorne, C., Thompson, M., & Cochrane, A. (2023). Thinking conjuncturally, looking elsewhere. Dialogues in Human Geography, 20438206231202825. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231202825 52. Ma, K. (2001). Taiwan as the Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Centre: Its Significance and Prospects. Industrial Restructuring in East Asia: Towards the 21st Century, 21, 239. 53. Manyika, J., Lund, S., Bughin, J., Stamenov, K., & Dhingra, D. (2016). Digital Globalization: The new era of global flows. McKinsey Global Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-globalization-the-new-era-of-global-flows 54. Menges, F., Latzo, T., Vielberth, M., Sobola, S., Pöhls, H. C., Taubmann, B., Köstler, J., Puchta, A., Freiling, F., Reiser, H. P., & others. (2021). Towards GDPR-compliant data processing in modern SIEM systems. Computers & Security, 103, 102165. 55. McLennan, G., & Held, D. (1984). State and Society in Contemporary Britain: A Critical Introduction (S. Hall, Ed.; Illustrated edition). Blackwell Pub. 56. Merry, S. E. (1988). Legal Pluralism. Law & Society Review, 22(5), 869–896. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053638 57. Morison, J. (2003). Modernising Government and the e-Government Revolution: Technologies of Government and Technologies of Democracy. In P. Leyland & N. Bamforth (Eds.), Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution (pp. 157–188). Oxford:Hart Publishing. 58. Mueller, M. (2017). Will the Internet Fragment?: Sovereignty, Globalization and Cyberspace. John Wiley & Sons. 59. Ong, A. (2004). The Chinese Axis: Zoning Technologies and Variegated Sovereignty. Journal of East Asian Studies, 4(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1598240800004392 60. Palan, R. (1998). Trying to Have Your Cake and Eating It: How and Why the State System Has Created Offshore. International Studies Quarterly, 42(4), 625–643. 61. Pasquale, F. (2016). Two Narratives of Platform Capitalism. Yale Law & Policy Review, 35(1), 309–319. 62. Pasquale, F. (2018). Digital Capitalism—How to Tame the Platform Juggernauts. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Division of Economic and Social Policy. 63. Peck, J. (2016). Macroeconomic geographies. Area Development and Policy, 1(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2016.1237263 64. Peck, J. (2023a). Variegated Economies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190076931.001.0001 65. Peck, J. (2023b). Practicing conjunctural methodologies: Engaging Chinese capitalism. Dialogues in Human Geography, 20438206231154346. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231154346 66. Peck, J. (2024). Articulating conjunctural analysis. Dialogues in Human Geography, 20438206241242471. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206241242471 67. Peck, J., & Theodore, N. (2007). Variegated capitalism. Progress in Human Geography, 31(6), 731–772. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132507083505 68. Perritt, H. (1998). The Internet as a Threat to Sovereignty? Thoughts on the Internet’s Role in Strengthening National and Global Governance. 5 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 423 (1998), 5(2). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol5/iss2/4 69. Phelps, N. A. (2007). Gaining from Globalization? State Extraterritoriality and Domestic Economic Impacts: The Case of Singapore. Economic Geography, 83(4), 371–393. 70. Pohle, J., & Thiel, T. (2020). Digital sovereignty. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://policyreview.info/concepts/digital-sovereignty 71. Polanyi, K. (2002). The great transformation. Readings in economic sociology, 38-62. 72. Probyn, E. (2023). Aqua/geopolitical conjuncture and disjuncture: Invasion, resources, and mining the deep dark sea. Cultural Studies, 37(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2023.2173793 73. Rankin, W. (2020). Race and the Territorial Imaginary: Reckoning with the Demographic Cartography of the United States. Modern American History, 3(2–3), 199–230. https://doi.org/10.1017/mah.2020.15 74. Reidenberg, J. (1997). Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology. Tex. L. Rev., 76, 553. 75. Rivera, V., & Enrique, F. (2023). The Landscape of Subnational Migration Public Policy: A Conjunctural Analysis [UCLA]. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zm969mc 76. Rommetveit, K., & van Dijk, N. (2022). Privacy engineering and the techno-regulatory imaginary. Social Studies of Science, 52(6), 853–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127221119424 77. Sassen, S. (1998). On the Internet and Sovereignty. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 5(2), 545–559. 78. Schiller, D. (1999). Digital Capitalism: Networking the Global Market System. MIT Press. 79. Sheppard, E. (2019). Globalizing capitalism’s raggedy fringes: Thinking through Jakarta. Area Development and Policy, 4(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2018.1523682 80. Sullivan, C. (2019). EU GDPR or APEC CBPR? A comparative analysis of the approach of the EU and APEC to cross border data transfers and protection of personal data in the IoT era. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(4), 380–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.004 81. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2007). Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global (SSRN Scholarly Paper 1010105). https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1010105 82. Taylor, P. J. (1995). Beyond containers: Internationality, interstateness, interterritoriality. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259501900101 83. Trachtman, J. (1998). Cyberspace, Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, and Modernism. 5 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 561 (1998), 5(2). https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol5/iss2/10 84. Tuathail, G. Ó. (1998). Political geography III: Dealing with deterritorialization. Progress in Human Geography, 22(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913298673827642 85. Turner, F. (2008). From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3773600.html 86. van Dijck, J. (2020). Governing digital societies: Private platforms, public values. Computer Law & Security Review, 36, 105377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.105377 87. Vincent, C., & Camp, J. (2004). Looking to the Internet for models of governance. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-004-3250-3 88. von Benda-Beckmann, F. (2002). Who’s Afraid of Legal Pluralism? The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 34(47), 37–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2002.10756563 89. Yeung, H. W. (2023). Theory and explanation in geography revisited: Mid-range causal theories and explanatory conjuncturalism. Dialogues in Human Geography, 20438206231177074. https://doi.org/10.1177/20438206231177074 90. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. PublicAffairs. In Chinese: Huang, S. R. (1998). Protection of Personal Data: A Review of China's Computerized Personal Data Protection Law. Information Law Review, 10(1), 38-53. [黃三榮. (1998). 個人資料之保護－兼評我國電腦處理個人資料保護法. 資訊法務透析, 10(1), 38–53.] Lau, J.K. (2005). The Protection of Personal Data Privacy Rights in China: The Legislation and Amendment Process of the "Computerized Personal Data Protection Act". Lawyer Magazine, 307, 42-51. https://doi.org/10.7030/TBJ.200504.0042 [劉佐國. (2005). 我國個人資料隱私權益之保護是由－論“電腦處理個人資料保護法”之立法與修法過程. 律師雜誌, 307, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.7030/TBJ.200504.0042] Lee, K.Y. (1999). Proposals for a Privacy-Related Legal System in China in the Internet Era and the Threats to Privacy posed by Emerging Technologies. Information Law Review, 11(4), 44-58. [李科逸. (1999). 網路時代我國隱私相關法制因應建議及新興科技對隱私之威脅. 資訊法務透析, 11(4), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7062/INFOLAW.199904.0044] Liu, C. Y. (2022). From "privacy protection" to "data governance". Humanities and Social Sciences Bulletin, 23(3), 13-18. [劉靜怡 (2022) 。從「隱私保護」到「資料治理」。人文與社會科學簡訊，23卷3期，13-18。] Liu, C.Y. (2002). Information use and privacy protection regulations in the Internet era: a tug-of-war between individuals, government and the market. Journal of Information Management Studies, 4(3), 137–161. [劉靜怡. (2002). 網際網路時代的資訊使用與隱私權保護規範：個人、政府與市場的拔河. 資訊管理研究, 4(3), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.6188/JEB.2002.4(3).03.] Wu, C. F. and Hsu, H.Y. (2018). Legal disputes over the unintended use of health insurance data - starting from de-identification work tools, Yuedan Law Journal. 272. [吳全峰、許慧瑩（2018），健保資料目的外利用之法律爭議─從去識別化作業工具談起，月旦法學雜誌，272期] | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/99379 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 本研究探討臺灣個人資料保護制度的建構歷程，以及在實務操作中所衍生的制度摩擦。儘管臺灣是亞洲最早制定個資保護法的國家之一，其《個人資料保護法》卻因制度老舊而日益受到質疑，引發對未來監管方向的辯論：一方面，有人主張鬆綁管制有助於科技創新與經濟成長；另一方面，也有觀點指出，若未能跟上國際資料治理趨勢，將導致交易成本上升並削弱競爭力。這場辯論實則反映出國家主權與資料驅動經濟發展間日益加深的張力。
本研究以此爭論為起點，批判性地回應資料保護法規與企業法遵實踐背後的政治經濟背景。結合科技與社會研究（STS）、政治法律地理學與政治經濟學等理論視角，本文主張：（一）政府在以貿易為導向的自由化改革與建立資料保護監管體系間的衝突，使個資保護制度推進緩慢且效果有限；（二）在對齊國際資料保護規範與避免過度監管以限制國家干預的雙重考量下，政府選擇尋找替代治理手段以管理資料流動；（三）在領土性想像的運作下，主管機關與企業之間的實作互動，也共同形塑了跨部門與跨司法轄區的資料流動樣貌。 在這過程中，本文進一步辨識出兩種領域化機制：（一）在微觀層次上，將個人資料自個人隱私領域中去領域化；（二）在宏觀層次上，透過多層次且一致性的資料治理體系重新領域化。此外，本文提出「互操作主權」（interoperable sovereignty）概念，意指國家藉由提升資料治理體系的互通性，促進國內數位經濟的連結性。研究結果指出，我們應超越對數位無疆界世界的未竟承諾，轉而關注數位空間中各種權力競逐的多元形式，從而更精確地描繪地方發展軌跡與全球數位治理之間的衝突、摩擦與整合。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | This research traces Taiwan’s institutionalization process of data protection and derivative frictions in its on-site practices. Despite being an early adopter of data protection laws, Taiwan’s personal data protection act (PDPA) is now seen as outdated, sparking debate over its future regulatory progress: some argue deregulation will benefit technological innovation and economic growth, while others warn that failing to keep up with international regulations will cause additional transactional cost and undermine competitiveness, reflecting deeper tensions between state sovereignty and data-driven economic development. This research engages in this debate through critically conjuring wider political-economic background of data protection regulations and firm-level compliance practices.
Drawing from the theories in science and technology studies (STS), political and legal geography, and political economy, I argue that (1) the conflicting government reform between trade-oriented liberalization and establishing the regulatory regime for data protection has resulted in slow progress and limited effectiveness in personal data protection; (2) the duality between aligning with international norms of data protection and restraining state intervention to avoid over-regulation urges the government to seek alternative measures in governing data flow; and, (3) with territorial imaginary at play, the performative interaction between the authority and enterprises articulate the flow of data across departments and jurisdictions. In this process, I identify two territorialization mechanisms: (1) de-territorializing personal data from personal privacy domains in the micro-level, and (2) re-territorializing it within the multi-layered and coherent data governance regime on the macro-level. Furthermore, I propose the concept of “interoperable sovereignty,” through which state enhances the interoperability of its data governance framework to promote the connectivity of the domestic digital economy. These results suggest us moving beyond the never-fulfilled promise of a borderless digital world but instead drawing attention to the multiple forms of power contestation in the digitals. This way, we may more precisely illustrate the clashes, friction, and integration between local trajectories and global digital governance. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Submitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2025-09-10T16:06:26Z No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2025-09-10T16:06:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書...........i
謝誌...........ii 中文摘要...........iv Abstract...........v Introduction...........1 Backgrounds...........1 Research Questions and Purpose...........7 Methodology and Empirical Data...........9 Literature Reviews...........17 Governing (Dis-)Connectivity: Institutionalizing Data Protection in Taiwan...........32 Protecting Data for Facilitating Trade...........32 States as Threats to Data Protection?...........38 The Duality of Regulating Data Flow...........41 Governing Data Flow, Re-Territorializing Digital Sovereignty...........44 Ecosystemic Mapping of Privacy...........45 Territorial Mapping of Adequacy...........50 The Macro- and Micro-Territoriality of Digital Sovereignty...........57 Conclusion: Interoperable Sovereignty for Digital Connectivity...........61 Reference...........64 | - |
| dc.language.iso | zh_TW | - |
| dc.subject | 資料主權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 全球資料治理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 資料領域性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互操作主權 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | global data governance | en |
| dc.subject | territoriality of data | en |
| dc.subject | data sovereignty | en |
| dc.subject | interoperable sovereignty | en |
| dc.title | 互操作性作為連接性：通過領土想像接壤全球資料治理 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Interoperability as Connectivity: Grounding Global Data Governance Through Territorial Imagination in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | - |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 113-2 | - |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | - |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 彭松嶽;陳舜伶 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | Sung-Yueh Perng;Shun-Ling Chen | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | 資料主權,全球資料治理,資料領域性,互操作主權, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | data sovereignty,global data governance,territoriality of data,interoperable sovereignty, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 74 | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202500945 | - |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | - |
| dc.date.accepted | 2025-07-23 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | - |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 地理環境資源學系 | - |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | N/A | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 地理環境資源學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-113-2.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 1.78 MB | Adobe PDF |
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。