Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/67302


Title: 從民主轉型到民主鞏固:蒙古與台灣之比較分析
Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Mongolia and Taiwan
Authors: 額爾登巴雅爾
Erdenebayar Munkhuu
Contributors: 李酉潭
額爾登巴雅爾
Erdenebayar Munkhuu
Keywords: 蒙古
台灣
民主轉型
民主鞏固
政治菁英
社會運動
憲政體制
選舉制度
Mongolia
Taiwan
democratic transition
democratic consolidation
political elites
social movement
constitutional system
electoral systems
Date: 2013
Issue Date: 2014-07-07 11:07:40 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 本論文從轉型理論與大眾動員理論來探討蒙古與台灣在民主轉型時期其影響選舉制度與憲政制度的因素。其中,將選舉制度進一步區分為總統選舉制度和國會選舉制度,以了解政治菁英間的互動與社會運動此兩個自變項的影響力。在民主鞏固時期,本論文則聚焦在影響兩國採取不同憲政體制的因素,欲探討政治菁英改革的動機與當時政治脈絡如何促使蒙古採用總理總統制,如何使得台灣採用總統議會制。此外,社會運動對當時政治菁英是否亦發揮一定程度的作用,是否提升或阻礙憲政的改革,亦是本研究探討重點之一。
本研究指出兩國在民主轉型時期,既有統治菁英在民主改革的壓力下,開始與反對運動菁英協商,既有的政治菁英有較大的決定權。政治菁英之間的互動是政治改革的重要推進力量,而下面的大衆抗議社會運動則提供了這些菁英之間達成協商的條件,其導致憲政改革或選舉制度改革。在憲政制度上,除了既有憲政遺緒與政治文化外,政治菁英間的不同偏好,亦影響兩國憲政體制的發展。在蒙古,制度的遺續應使得憲政體制傾向於總統制,但大多數菁英偏好權力較為分散的議會制,在政治協商下,最後促成半總統制的施行。在台灣,保守派政治菁英與改革派政治菁英的互動促成半總統制的影響,不過,也存在相關程度上的社會運動間接影響。
在民主鞏固時期台灣和蒙古皆是由政治菁英主導修憲,其中政治菁英間的互動主要影響憲政體制的設計,取得總統職位的民進黨和掌握立法院多數的國民黨政治菁英間的互動因素使得台灣偏向總統議會制,而掌握國會多數的民主黨和反對勢力人革黨政治菁英互動使得蒙古採用總理總統制。然而,公民社會對憲政體制設計並沒有直接的影響,但兩國的公民社會對於新生民主體制的鞏固扮演著重要角色。
綜言之,本研究所論有關政治菁英的互動與公民社會回顧如何影響選舉制度與憲政制度的設計,由於蒙古和台灣的經驗來看,大抵可了解政治菁英的改革動機與社會運動的壓力,是特定選舉制度與憲政制度被建立的重要關鍵。
In this dissertation, the theory of transition and mass mobilization trying to explore different factors between Mongolia and Taiwan in the period of democratic transition and its impact on the electoral system and constitutional system. The electoral system will be further divided into presidential and parliamentary, to understand the interaction of political elites, the social movements, and their influence on the electoral and constitutional systems. Then, this dissertation will focus on the factors of democratic consolidation, affecting Mongolia and Taiwan to develop into a different constitutional system, the political elite reform motivation and how the political context promoted the premier-presidentialism in Mongolia, and how Taiwan acquired the president-parliamentarism. Moreover, to understand whether social movements played a certain degree of influence on the political elites, or whether they enhanced or hindered the constitutional reform is also one of the priorities of this investigation research.
The dissertation also pointed out the ruling elite under the pressure of democratic reform, when they began negotiations with the opposition movement elites, they had greater discretion. The interaction among the political elite was an important force to promote political reform, and the following Mongolia public protest social movement created the conditions to reach consensus among these elites, which led to constitutional reforms or the reform of electoral systems. On the constitutional system, in addition to the existing constitutional legacy of the political culture, the different preferences among the political elites, but also affect the development of the two countries constitutional system. In Mongolia, institutional legacy made constitutional system tend to presidentialism, however most of the political elites prefer a more decentralized parliamentary system, in political consultations finally led to the implementation of semi-presidentialism. In Taiwan, the interaction with the conservative and the reformist political elite contributed to the impact of semi-presidentialism, however, there are indirect effects on the relevance of social movements either.
The period of democratic consolidation in Taiwan and Mongolia was dominated by the political elites on constitutional system, the interaction among the political elites mainly affected the establishment of the constitutional system. The DPP won the presidency and the KMT the parliamentary majority, and the interaction of these political elites tend to shape Taiwan’s president-parliamentarism. In Mongolia, the Democratic Party political elite, with parliamentary majority, and the opposition MPRP political elite interaction evolved to premier-presidentialism. Although civil society had no direct impact on the constitutional system establishment, however, the development of civil society in Taiwan and Mongolia played an important role to consolidate the nascent democratic institutions.
In conclusion, from Mongolian and Taiwan experience, we can understand that the motivation for the reforms of the political elite and the social movement pressure are the key for a particular electoral and constitutional system to be established.
Reference: 壹、中文部分
Huntington, Samuel P., 著,劉軍寧譯(2002),《第三波--二十世紀的民主化浪潮》,〈The Third Wave〉,台北,五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
Linz, Juan J., and Alfred, Stepan 著,張佑宗譯(1997),〈邁向鞏固的民主體制〉,田弘茂、朱雲漢主編,《鞏固第三波民主》,台北:國家政策研究基金會,頁65-96。
Potter David, David Golblatt, Margaret Kiloh, Paul Lewis 等著,王謙、李昌麟、林賢治、黃惟饒等譯 (2003),《民主化的歷程》 ,台北,韋伯文化專業出版社。
Sorensen, Georg, 著,李酉潭、陳志瑋譯(2008),《最新民主與民主化》,台北,韋伯文化事業出版社。
Tom, Bottomore 著,尤衛軍譯(1991),菁英與社會,臺北,南方叢書出版社。
丁仁方(2006),《公民社會與民主政治的相互建構—日本與台灣近年組織性公民社會發展之比較》,台灣民主季刊第四卷,第二期,頁1-31。
王文科(1995),《教育研究法》,台北,五南圖書。
王玉民(1994 ),〈社會科學研究方法原理〉,台北:紅葉出版社。
王甫昌(2003),《當代台灣社會的族群想像》,台北:學群出版社。
王海山(1998),《科學方法百科》,台北,恩楷出版公司。
王業立(2005),〈總統制與內閣制的制度選擇〉,21 世紀台灣新憲法論壇,台北:東吳大學政治系、台灣法學會、21 世紀憲改聯盟。
王維芳(2000),《政治制度設計與政治穩定:以蒙古為例》,台北,蒙藏委員會。
王維芳(2001),《半總統制下的政治穩定─蒙古與中華民國的比較》,台北,蒙藏委員會。
王維芳(2003),《半總統制新興民主國家的制度設計與政治穩定:蒙古與波蘭的比較分析》,國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所博士論文。
王維芳(2009),〈第三波民主化後的蒙古政治體制設計〉,《政大民族學報》第二十八期,頁33-72。
王振寰(1991),〈出現中的市民社會及其限制〉,《二十一世紀》(香港),第5期, 頁57-67。
祁玲玲(2012),〈蒙古民主化:政治菁英的理性選擇〉, 《二十一世紀》 , 頁28-39。
李酉潭(1999),〈邁向先進的民主:二十一世紀台灣民主化的展望〉,「跨世紀的政治願景」學術研討會論文集(台中:東海大學,1999 年),頁43-65。
李酉潭、張孝評(2002),〈台灣民主化分析──Rustow 與Huntington 模式的檢驗〉,《中山人文社會科學期刊》,第10 卷第2 期,頁45-87。
李酉潭(2006),〈民主鞏固或崩潰:台灣與俄羅斯之觀察 (1995~2005年)〉,《問題與研究》,45(6),頁33-77。
李酉潭(2007),〈台灣民主化經驗與中國民主的未來〉,《遠景基金會季刊》,8(4):1-29。
李酉潭(2011),《自由人權與民主和平:台灣民主化的核心價值》,台北:五南。
李酉潭(2012),〈台灣民主鞏固的挑戰〉,台灣新世紀文教基金會。
李酉潭(2014),〈蒙古民主發展—躍居亞洲前段班〉,收錄於鄧文聰編著,《民主是硬道理》,台北:商訊文化,頁184-191。
李筱峰(1988),《台灣民主運動40年》,台北:自立晚報。
李碧涵(1994),〈台灣地區後工業轉型之國家與社會〉,國立台灣大學《中山學術論叢》,第十二期,頁245-282。
呂亞力(2001),《政治學》,台北:三民書局。
吳心喆(2006),《民主價值、理性計算與蒙古民主的正當性》,國立台灣師範大學政治學研究所碩士論文。
吳介民(2001),〈解除克勞塞維茲的魔咒:文分析當前社會改革運動的困境〉,台灣社會學,第四期,頁159-198。
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,第2期,頁229-265。
吳釗燮(1998),〈台灣民主化的回顧與前瞻〉,國立中山大學社會學季刊, 第1卷第3期,頁1-21。
林宜慧(2007),《台灣民主化過程中公民社會之研究(1987-2006)》,國立政治大學中山人文社會科學研究所碩士論文。
林宗弘與韓佳(2008),〈政治貪腐的制度理論: 以亞洲各國為例的分析〉,《台灣政治學刊》第十二卷第一期,頁53-100。
林聰吉(2011),〈台灣政黨體系的制度化一大眾政治態度面向的探討〉,《台灣民主季刊》第八卷,第四期,頁135-160。
林繼文(2000),〈半總統制下的三角政治均衡〉,《政治制度》,台北:中央研究院中山人文社會科學研究所,頁35-175。
周陽山(1996),〈總統制、議會制、半總統制與政治穩定〉,問題與研究,第三十五卷第八期,頁50-61。
施正鋒(2006),〈李登輝評傳、或李登輝總統研究?〉,《台灣民主季刊》第3卷第1期,頁 125-130。
紀慧貞(2008),《政治菁英與蒙古的民主化》,台中:逢甲大學公共政策研究所碩士學位論文。
徐正戎(2006),〈我國修憲機關問題之研究〉,吳重禮、吳玉山主編,《憲政改革—背景、運作與影響》,台北:五南,頁98-120。
龍虎(2005),〈台灣政治轉型與社會運動互動關係探討〉,北京聯合大學台灣研究院。
許恒禎(2012),〈台灣與蒙古半總統制下政府型態的比較〉,東吳政治學報,30卷2期,頁71-125。
黃秀端(1997),〈政治文化:過去、現在與未來〉,東吳政治學報,第八期,頁47-85。
黃秀端(2003),〈少數政府在國會的困境〉,台灣政治學刊,第七卷第二期,頁3-49。
郭正亮(1996),〈尋求總統和國會的平衡:雙首長制對台灣憲政的時代意義〉,《問題與研究》第35卷第7期,頁56-72。
楊國樞等(2000),《社會及行為科學研究方法》,台北:東華書局。
黎晉禎(2003),《蒙古民主化進程之研究》,中國文化大學大陸研究所碩士論文。
鄧正來(1998),〈市民社會與國家—學理上的分野與兩种架構〉。收於鄧正來、J. C. Alexander 合編,國家與市民社會:一種社會理論的研究路徑。北京:中央編譯出版社。
蔡英文(1999),〈公民得性、市民社會與國家主權:現代市民社會論述之探討〉, 《政治科學論叢》,第10期,頁83-112。
廖淑馨(1990),「蛻變中的外蒙古」,《光復大陸》,279 期,頁21-26。
廖淑馨(1991),《外蒙古現階段的政治改革》,台北,蒙藏委員會。
廖淑馨(1998),《民主改革後的蒙古國家大呼拉爾:「民主團結聯盟」的國會》,台北,蒙藏委員會。
廖淑馨(1999),〈「民主聯盟」主政的蒙古政府──民主化的考驗〉,《中國大陸研究》,第42卷第3期,頁85-95。
廖淑馨(2000a),〈近十年來外蒙古與中共關係的發展〉,《中國大陸研究》,第43卷第4期,頁27-41。
廖淑馨(2000b),〈外蒙古政治民主化的過程分析〉,《中國大陸研究》,第43卷第5期,頁17-29。
廖淑馨(2001),〈外蒙古第三屆國會大選後的政治發展〉,《中國大陸研究》,第44卷第3 期,頁45-58。
廖達琪、簡赫琳、張慧芝(2008),〈台灣剛性憲法的迷思:源起、賡續暨其對憲改的影響〉,人文及社會科學集刊,第二十卷第三期,頁357-395。
廖達琪、李承訓、陳柏宇(2013),〈選舉制度與立法者競選政見及立法表現:台灣立法院第六屆及第七屆區域立委之比較〉,選舉研究,第20期:73-119。
蕭新煌(2004 ),〈台灣的非政府組織、民主轉型與民主治理〉,《台灣民主季刊》,第一卷,第一期,頁65-84。
羅致政(2005),〈2000年政黨輪替後的台灣政治〉,《台灣民主季刊》第2卷第1期,頁167-175。
蘇子喬(2010),〈台灣憲政體制的變遷軌跡(1991-2010):歷史制度論的分析〉,《東吳政治學報》,第二十八卷,第四期,頁147-223。
蘇子喬(2013),〈兼容並蓄或拼裝上路?—從內閣制與總統制優劣辯論檢視半總統制的利弊〉,台灣民主季刊,第十卷第四期,頁1-48。
顧忠華(1999),《公民結社的結構變遷-以台灣非營利組織的發展為例》,台灣社會研究季刊,Vol. 0, No. 36,pp. 123-145。

貳、英文部分
Babbie, Earl R., 2004, The Practice of Social Research, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 10th Edition.
Babbie, Earl R., 2008, The Basics of Social Research, Wadsworth, Belmont, USA.
Carothers, Thomas, 2002, “The End of the Transition Paradigm,” The Journal of Democracy 13(1), pp. 5-21.
Chu, Yun-han, “Taiwan’s Unique Challenges,” Journal of Democracy, 7(3): 69-82.
Chu, Yun-han, 1998, “The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation”, in Hung-mao Tien and Steve Yui-sang Tsang, Democratization in Taiwan: Implications for China (148-167), New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Clarke, Paul Barry and Joe Fowerake, Encyclopedia of Democratic Thought (London and New York: Routledge, 2001).
Dahl, Robert A., 1971, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, New Haven: YALE University Press.
Dahl, Robert A., 1989, Democracy and Its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, Robert A., 1999, On Democracy, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Diamond, Larry, 1994, “Rethinking Civil Society: Towards Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, No. 3:5-17.
Diamond, Larry, 1996, “Is The Third Wave Over?”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 3, p. 20-37.
Diamond, Larry, 1999, Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press.
Diamond, Larry, 2008a, The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies throughout the World, New York: Times Books/Henry Holt and Co.
Diamond, Larry, 2012, The Coming Wave, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 5-13.
Doorenspleet, R., & Mudde, C, 2008, Upping the Odds: Deviant Democracies and Theories of Democratization, Democratization, 15 (4): 815-832.
Duverger, Maurice, 1980, “A New Political System Model: Semi-Presidential Government”, European Journal of Political Research, 8, 2: 165–187.
Easter, Gerald M., “Preference for Presidentialism: Postcommunist Regime Change in Russia and the NIS”, World Politics, Vol. 49, No. 2 (1997), pp. 184-212.
Fish, Steven M., 1998, ‘Mongolia: Democracy without Prerequisites’, Journal of Democracy, 9 (3): 127-141.
Fish, Steven M., 2001, ‘The Inner Asian Anomaly: Mongolia’s Democratization in Comparative Perspective’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 34: 323-338.
Fritz, Verena, 2007, “Democratisation and corruption in Mongolia”, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 27, Issue. 3, pp. 191-203.
Fritz, Verena, 2008, “Mongolia: The Rise and Travails of a Deviant Democracy”, Democratization, 15(4): 766-788.
Geddes, Barbara, 1996, “Initiation of New Democratic Institutions in Eastern Europe and Latin America”, in Arend, Lijphart and Carlos H. Waisman., Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin American (15-42), Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Gilley, Bruce, 2006, “Elite-led Democratization in China: Prospects, Perils and Implications”, International Journal, Vol. 61, Issue. 2, pp. 341-358.
Ginsburg, Tom, 1995, “Political Reform in Mongolia: Between Russia and China”, Asian Survey, Vol. 35, No.5, pp.459-471.
Grugel, Jean, 2002, Democratization: A Critical Introduction, PALGRAVE.
Ganbat Damba, Rollin F. Tusalem and David Da-Hua Yang, 2008, “The Mass Public and Democratic Politics in Mongolia”, in How East Asians View Democracy, New York: Columbia University Press, 139-160.
Habermas, Jurgen, 1996, Between Facts and Norms, MIT Press.
Heaton, W., 1992, Mongolia in 1991: the uneasy transition, Asian Survey, 32: 1, pp. 50-55.
Hsiao, Hsin-Huang Michael, 2006, “Civil Society, NGOs, and Democratization in Taiwan: 1980-2005”, Third Sector SCIENCE, 4, 1-26.
Hulan, H., 1996, “Mongolia's New Constitutional Regime: Institutional Tensions and Political Consequences”, The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs, no. 3.
Huntington, Samuel P., 1965, “Political Development and Decay”, World Politics, Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 386-430.
Huntington, Samuel P., 1991, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 166-167.
Huntington, Samuel P., 1996, “Democracy for the Long Haul”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 3-13.
Landman Todd, Larizza Marco and McEvoy Claire, State of Democracy in Mongolia, Paper prepared for ‘Democracy Development in Mongolia: Challenges and Opportunities’, National Conference, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia 30 June to 1 July 2005.
Lijphart, Arend, 1999, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lin, Chia-lung, 1996, “Politics of Constitutional Choice in Taiwan”, Proceeding of a Conference on the Taiwanese Political Science Association, Annual Conference (14-15), December 1996, Taipei, National Taiwan University.
Linz, Juan J., and Stepan, Alfred, 1996, Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press.
Lipset, Seymour M., 1960, Political Man, London: Heinemann.
Mainwaring, Scott, 1993, “Presidentialism, Multipartism, and Democracy: The Difficult Combination”, Comparative Political Studies 26(2): 198-228.
Moore, Barrington, 1966, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, 1993 by Beacon Press (first published 1966).
Muller, Edward N., Thomas O. Jukam and Mitchell A. Seligson, “Diffuse Political Support and Antisystem Political Behavior: A Comparative Analyses”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1982), pp. 240-264.
Munkh-Erdene, Lhamsuren, 2010, “The Transformation of Mongolia’s Political System”, Asian Survey, 50(2): 311-334.
O’Donnell, Guillermo, A. Schmitter, Philippe C. Whitehead, Laurence, 1986, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
O’Donnel, Guillermo, 1996, “Illusions about Consolidation” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 34- 51.
Potter, David, 1997, “Explaining Democratization” in Potter, David et al, eds. Democratization: 1-40. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Przeworski, Adam, 1986, Capitalism and Social Democracy, Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam, 1991, Democracy and The Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rossabi, Morris, 2009, “Mongolia: Transmogrification of a communist party”, Pacific Affairs, 82(2): 231-250.
Rustow, Dankwart A., 1970, “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a Dynamic Model”, Comparative Politics 2(3): 337-363.
Toka, Gabor, 1995, “Political Parties and the Bases of Party Support in Eastern Central Europe”, An International Conference on Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Trends and Challenges, Taipei.
Tuya, Nyamosor, 2005, “Mongolia in 2004 Testing Politics and Economics”, Asian Survey 45, 1: 67-70.
Sartori, Giovanni, 1987, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.
Schedler, Andreas, 1998, “What is Democratic Consolidation?”, Journal of Democracy 9(2): 91-107.
Schedler, Andreas, 2001, “Measuring Democratic Consolidation”, Studies in Comparative and International Development, 36.1 : 61-87.
Schmitter, Philippe, 1986, “An Introduction to Southern European Transitions from Authoritarian Rule.” In G. O’Donnell, P. Schmitter, and L. Whitehead (eds.), Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Southern Europe. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1950, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper; Allen and Unwin, 1976.
Schumpeter, Philippe C., 1997, “Civil Society East and West”, in consolidating the Third Wave Democracies, ed. Larry Diamond, Marc F. Plattner, Yun-han Chu and Hung-mao Tien, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press, 239-262.
Shin, Doh Chull, 1994, “On the Third Wave of Democratization : A Synthesis and Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research”, World Politics, No. 47, pp. 135- 170.
Shin, Doh Chull, 2008, “The Third Wave in East Asia: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives”, Paper presented at the An Asian Barometer Conference in June 20, Taipei.
Shugart, Matthew Soberg and John, Carey M., 1992, Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 18-27.
Skocpol, Theda, 1994, Social revolution in the modern world, Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Silliman, Sidney G., and Lela Garner Noble ed., 1998, Organizing for Democracy: NGOs, Civil Society, and the Philippine State, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Walzer, Michael, Toward A Global Civil Society, Berghahn Books, 1995.

叁、蒙文部分
B. Batbayar, 1999, “Hos shiljilt”(雙重轉型),Shine toli setguul, 73, 2012, 37-45x.「新鏡」期刊,第73卷,頁37-45。

B. Batbayar, 2010, “Mongoliin Parlamentiin songuuliin tuuh”(蒙古議會選舉歷史), Ardchilal 20 jil: Tuuh sudlaliin asuudluud, Soyombo printing, Ulaanbaatar, 50-52x.

E. Bat-Uul, 2014, “Mongol tulgatnii 100 erhem”(蒙古民族的100位重要人物),Televiziin nevtruuleg(電視節目)。

D. Ganbat,2002,Mongol Uls dahi ardchilliin zagvar, hugjliin asuudald(對於蒙古國民主化的類型與發展問題的探討),Mongol Ulsiin ih surguuliin Uls turiin tenhimiin doctoriin ajil, 蒙古國立大學政治學研究所博士論文。
L. Anar-Erdene busad,2013,“Irgediin oroltsoonii erh zuin orchin ba unelgee”(民衆參政的法律環境及監視),Uls toriin bolovsroliin academy(蒙古政治教育學院).
Ch. Tamir, 2006, “Parlamentad bodlogo bolovsruulah, shiidver gargah uil yavtsad irgediin oroltsoog nemegduuleh ni”(在議會決策過程中加強公民的參與:法律環境和制度化),Neelttei niigem forum(「開放社會論壇」智庫),Ulaanbaatar.
Szalontai, Balazs, 2010, Mongoliin ardchilsan shiljiltiin tusuuloogui amjilt (Unimaginable Successes in Mongolia during the Democratic Transformation), Shine toli, 68, 55-67x, Uls toriin bolovsroliin academy.
Sneath, David, 2010,Ardchilaliin urnudiin unet zuils ba Mongol Uls(西方民主價值和蒙古國),Shine toli , 68, 15-32x.《新鏡期刊》,第1期,第68卷,頁15-32。
Ts. Jambalsuren, 1999, “Mongoliin tuuh, Ereed on”(蒙古歷史:90年代), Ulaanbaatar: Onget Hevlel.
Description: 博士
國立政治大學
國家發展研究所
98261507
102
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098261507
Data Type: thesis
Appears in Collections:[國家發展研究所] 學位論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
150701.pdf1636KbAdobe PDF643View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing