当前大陆学界“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究述评
Return to the Library

A Review of Current Research in Mainland Academia on the “One Country, Two Systems” Formula for Taiwan

当前大陆学界“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究述评

This lengthy “literature review” appearing in one of the mainland’s core Taiwan studies journals explores how Chinese scholars conceptualize the “one country, two systems” framework in relation to Taiwan, including how such a system might be implemented in a “post-reunification” environment.


FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link
Original text
PDF
English text
PDF
See an error? Drop us a line at
View the translated and original text side-by-side

I. Introduction

一、引言

On January 2, 2019, at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of issuing the Message to Taiwan Compatriots, General Secretary Xi Jinping for the first time specifically discussed exploring the “two systems” Taiwan formula and enriching the practice of peaceful reunification, revealing the great practical significance of exploring the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula in the new era, and directly propelling the theoretical exploration of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula to a new stage. Guided by this, academic research on the “one country, two systems” (1C2S) Taiwan formula must adapt to the new situation to achieve a transition from research on the 1C2S Taiwan model to exploration of the 1C2S Taiwan formula. There is also an urgent need to expand the breadth and depth of research content, so as to provide adequate intellectual support for the design and implementation of the “two systems” Taiwan formula. Before deepening the academic research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula and exploring the formula’s specific design, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review and analysis of the existing academic research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula, to get a clear picture of the progress, characteristics, and shortcomings of related research in the process of going from studying the 1C2S model for solving the Taiwan issue to exploring the “two systems” Taiwan formula.

2019年1月2日,习近平总书记在纪念《告台湾同胞书》发布40周年纪念会上首次对探索“两制”台湾方案、丰富和平统一实践的内容进行了专门论述,揭示了新时代探索“一国两制”台湾方案的重大现实意义,直接推动“一国两制”台湾方案的理论探索进入到一个新阶段。以此为指导,关于“一国两制”台湾方案的学术研究必须适应新形势以实现从“一国两制”台湾模式的研究向探索台湾方案的转换,在内容上也亟需拓展广度与深度,以为“两制”台湾方案的设计和实施提供充足的智力支持。在深化“一国两制”台湾方案的学术研究、探索“一国两制”台湾方案的具体设计之前,很有必要对于当前学界既有的“一国两制”台湾方案的相关研究状况做一个系统的回顾与分析,厘清从“一国两制”解决台湾问题的模式研究到探索“两制”台湾方案过程中已有相关研究的进展、特征及其不足所在。

II. Overview of the Content of Current Research in Mainland China on the “One Country, Two Systems” Taiwan Formula

二、当前大陆“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究内容综述

Since the idea of “one country, two systems” was first proposed in the early 1980s, mainland scholars have begun to research and explore the 1C2S principle for solving the Taiwan issue, and have made many achievements in the exploration of the 1C2S Taiwan model. Overall, the focus has mainly been on the following five topics.

自上世纪80年代初“一国两制”的构想提出以来,大陆学者就开始对“一国两制”方针解决台湾问题进行研究探讨,并在“一国两制”台湾模式探讨上取得诸多成果。综合来看主要聚焦于以下五个议题内容。

i. On the ideological origins of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula
(一)关于“一国两制”台湾方案的思想来源

“One country, two systems” was originally proposed in order to peacefully resolve the Taiwan issue. When Deng Xiaoping first proposed the 1C2S concept, its content was more tailored to the Taiwan issue. That is to say, the initial concept of “one country, two systems” established the basic ideological framework of the 1C2S Taiwan formula. In consequence, to examine the ideological origins of the 1C2S Taiwan formula is actually to delve into the ideological origins of “one country, two systems.” On the whole, current academic exploration of the ideological origins of the 1C2S Taiwan formula is comprised mainly of three types.

“一国两制”最早是为和平解决台湾问题而提出的。邓小平最初提出“一国两制”构想,其内容更多的是为台湾问题而量身设计。也就是说,“一国两制”的初步构想确立了“一国两制”台湾方案的基本思想架构。因此,考察“一国两制”台湾方案的思想渊源,实际上就是探究“一国两制”的思想渊源。总体来看,目前学界探讨的“一国两制”台湾方案的思想来源主要包括三类。

1. The “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula originated in the thinking of first-generation leaders such as Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai on the peaceful liberation of Taiwan. Although 1C2S was a creative idea first proposed by comrade Deng Xiaoping, many scholars maintain that the relevant thinking on Taiwan of leaders like Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai was an important inspiration for Deng Xiaoping’s proposal of 1C2S. Li Jiaquan, after conducting a comparative analysis of the strategic thinking of three generations of CCP leaders on unifying China, points out that Deng Xiaoping, “as the Party’s General Secretary at that time, was also a direct participant in and formulator of the peaceful reunification idea of the ‘four principles [on Taiwan]’.” His proposal of the general principle of “peaceful reunification and one country, two systems” after the Third Plenum of the Eleventh Central Committee, was an inheritance and development of the idea of peaceful reunification proposed by first-generation leaders Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai.1 Xie Chuntao believes that although Mao’s idea of the peaceful liberation of Taiwan was somewhat incomplete and could not be very effective under the historical conditions at that time, it provided a useful reference for Deng Xiaoping’s proposal of the “one country, two systems” concept following the Third Plenum of the Eleventh Central Committee.2

1、第一代领导人毛泽东、周恩来等关于和平解放台湾的思想是一国两制台湾方案的思想源泉。虽然“一国两制”是邓小平同志最先提出的创造性设想,但多数学者都认为毛泽东、周恩来等领导人的相关对台思想对邓小平提出“一国两制”具有重要启迪意义。李家泉在对中共三代领导人统一中国的战略思考进行比较分析后指出,邓小平“当时作为党的总书记,也是‘一纲四目’这一和平统一思想的直接参与者和制定者”,他在十一届三中全会以后提出“和平统一、一国两制”的大政方针,是对第一代领导人毛泽东、周恩来所提出的“一纲四目”的和平统一思想的继承和发展。谢春涛认为,虽然毛泽东和平解放台湾的设想有一些不完备之处,在当时的历史条件下也不可能产生很大的作用,但为邓小平在中共十一届三中全会后提出“一国两制”构想提供了有益的借鉴。

2. The “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula is rooted in deep traditional Chinese history and culture. Some scholars believe that 1C2S, as a kind of theoretical concept with Chinese characteristics, necessarily has its own special basis in Chinese history and culture. On this point, Fei Xiaotong has remarked that 1C2S does not only have political significance. “When you go a step further to look at its origins, there is a Chinese cultural essence in it. It can combine different things together. Without this kind of an essence, we would not have today’s Chinese nation or Chinese culture, and 1C2S would not have emerged.”3 According to Li Daoxiang’s analysis, in terms of theoretical model, the theory of 1C2S is closely related to the traditional Chinese cosmological model of “one divides into two”; in terms of thought, it contains traditional Chinese culture’s spirit of pursuing unity, longing for peace, and seeking harmony without sameness; and in terms of values, it embodies the core values of the Chinese nation.4 Kong Xiangwen argued that 1C2S not only embodies the contemporary value of a political culture that is traditionally one of “pluralistic unity” in nature, but also embodies the spirit of Chinese harmonious culture and people-oriented thought.5 In addition, there are scholars who have taken pains to sort through and analyze the implementation of the official system in the north and south of the Liao Dynasty, the earliest 1C2S-like situation in Chinese history.6

2、一国两制台湾方案根植于深厚的中国传统历史文化。部分学者认为“一国两制”作为一种中国特色的理论构想,必定有其特殊的中国历史文化基础。对此,费孝通曾提到,“一国两制”不光具有政治上的意义“,再一步去看它的来源,有一个中国文化的本质在里边,它可以把不同的东西合在一起。没有这样一个本质,那就不会有今天的中华民族和中国文化,也不会出来‘一国两制’”。李道湘分析认为,“一国两制”理论,在理论模式上,它与中国传统的“一分为二”的宇宙论模式密切相关;在思想内容上,它包含着中国传统文化中追求统一、渴望和平、和而不同的精神;在价值观上,它体现了中华民族核心价值观。孔详文认为,“一国两制”不仅体现了传统的“多元一体”的政治文化本质的时代价值,还体现了中华和合文化与民本思想的精神。另外,也有学者专门梳理和分析了中国历史上最早的“一国两制”类似情况中辽朝北、南面官制的推行状况。

3. Lenin’s thinking on “peaceful coexistence” provided important theoretical inspiration for “one country, two systems.” Starting from Lenin’s thinking on the long-term peaceful coexistence of countries with two different systems, capitalism and socialism, some scholars believe that 1C2S is a flexible application and development of “peaceful coexistence.” Zhou Chunyuan has explicitly argued that the direct source of thought of 1C2S is Lenin’s idea of peaceful coexistence, which Deng Xiaoping applied specifically to issues of domestic relations in the process of peaceful reunification, based on the development realities of Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.7 Wang Zhongren has also argued that Deng Xiaoping broke beyond Lenin’s traditional way of thinking, which used the idea of “peaceful coexistence” to deal with interstate relations, and applied it skillfully to deal with China’s internal issue of unification. Thus the great concept of “one country, two systems” was created.8

3、列宁的和平共处思想对于一国两制有着重要的理论启迪。一些学者从列宁关于资本主义与社会主义两种制度的国家长期共存的和平共存的思想出发,认为“一国两制”是对“和平共处”的灵活运用与发展。周春元明确指出,“一国两制”直接的思想来源,是列宁的和平共处思想,邓小平根据港澳台发展实际,将其具体应用于解决和平统一过程中国内关系问题上。王中人亦认为邓小平突破了列宁将“和平共处”思想用来处理国家间关系的传统思维模式,而将其巧妙地运用来处理中国的内政统一问题,从而创立了“一个国家,两种制度”的伟大构想。

In addition to the above three types, there have also been a small proportion of scholars who have variously examined the origins of the 1C2S concept from a scattering of perspectives, such as the “Tibet model” in the early years after the PRC’s establishment, and the coexistence of different systems in world history.

除了上述三类之外,还有少部分学者零散地从建国初期“西藏模式”、世界历史中不同制度并存现象等视角考察过“一国两制”构想的思想来源。

ii. On the basic content of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula
(二)关于“一国两制”台湾方案的基本内涵

As one of the core components of “one country, two systems,” the 1C2S Taiwan formula contains two layers of meaning: the first is the general connotation, which is the basic connotation of 1C2S. Based on Deng Xiaoping’s original concept, the general consensus in academia regarding the basic connotation of 1C2S is that “within the unified People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are permitted to practice capitalist systems, on the premise that the main body of the country practices a socialist system.”9 Put succinctly, it is “one country, two systems, a high degree of autonomy, and peaceful reunification.” The second is the particular connotation. In view of the particularity and complexity of the Taiwan issue, in addition to the general connotation of “one country, two systems,” the 1C2S Taiwan formula also has a special connotation different from “one country, two systems” as implemented in Hong Kong and Macau. Scholars have examined the particular connotations of the Taiwan formula mainly from three aspects: the basic principles or requirements, the path arrangements prior to reunification, and the institutional forms after reunification.

作为“一国两制”的核心内容之一,“一国两制”台湾方案包含两层涵义:一是一般性内涵,也就是“一国两制”的基本内涵。关于“一国两制”的基本内涵,基于邓小平的最初构想,学术界的普遍共识是“在统一的中华人民共和国内,在国家主体实行社会主义制度的前提下,允许香港、澳门和台湾实行资本主义制度”。概括而言就是“一个国家、两制并存、高度自治、和平统一”。其二是特殊性内涵。鉴于台湾问题的特殊性与复杂性,除了具备“一国两制”的一般性内涵之外,“一国两制”台湾方案还具有不同于港澳“一国两制”实施的特殊意涵。学者主要从基本原则或要求、统一前的路径安排、统一后的制度形式三方面来考察台湾方案的特殊性内涵。

1. Basic principles or requirements. In contrast to the Hong Kong and Macau issue, the Taiwan issue is not only a remnant of China’s civil war. There are also external factors such as the United States involved, and its solution is clearly more complex and longer-term in nature. Consequently, using the “one country, two systems” approach to solve the Taiwan issue not only depends on the interaction between Taiwan’s internal political ecology and cross-strait relations, but is also to a great degree subject to the interference of external forces such as the United States and Japan, and its involvement in China’s internal affairs and diplomatic relations is also more complex. As a result, when some mainland scholars discuss the 1C2S Taiwan formula, they often pay special attention to first defining clear basic principles or requirements, in order to regulate the design of the political arrangements for the “two systems” Taiwan formula and ensure that its overall direction is stable and far-reaching, and then go on to propose a sensible and reasonable formula.

1、基本原则或要求。相比于港澳问题,台湾问题不仅是中国内战的遗留,更有美国等外部因素介入,其解决明显更具复杂性与长期性。因此,以“一国两制”方针解决台湾问题不仅取决于台湾内部政治生态与两岸关系的互动,还在很大程度上受到美日等外部力量的干涉,它所牵涉的中国内政与外交关系也要更加错综复杂。基此,一些大陆学者在探讨“一国两制”台湾方案时往往特别注重事先界定清晰的基本原则或要求,以规范“两制”台湾方案的政治安排设计,确保其总体方向行稳致远,进而提出合情合理的方案。

Li Jiaquan pointed out early on that the “one country, two systems” Taiwan model 10 must put forward four conditions, including principles (the one-China principle), peace (no U.S. intervention, no “independence” for Taiwan, then no use of force by the mainland), democracy (extensive solicitation of the Taiwanese people’s reasonable and feasible opinions), and equality (equal consultation and negotiation between representatives of the two sides).11 Li Yihu has argued that there are several requirements that the political design of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan model must pay attention to, mainly along the lines of conformity with “peaceful reunification and common development,” adherence to the one-China principle, and adjustment of the constitutional structure.12 Yu Keli examined the basic principles and main content of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan model from three aspects: the one-China principle, the long-term coexistence of “two systems” with a high degree of autonomy, and political negotiation.13 Zhang Nianchi and Sun Dayao and colleagues put special emphasis on the basic principle of joint cross-strait participation in negotiations. The 1C2S Taiwan formula is not imposed by one side on the other, but is the result of joint negotiations between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.” 14 Without the Taiwanese people’s participation and struggle, even if “one country, two systems” were to be equivalent to “confederation” or “federation,” it would be difficult to fundamentally eliminate their mentality of fear and resistance. “Discussing reunification together and establishing one China together” is the inevitable path and mode for cross-strait reunification.15

李家泉较早指出,关于“一国两制”台湾模式必须提出四个条件,包括原则(一个中国原则)、和平(美国不介入,台湾不“独立”,大陆就不会动武)、民主(广泛征求台湾民众合理可行意见)、平等(两岸代表平等协商谈判)。李义虎主要从符合“和平统一、共同发展”、坚持一个中国原则、调整宪法架构等方面论证了“一国两制”台湾模式的政治设计应该注意的几点要求。余克礼从一中原则、“两制”长期共存与高度自治以及政治谈判三个方面考察了“一国两制”台湾模式的基本原则与主要内容。章念驰、孙代尧等特别强调两岸共同参与商议的基本原则。“一国两制”台湾方案“并非是一方强加于另一方的,而是两岸共同商议的结果”,如果没有台湾人民的参与和斗争,即使是“一国两制”等同于“邦联”或“联邦”,也难从根本上消除他们的恐惧和抵制心态。“共议统一、共缔一中”,是两岸统一模式的必然途径和方式。

2. Path arrangements prior to reunification. Compared with Hong Kong and Macau, the most significant difference of the Taiwan issue lies in the fact that Taiwan has not yet achieved reunification with the motherland. Hence, in addition to designing a reasonable post-reunification institutional form, the 1C2S Taiwan formula must also include path arrangements that fit the pre-reunification development of cross-strait relations, i.e., path arrangements that regulate the state of cross-strait relations before reunification and promote the realization of cross-strait reunification. Many scholars have also carried out in-depth examinations of precisely this issue. Huang Jiashu believes that, under the status quo of “one China, and the two sides of the Strait not yet reunified,” the most important thing in the development of “one country, two systems” is to recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the same country, while temporarily shelving or blurring the “two-government dispute” within “one country.” He further proposed the idea of “three steps,” the first step being to negotiate and reach an agreement, under the one-China principle, to end the current hostile state. The second and third steps are for both sides to negotiate on an equal footing, plan together, and discuss reunification to resolve the issue of “integrating the two governments into one government.”16 Li Yihu has mapped out a dynamic path for the 1C2S formula for Taiwan prior to reunification that includes three stages. It goes from the peaceful development stage to the political negotiation stage, then from political negotiation to a transitional stage prior to reunification. Finally, autonomous reunification would be achieved on the basis of it being entered into voluntarily on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. 17 Starting from the theoretical construction of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan model, Lin Gang also analyzes that “on the premise that the Taiwan authorities agree to the one-China framework or structure, using the ‘two governments, two systems’ model as a reasonable arrangement for cross-strait political relations before reunification…is in line with the fundamental interests of the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.” 18

2、统一前的路径安排。与港澳相比,台湾问题最显著的差异就在于台湾还尚未与祖国大陆实现统一。因此,“一国两制”台湾方案除了设计统一后的合理制度形式以外,还理应包含一种统一前契合两岸关系发展的路径安排,即关于规范统一前的两岸关系状态并促进实现两岸统一的路径安排。不少学者专门对此还进行过深入探讨。黄嘉树认为在“一个中国、两岸尚未统一”的现状下,发展“一国两制”的重中之重是要承认两岸同属一个国家,同时暂时搁置或模糊化“同一个国家”里面的“两府争端”。并进一步提出了“三步走”的思路,第一步在一中原则下谈判达成协议,结束敌对状态。第二、三步则是双方通过平等协商、共同规划、共议统一,解决“两府整合为一府”的问题。李义虎为“一国两制”的台湾方案在统一之前规划了包含三个阶段的动态路径:从和平发展阶段到政治谈判阶段,再从政治谈判到统一前的过渡阶段,最终在两岸自愿基础上实现自主统一。林冈从“一国两制”台湾模式的理论建构出发也分析道,“在台湾当局认同一个中国框架或架构的前提下,以‘两府两制’模式,合情合理安排统一前的两岸政治关系…是符合两岸人民根本利益的。”

3. Post-reunification institutional arrangements. The issue of post-unification institutional forms is part of the core content of the 1C2S Taiwan formula. It is concerned with what kind of political arrangements—including power allocation, relationship positioning, and institutional structure, etc.—should be put into practice in cross-strait relations after the realization of reunification, under the framework of the basic principles of “one China, two-system coexistence, a high degree of autonomy, and peaceful reunification,” in order to ensure win-win post-reunification development. Solving the Taiwan issue is not about simply pursuing the goal of reunification; ultimately it must rest on the common realization of the “Chinese dream” on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and the common achievement of the historical mission of the great rejuvenation of the nation. Based on this level of significance, whether, post-reunification, a system can be proposed that is satisfactory and acceptable to the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and that can promote both sides’ common development has become a top priority in research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula, and thus many scholars have made useful explorations on the topic.

3、统一后的制度安排。统一后的制度形式属于“一国两制”台湾方案的核心内容。它关注的是,在遵循“一个中国、两制并存、高度自治、和平统一”的基本原则框架下,实现统一之后两岸关系应该实践怎样一种政治安排包括权力配置、关系定位以及制度结构等,以确保统一后的共赢发展。解决台湾问题,并非简单地追求统一目标,归根到底还是要落脚于两岸共圆“中国梦”,共同实现民族伟大复兴的历史使命。基于这层意义,统一后能否提出一个让两岸人民都能满意、接受且能促进双方共同发展的制度形式就成为“一国两制”台湾方案研究的重中之重,因而很多学者对此进行了有益探索。

Li Jiaquan suggested that, in order to maintain Taiwan’s “governmental structure” without violating the one China principle, the “large administrative region” structure that was implemented in the 1950s on the mainland can be applied to Taiwan’s institutional structure after reunification, with powers secondary to those of the central government but superior to those of the provinces and municipalities under its jurisdiction.19 Wang Liping has argued that the two systems in “one country, two systems” can also refer to a unitary system and a federal system, and that the post-unification system can also be a composite of a unitary system and a federal system. “As long as there are realistic and theoretical possibilities, ‘one country, two systems’ and the one China principle do not exclude using a federal system to achieve national unification.” Also, “if the unitary state absorbs some features of the federal system state in order to achieve national sovereignty and territorial integrity, even though it blurs the boundaries between the two forms of state structure, its value is that it is conducive to realizing the integrity of national unity and sovereignty.” 20 Drawing on certain “federal system” experiences, Wang Yingjin proposed a new conception of the 1C2S Taiwan model, its distinct feature being that it thinks through arranging for post-reunification Taiwan to enjoy the exercise of partial sovereignty (which does not imply recognition that Taiwan has “sovereignty”) or decentralized autonomy. In other words, “through cross-strait negotiations, the Taiwanese side will return to the Central People’s Government those parts of the exercise of sovereignty that can reflect national unification (e.g., diplomatic power), and the remainder that have not been returned will be retained by the Taiwanese side as ‘residual powers.'”21 It follows that the relationship between mainland China and the region of Taiwan would no longer be a relationship between central government and local government in the general sense, but a relationship between the central government and a “quasi-central government.” 22 Li Yihu argues that the construction of a constitutional republic, meeting Taiwan’s demand for protection of interests in terms of the source and distribution of power, could effectively solve the problem of post-reunification power distribution, reshape national identity, and thereby strengthen the acceptance and recognition of 1C2S by the people of Taiwan. 23

李家泉建议可以将20世纪50年代曾在大陆施行的“大行政区”架构运用于统一后台湾的制度结构,其权力次于中央、高于所管辖的省市,既能保持台湾的“政府架构”,又不违背一个中国原则。王丽萍认为“一国两制”中的两制还可指单一制和联邦制,统一后的制度形式也可以是单一制与联邦制的复合。“只要存在现实和理论上的可能性,‘一国两制’和一个中国的原则是不排斥以联邦制实现国家统一的,”“单一制国家为实现国家主权和领土完整吸收联邦制国家的某些特征,虽然模糊了国家结构两种形式之间的界限,但其价值在于有利于实现国家的统一和主权的完整”。王英津借鉴“联邦制”的某些经验,提出了“一国两制”台湾模式的新构想,其特点在于设想安排统一后的台湾享有部分主权行使权(并不意味着承认台湾拥有“主权”)或分权性自治权。也就是“两岸通过协商,台湾方面向中央人民政府交还能体现国家统一的部分主权行使权(如外交权),其余未交还的部分由台湾方面作为‘剩余权力’予以保留”。由此中国大陆和台湾地区的关系,不再是一般意义上的中央与地方关系,而是一种中央与“准中央”的关系。李义虎认为通过宪政共和政体的建构从权力来源与分配方面满足台湾对利益保障的要求,能有效解决统一后的权力分配问题,重塑国家认同,进而加强台湾民众对“一国两制”的接受与认可。

In addition, some scholars have also examined and analyzed the operational logic of the “German model,” the “Tanzanian model,” and inter-Korean relations, and so on, exploring their implications for the 1C2S Taiwan formula. These have all provided valuable contributions to the exploration of the institutional arrangements for the 1C2S Taiwan formula.

另外,也有学者考察分析“德国模式”、“坦桑尼亚模式”、朝韩关系等“非一国两制”模式的运作逻辑,并探讨其对“一国两制”台湾方案的借鉴与启发意义,这些都为探索“一国两制”台湾方案的制度安排提供了宝贵的经验贡献。

iii. Theoretical basis and significance of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula
(三)关于“一国两制”台湾方案的理论依据与意义

The connotations of the 1C2S Taiwan formula not only have rich origins in terms of thought, but also a deep theoretical basis, and reflect the innovation and development of related theories. Overall, existing research outputs have examined the theoretical capacity of the 1C2S Taiwan formula from four theoretical perspectives: Marxist philosophy, sovereignty and administrative power, state structural form, and constitutional jurisprudence. Since the 1C2S Taiwan formula is included in the 1C2S framework, scholars have mostly explored the theoretical basis and significance of “one country, two systems” as a whole.

“一国两制”台湾方案的内涵除了具有丰富的思想来源之外,亦存在深厚的学理依据,体现了对相关理论的创新与发展。总体来看,已有研究成果主要从马克思主义哲学、主权与治权、国家结构形式、宪法法理四个理论视角考察了“一国两制”台湾方案的理论容量。由于“一国两制”台湾方案包含于“一国两制”的框架内,学者们更多还是从整体上来探讨“一国两制”的理论依据与意义。

1. Marxist philosophy. From the perspective of Marxist philosophy, scholars have analyzed the classical ideas of materialist dialectics, seeking truth from facts, and the unity of the “two-point theory” and the “key point theory” as the philosophical basis of 1C2S. On the other hand, they have also examined the important theoretical contributions of 1C2Sto Marxist philosophy. Mei Rongzheng believes that the 1C2S concept fully implements the “objectivity of observation” principle of Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism, that is, starting from reality and seeking truth from facts. Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” concept “did not start from individual theoretical branches or examples. Instead, starting from a comprehensive analysis of history and reality, the times and national conditions, its political design was developed by grasping the most essential, most wholly applicable ‘realities’.”24 Pan Shuming focuses on the 1C2S formula’s creative application of the essence of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, namely, seeking truth from facts.25 Yu Keli focuses on analyzing 1C2S as a model for the creative application of Marxist materialistic dialectics in three respects: fully embodying the dialectical law of the unity of opposites, developing the theory on the correct handling of contradictions among the people, and penetrating the “two-point theory” of dialectics. 26

1、马克思主义哲学。在马克思主义哲学的视阈下,学者一方面分析了唯物辩证法、实事求是、“两点论”与“重点论”相统一等经典思想作为“一国两制”的哲学基础,另一方面也考察了“一国两制”对马克思主义哲学的重要理论贡献。梅荣政认为“一国两制”构想充分贯彻了马克思主义辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义的“观察的客观性”的原则,即从实际出发,实事求是。邓小平关于“一国两制”的构想,“不是从个别枝节之论、实例出发的,而是从对历史的和现实的、时代的和国情的全面分析中,抓住那些最本质、最具有全局意义的“实际”作出政治设计的。”潘叔明重点探讨了“一国两制”对辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义的精髓即实事求是的创造性运用。余克礼从充分体现辩证法的对立统一规律、发展正确处理人民内部矛盾的理论、贯穿辩证法的“两点论”三个方面,着重解析了“一国两制”是对马克思主义唯物辩证法创造性运用的典范。

2. State structural form. A relatively large number of scholars have set out from the Marxist theory of the state or the theory of state structural form in constitutional theory to explore the theoretical implications of the adjustment of state structural form which the 1C2S Taiwan formula reflects. They have highlighted that the implementation of 1C2S is a breakthrough and innovation of the traditional concept of the unitary form of state structure.

2、国家结构形式。较多学者从马克思主义国家学说或宪政理论中的国家结构形式理论出发,探讨了“一国两制”台湾方案所体现的国家结构形式调整的理论意涵,并着重说明“一国两制”的实施是对单一制国家结构形式的传统观念的突破与创新。

Liu Haifan has pointed out that 1C2S is a creative development of the Marxist theory of the state. It implies relying on the state power with the proletariat occupying the ruling position to establish, on the whole, a strong, independent, democratic, and civilized state system at the primary stage of socialism, and at the same time unifying two regions with different social systems and different ideologies within one state.27 Liu Huanming and Zhang Bin also hold that the “composite-unitary” state model represented by “one country, two systems” is an innovation of Marx’s theory of state structural form. The 1C2S Taiwan model, as a new form of state structure that has yet to be settled, will not be a simple unitary system, let alone a typical federal system, but will be a unique form of state structure with Chinese characteristics, one between the unitary system and the federal system, for dealing with national issues and overall and local interests. 28 Wang Weixing has proposed that 1C2S is a new model of state structure that focuses on a unitary state structure while partially incorporating the beneficial elements of a composite system, which is a creation and breakthrough of state structure theory.29 Based on his exploration into the connotations of state structural form theory, Wang Yingjin specifically discusses the issue of how to judge whether a certain form of state structure has the characteristics of federalism, and argues that the practice of “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong and Macau does not have federal characteristics, while his conceptualization of the 1C2S Taiwan model actually is a “true unitary system with federal characteristics.”30

刘海藩指出“一国两制”是对马克思主义国家学说的创造性发展。它意指,依靠无产阶级占统治地位的国家政权,从总体上建立一个坚强的独立自主、民主文明的社会主义初级阶段的国家体制,同时把两个不同社会制度和不同意识形态的地区,统一在一个国家体内。刘焕明与张彬也认为“一国两制”这种“复合单一”的国家模式,是对马克思国家结构形式理论的创新。“一国两制”台湾模式作为一种还未有定论的新型国家结构形式,不会是单纯的单一制,更不能是典型的联邦制,而会是介于单一制和联邦制之间的独具中国特色的处理民族问题、处理整体利益和局部利益的国家结构形式。王卫星提出,“一国两制”是以单一制国家结构为主,同时部分融入复合制有益成份的一种新型国家结构模式,它是对国家结构学说的创造与突破。王英津基于对国家结构形式理论内涵的挖掘,专门讨论了如何判断某一国家结构形式是否带有联邦制特点的问题,并认为“一国两制”港澳实践并没有联邦制的特点,而其所构想的“一国两制”台湾模式才是“真正的带有联邦制特点的单一制”。

3. Sovereignty and “administrative power.” Further extending and refining state structural form theory, some scholars also start from the perspective of sovereign power theory to focus on the key issue of how sovereignty and administrative power are distributed under the 1C2S Taiwan formula. The focus is on the 1C2S concept as an embodiment and innovation of the theory of sovereignty and administrative power. Wang Bangzuo and Wang Huning argue that 1C2S is a highly organic combination of sovereignty and administrative power: “One country” refers to the indivisibility of national sovereignty and the unity of the Chinese nation; “two systems” emphasizes a high degree of autonomy. 31 Huang Jiashu and Wang Yingjin propose a research framework on sovereignty composition, that is, 1C2S deals with the relationship between the ownership of sovereignty and the right to exercise sovereignty, changing the “passive separation” of the two into “active separation.” In “one country, two systems,” “one country” is the core and the goal, reflecting the uniqueness and indivisibility of sovereignty ownership; “two systems” is the means, the form for realizing national unification and sovereign integrity, reflecting the divisibility and transferability of the right to exercise sovereignty.32 Li Yihu emphasizes that China’s sovereignty is not currently divided, and that the pursuit of reunification through 1C2S is only at the level of the administrative power. Its point of departure is to pursue unification of the (actual) jurisdiction and management of public affairs. That is, it is intended to prevent the continuation of the abnormal state of separation of sovereignty from administrative power without the consent of all the people, and the danger of real division of sovereignty, and to find a model of national reunification acceptable to both sides of the Taiwan Strait that will facilitate comprehensive cross-strait reunification. 33 Yuan Zhengqing and Zhao Yang, starting from the perspective of sovereignty norms in international relations, point out that Deng Xiaoping’s vision and practice of “one country, two systems” is a Chinese innovation of sovereignty norms: first, it allows different types of political systems to co-exist and develop under the framework of one sovereign state; and second, the relationship between the two political systems is not parallel but subordinate. 34

3、主权与治权从国家结构形式进一步延伸细化,部分学者还专门从主权权能理论出发,聚焦于“一国两制”台湾方案下主权与治权如何分配的关键问题,重点关注“一国两制”构想对于主权与治权理论的体现与创新。王邦佐、王沪宁认为“一国两制”是主权和治权的高度有机结合:“一国”指的是国家主权的不可分割性和中华民族的统一性;“两制”强调的是高度自治权。黄嘉树与王英津提出了一种主权构成的研究框架,即“一国两制”处理了主权所有权与主权行使权之间的关系,把二者的“被动分离”变为“主动分离”。在“一国两制”中,“一国”是核心、是目标,体现了主权所有权的唯一性和不可分割性:“两制”是手段,是国家统一和主权完整的实现形式,体现了主权行使权的可分性和可转让性。李义虎强调目前中国的主权并没有分裂,通过“一国两制”追求统一的问题只体现在治权层面上,其落脚点在于追求对公共事务的(实际)管辖权和管理权的统一,也就是为了防止未经全体人民同意产生的主权与治权分离的不正常状态持续下去、造成主权真正分裂的危险,寻找一种两岸都能接受的国家统一模式,促成两岸的全面统一。袁正清与赵洋从国际关系中的主权规范出发,指出邓小平提出的“一国两制”设想和实践是中国对主权规范的创新:一是在一个主权国家的框架之下允许不同类型的政治制度共同存在与发展;二是两种政治制度之间并不是平行而是从属的关系。

4. Constitutional jurisprudence Some scholars have also specially explored the constitutional and legal implications behind “one country, two systems” from a jurisprudence perspective. Firstly, scholars have considered the important value of “one country, two systems” from a constitutional perspective. In Li Yihu’s analysis, the construction of the 1C2S Taiwan formula is part of the regulation and allocation of vertical state power operation in the process of constructing China’s constitutional system and institutions. By constructing and improving the constitutional system it safeguards the rights and interests of citizens, dispelling the Taiwanese people’s doubts that their rights and interests cannot be guaranteed, strengthening the Taiwanese people’s identification with the state, promoting the realization of national reunification, and safeguarding the overall interests of the people of China as a whole, including Taiwanese people. 35 Wang Zhenmin suggests that the continuous deepening and innovation of the practice of “one country, two systems” will inevitably enrich and improve China’s constitutional theory and system, thereby creating a higher level of constitutional civilization. 36 Secondly, some scholars have analyzed the legal basis of “one country, two systems” and its innovation value from a legal integration angle. Rao Geping points out in his analysis that the civil law system characterized by statutory law and the common law system characterized by common law are not diametrically opposed and exclusive. Instead, they constantly enrich themselves by absorbing and transplanting each other’s advantages. Therefore, after 1C2S reunification, the various legal systems of mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan can learn from, draw from, and promote each other, maintaining the prosperity and stability of each, and this can enrich and develop the legal culture of the whole nation. 37 Chen Youqing has noted that 1C2S embodies the international law idea of the principle of peaceful coexistence. The theory of 1C2S introduces for the first time in the field of domestic law the international law concept of “peaceful coexistence, long-term coexistence, and common development” between two completely different and even long-standing opposing systems, thus expanding application of the peaceful coexistence principle to a completely new area. 38

4、宪法法理。一些学者还专门从法理层面探讨“一国两制”背后所蕴含的宪政与法律意涵。首先,有学者从宪政角度出发来思考“一国两制”的重要价值。李义虎分析认为,“一国两制”台湾方案的构建,是我国宪政体系和制度建构过程中纵向国家权力运行规范和配置的内容之一,它通过宪政制度的建构和完善维护公民权益,消除台湾民众对自身权益无法得到保障的疑虑,强化台湾民众的国家认同,促进国家统一的实现,维护包括台湾民众在内的全体中国人民的整体利益。王振民提出,“一国两制”实践的不断深入、创新,必将更加丰富完善中国有关的宪政理论和制度,从而创造更高级的宪制文明。其次,也有学者从法的整合层面切入,对“一国两制”的法律依据及其创新价值进行剖析。饶戈平分析指出,以制定法为特征的民法法系和以普通法为特征的普通法系并不是截然对立排斥,而是不断地吸收、移植对方的优点,充实自己。因此“一国两制”统一后中国大陆与港澳台的多种法律体系之间可以相互借鉴、吸收与促进,维护各自的繁荣稳定,并能丰富发展整个民族的法律文化。陈友清指出“一国两制”体现了和平共处原则的国际法思想。“一国两制”理论在国内法领域首次引入了完全不同甚至长期对立的两种制度的“和平共处、长期共存、共同发展”的国际法理念,从而拓展了和平共处原则的全新适用空间。

In addition, there are also scholars who have focused mainly on the challenges that 1C2S presents to China’s constitutional government and legal theory, offering their own responses and reflections. There is, for example, the issue of private legal conflicts involving mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau under “one country, two systems.” Liu Jingwei has systematically presented the relevant experience of other regions in international society concerning private law unification, and analyzed the humanistic, economic, and political basis for the unification of private law in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau. 39

此外,还有一些学者主要关注“一国两制”对中国宪政与法律理论发展的挑战,并做出回应思考。比如针对“一国两制”下“两岸四地”私法冲突的问题。柳经纬系统介绍了国际社会其他地区私法统一的有效经验,并分析了“两岸四地”私法统一的人文、经济和政治基础。

iv. Background of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula in practice
(四)“一国两制”台湾方案的实践背景

Since the 1970s, with the rapid pace of change in motherland reunification and cross-strait relations, the thinking on, and exploration of, the 1C2S solution to the Taiwan issue have also seen constant adjustment and development. The forty year-plus process of evolution in motherland reunification and cross-strait relations has constituted a background of practice for going from solving the Taiwan issue based on the 1C2S approach to exploring the “two systems” Taiwan formula. Specifically, the existing research mainly analyzes three aspects of past practice with the 1C2S Taiwan formula: the evolution of the cross-strait relationship, the reaction to “one country, two systems” in Taiwan, and the international environment for Taiwan-related diplomacy.

20世纪70年代末以来,伴随着祖国统一与两岸关系形势的快速变化,“一国两制”解决台湾问题的构想与探索也在不断调整发展中。四十多年来祖国统一与两岸关系的演变历程构成了根据“一国两制”方针解决台湾问题到探索“两制”台湾方案的实践背景。具体来看,既有成果主要从两岸关系发展演变、“一国两制”在台反应以及涉台外交国际环境三个方面对“一国两制”台湾方案的实践背景展开了分析。

1. Background on the evolution of the cross-strait relationship. The 1C2S Taiwan formula must be rooted in the specific practice of cross-strait relationship development and adapted to the actual conditions of the cross-strait relationship, and must serve the real need of promoting the two sides of the Strait to ultimately move towards reunification. The practice of cross-strait relationship development in recent years has mainly involved such content as the peaceful development of cross-strait relations, cross-strait political and economic interaction, and new discourse on Taiwan-related work. Li Jiaquan was relatively early in drawing out the close relationship between “one country, two systems” and construction of a framework for cross-strait peaceful development. Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” is itself aimed at peaceful development, in that it seeks to promote the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues or the Taiwan issue. 40 The analysis of Yan Anlin, Zhang Zhexin and colleagues argues that the connotations and characteristics of the important expositions on Taiwan since the 18th National Party Congress, as well as the progress and experience in the cross-strait relationship’s peaceful development since 2008, have opened up the initial practice in the exploration of the Taiwan model of 1C2S, and have accumulated the necessary foundation for 1C2S to promote the reunification of the motherland.41 Li Fei and Liu Cheyuan specifically discuss the importance of cross-strait political and economic interaction for the realization of 1C2S. They argue that adopting an appropriate strategy of “separating politics and economics,” and constructing cross-strait economic cooperation mechanisms that meet the needs of the developing situation, would help cross-strait economic cooperation advance from functional integration to institutional integration, thereby promoting cross-strait political cooperation, and finally achieving peaceful reunification. 42 Zhu Weidong systematically illustrates the reunification strategy, from the necessity and inevitability of unification, to how and what to unify, and discusses the past practice of the 1C2S Taiwan formula in the new era.43

1、两岸关系发展演变背景。“一国两制”台湾方案必须立足于两岸关系发展的具体实践,适应两岸关系的实际状况,服务于促进两岸最终走向统一的现实需要。近年来两岸关系发展的实践主要涉及两岸关系和平发展、两岸政经关系互动以及对台工作新论述等内容。李家泉较早梳理了“一国两制”与构建两岸和平发展框架之间的密切关系。邓小平的“一国两制”本身就是以和平发展为目的的,就是要推动两岸问题或台湾问题的和平解决。严安林与张哲馨等分析认为,十八大以来关于对台工作重要论述的内涵、特色,以及2008年以来两岸关系和平发展的进展与经验,都为“一国两制”台湾模式的探索开启了初步的实践,为“一国两制”推进祖国统一累积了必要基础。李非与刘澈元专门探讨了两岸政经关系互动对于实现“一国两制”的重要意义。他们认为适当采取“政经分离”的策略,构筑适应形势发展需要的两岸经济合作机制,有助于促进两岸经济合作从功能性一体化走向制度性一体化,进而推动两岸政治合作,最后实现和平统一。朱卫东系统阐明了从必须统、必然统到如何统、统什么的统一方略,探讨了“一国两制”台湾方案在新时代的实践背景。

2. Background of perceptions of “one country, two systems” among different parties in Taiwan. If the 1C2S Taiwan formula is based on the practice of peaceful reunification across the Taiwan Strait, research and explorations of the “two systems” formula obviously cannot ignore reactions of the Taiwan side. They must fully consider the social status of “one country, two systems” in Taiwan, and comprehensively analyze the perceptions and attitudes of the Taiwan authorities and society toward “one country, two systems.” Starting from the basic approach of placing hope in the people of Taiwan, the mainland side has always actively striven for “one country, two systems” to gain more acceptance and support from Taiwanese society. However, for a long time, “one country, two systems” has been stigmatized by the authorities in Taiwan, especially by the “Taiwan independence” separatist forces, and some of our compatriots in Taiwan have been misled and become prejudiced. Most scholars focus on the manifestations and causes of “one country, two systems” stigmatization in Taiwan, as well as countermeasures against it. Wang Zhiguo has pointed out that the questioning and smearing in Taiwan of “one country, two systems” are mainly reflected in areas such as the “dwarfing and annexation” of Taiwan, the “undemocratic nature,” the system’s design defects, and the failure of the “Hong Kong model.” Wang also presents a relatively comprehensive analysis of the reasons behind this, mainly including the significant differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait over political positioning, the Taiwanese people’s doubts and resistance with regard to reunification, and the negative impact of the “Hong Kong model.” 44 Yan Anlin et al. specifically examine the KMT’s and DPP’s negative perceptions of “one country, two systems,” and their reasons, with the key for the KMT being that they want “two systems” but not “one country,” while the DPP pursues “Taiwan independence.”45 Aside from this, based on an analysis of poll results in Taiwan society, Shao Zonghai emphasizes that the majority of Taiwanese people who choose “maintaining the status quo” actually agree implicitly with “two systems,” thus indicating that there may be room for the development of “one country, two systems” in Taiwan. 46

2、岛内各方对一国两制认知背景。“一国两制”台湾方案的落脚点在于两岸和平统一的实践,研究探索“两制”台湾方案显然不能忽视台湾方面的反应,须充分考虑“一国两制”在台湾的社会化状况,全面剖析台湾当局与社会对“一国两制”的认知态度。从寄希望于台湾人民的基本方针出发,大陆方面始终积极争取“一国两制”能够获得台湾社会的更多接受与支持。不过,长期以来,“一国两制”在台湾遭到当局特别是“台独”分裂势力的污名化,部分台湾同胞也受到误导而存在偏见。多数学者主要围绕“一国两制”在台“污名化”的表现、原因及其对策等展开深入分析。王治国指出台湾质疑与抹黑“一国两制”的主要体现在“矮化吞并”台湾、“不民主性”、制度设计缺陷、“香港模式”失败等方面,并较全面地分析了其背后的原因,主要包括两岸政治定位的重大分歧、台湾民众对统一的疑虑和抗拒、“香港模式”负面影响等。严安林等专门考察了国民党与民进党对“一国两制”的负面认知及其理由,国民党关键在于要“两制”不要“一国”,民进党则是追求“台独”。此外,基于对台湾社会民调结果的分析,邵宗海强调台湾民众选择“现状维持”的多数民众实际隐含着对“两制”的认同,从而说明“一国两制”在台湾可能存在发展空间。

3. Background of Taiwan-Related Diplomacy. The Taiwan issue is fundamentally a domestic issue for China, but due to complex historical and practical factors, since its inception it has inevitably been subject to influence and interference from the international situation and external forces. The international environment of Taiwan-related diplomacy has long constituted the key external context for exploring the 1C2S formula for Taiwan. Therefore, exploration of the 1C2S Taiwan formula requires a full understanding and proper handling of external factors and international conditions related to Taiwan, especially the Taiwan issue in Sino-U.S. relations. Li Yihu discusses the international prerequisites for the success of the 1C2S Taiwan model in terms of two aspects: consolidating and strengthening the “one China” arrangement in the international arena, and defusing the United States’ negative influence on Taiwan. He points out that, as the mainland accelerates the process of peaceful reunification, the United States may gradually increase its obstruction of the practice of the 1C2S Taiwan model. 47 In discussing the theoretical innovation of the 1C2S Taiwan model, Yan Anlin et al. have specifically examined new changes in the international environment on the Taiwan issue, including the internal logic and uncertainty of Trump’s policy toward Taiwan, and the historical and contemporary parallels of the Taiwan policy of Japan’s Abe administration.48 In addition, some scholars have focused on the international environment when 1C2S was first unveiled. They suggest that, on one hand, 1C2S was called for by the world’s historical trend and, on the other hand, it was also the result of the struggle and maneuvering between socialism and capitalism, represented by China and the United States, in the post-war “Cold War” period.49

3、涉台外交背景。台湾问题本属于中国的内政问题,不过在复杂的历史与现实因素的作用下,自其产生以来就不可避免地受到国际形势与外部势力的干扰与影响。长期以来,涉台外交的国际环境构成了探索“一国两制”台湾方案的关键外部背景。因此,探索“一国两制”台湾方案需要充分认识并妥善处理涉台外部因素与国际条件,尤其是处理好中美关系中的台湾问题。李义虎从巩固强化国际上“一个中国”格局与化解美国对台消极作为两个方面论述了“一国两制”台湾模式成功的国际条件。他指出,随着大陆加快和平统一进程,美国对“一国两制”台湾模式实践的阻碍作用可能会逐渐增大。严安林等在探讨“一国两制”台湾模式理论创新的时候,专门考察了台湾问题国际环境的新变化,包括特朗普对台政策的内在逻辑性与不确定性、日本安倍政府对台政策的历史共性与时代共性等。另外,也有学者关注“一国两制”出台时的国际环境,提出“一国两制”一方面是世界历史大势的呼唤,另一方面主要也是战后“冷战”时期以中美为代表的社会主义与资本主义斗争博弈的结果。

v. Comparative analysis of the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula and the “one country, two systems” Hong Kong-Macau model
(五)“一国两制”台湾方案与“一国两制”港澳模式的比较分析

Comparative analysis on the 1C2S Taiwan formula and the 1C2S Hong Kong-Macau model has consistently been a hot topic drawing interest in the academic community. On the whole, scholars have focused mainly on the following two aspects in comparative studies of the two:

关于“一国两制”台湾方案与港澳模式的比较分析,一直都是学界关注的热点。总结来看,对于两者的对比研究,学者主要聚焦以下两个方面:

1. Differentiation between the Hong Kong-Macau model and the Taiwan formula. The 1C2S Taiwan formula and the Hong Kong and Macau model are both concrete forms for the realization of “one country, two systems,” and there are similarities between the two in terms of their basic connotations. However, in view of the differences in the nature of the Taiwan issue and the Hong Kong and Macau issues, obviously the Hong Kong and Macau model cannot be simply applied to the Taiwan formula, 50 and it is imperative that the differences between them are carefully clarified. Awareness that the 1C2S Taiwan formula differs from the Hong Kong and Macau model comes from Deng Xiaoping’s idea that “the solution to the Taiwan issue can be more lenient than that for the Hong Kong issue.” Based on the idea of “leniency,” one can see that compared to the Hong Kong and Macau model, the Taiwan formula is more open and tolerant, and has broader space for shaping.

1、港澳模式与台湾方案的区隔性。“一国两制”台湾方案与港澳模式都属于“一国两制”的具体实现形式,两者在基本内涵上存在相通之处,但鉴于台湾问题与港澳问题的性质差异,显然不能简单地将港澳模式套用于台湾方案,而必须认真厘清它们之间的区别。“一国两制”台湾方案不同于港澳模式的认知来源是邓小平最早提出的“解决台湾问题可以比香港问题更加宽松”的思想,基于“宽松”思想出发,可以认识到相比于港澳模式,台湾方案更具开放性与包容性,有着更广的可塑空间。

In Huang Jiashu’s analysis, the most important differences between the “Taiwan model” and the Hong Kong-Macau model are: first, in the Hong Kong-Macau model, the British and Portuguese governments, as the counterparties in negotiations, recognized that the PRC government and the whole of China are, by nature, one and the same, while in the Taiwan model, the Taiwanese authorities refuse to recognize this identity; second, in Hong Kong and Macau there was never a power system operating in the form of a state, while in Taiwan there is a power system that operates in the form of a “state.” 51 Li Yihu sets out from “one country” and “two systems” as two aspects in discussing the differences between the Taiwan model and the Hong Kong and Macau model: first, in terms of the connotations of “one country,” the Hong Kong-Macau model is a vertical relationship between the central and local governments, while the Taiwan model is an “equal” parallel relationship between the two; second, in terms of what “two systems” connotes, aside from retaining its original social and economic systems, Taiwan can also retain military and political operational structures which were not present in the Hong Kong-Macau model.52

黄嘉树分析认为“台湾模式”与港澳模式最重大的区别:一是在港澳模式中,作为谈判对象的英国、葡萄牙政府承认中华人民共和国政府与全中国的同一性,而在台湾模式中,台湾当局拒绝承认这种同一性;二是港澳地区原本不存在以国家形态运作的权力系统,而在台湾却存在着一个以“国家形态”运作的权力系统。李义虎从“一国”和“两制”两个方面讨论了台湾模式与港澳模式的区隔之处:第一,在“一国”内涵上,港澳模式是中央与地方之间的垂直型关系,台湾模式则是两者之间彼此“对等”的平行关系;第二,在“两制”内涵上,台湾除了保留原有的社会、经济制度等之外,还可以保留港澳模式所没有的军队与政治运作架构。

2. The significance of the Hong Kong-Macau model as a reference for the Taiwan formula. “One country, two systems” was originally proposed in order to resolve the Taiwan issue, but it was first put into practice successfully on the Hong Kong and Macau issue. Without doubt, the experiences of Hong Kong and Macau have a very important inspirational role to play in the exploration of the Taiwan formula. However, in drawing lessons from this experience, it obviously cannot be a simple matter of repeating and copying, but instead must be rooted in the special circumstances of the Taiwan issue. After all, the Taiwan issue surpasses that of Hong Kong and Macau in both complexity and particularity.

2、港澳模式对台湾方案的借鉴意义。“一国两制”最早是为解决台湾问题而提出,但却率先在港澳问题上得到成功实践。无疑,港澳经验对台湾方案的探索具有非常重要的启示作用。不过,这种经验的借鉴显然不能是简单的重复照搬,而必须立足于台湾问题的特殊情况,毕竟台湾问题在复杂性与特殊性上都要超过港澳。

Pan Guohua et al. and other scholars have analyzed the successful experience with 1C2S in Hong Kong as useful inspiration for solving the Taiwan issue, from four points of view: the first is institutional construction, building the “framework for the peaceful development of cross-strait relations;” second is prioritizing economics, the fundamental driving force for the integration of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau; third is vigilance against populist politics, implementing incremental democratic politics; and fourth is striving for identity, the foundation of popular sentiment for national integration.53 According to Li Yihu et al., the setting of a transition period before the return of Hong Kong and Macau is where the model of the return of Hong Kong and Macau can be used as a reference for constructing the Taiwan model. Using the Hong Kong and Macau transition period for reference, after the two sides of the Taiwan Strait reach a peace agreement through political negotiations, they would enter a “pre-transition period.” During this period the two sides would, politically, jointly safeguard sovereignty and territorial integrity on the basis of “one China”; and, economically, accelerate their integration to form an interdependent relationship. After this, the two sides would enter the “post-transition period” on the basis of jointly studied and formulated constitutional laws.54 With regard to the Hong Kong-Macau model as inspiration for cross-strait reunification, Wang Yingjin makes four points: first, a smooth transition period should be arranged before reunification; second, the specific operational techniques should be flexible; third, the status quo in Taiwan should be maintained to the maximum extent after reunification; and fourth, the foundation of cross-strait relations will be created by way of legalization.55

潘国华等学者从四点解析了“一国两制”在香港的成功经验对解决台湾问题的有益启示:一是制度建设,构建“两岸关系和平发展框架”;二是经济优先,“两岸四地”整合的根本动力;三是警惕民粹政治,落实渐进式民主政治;四是争取认同,国家整合的民心基础。李义虎等人认为,港澳回归前的过渡期的设置是港澳回归模式对构建台湾模式的借鉴意义之所在。参照港澳的过渡期,两岸在政治谈判达成和平协议后即进入“前过渡期”,该时期双方政治上以“一中”为基础,共同维护主权和领土完整;经济上则加速整合,以形成相互依存的关系。其后,两岸在共同研究制定的宪制性法律基础上,进入“后过渡期”。关于港澳模式对两岸统一的启示,王英津提出了四点:一是统一前应安排一个平稳过渡期;二是具体操作技术要弹性;三是统一后要最大限度地维持台湾的现状;四是通过法制化的途径来营造两岸关系的基础。

III. Analysis of Research on the “One Country, Two Systems” Taiwan Formula

三、“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究评析

i. Main characteristics
(一)主要特征

Viewed as a whole, the existing research has carried out multi-dimensional, multi-perspective and multi-level basic research and analysis exploring of the 1C2S formula for Taiwan, and has achieved rich theoretical results and practical effects. It has provided important intellectual support for the development of cross-strait relations since the late 1970s and the promotion of the peaceful reunification of the motherland. Upon further analysis, the current research results on the mainland’s 1C2S Taiwan formula mainly reflect the following major features:

整体来看,已有研究成果对“一国两制”台湾方案的探索做出了多维度、多角度、多层次的基础研究与分析,并取得了丰富的理论成果与实践效果,为20世纪70年代末以来两岸关系发展与推进祖国和平统一的进程提供了重要的智力支撑。进而分析,目前大陆方面“一国两制”台湾方案的相关研究成果主要体现出以下几大特征:

1. Combination of history and reality. On one hand, scholars have not only paid close attention to the origins in thought of the 1C2S approach, and focused on exploring the historical origins of applying the 1C2S approach to solve the Taiwan issue, but have also systematically examined the historical background and traced the historical threads of the 1C2S Taiwan formula’s formation and development. On the other hand, existing research is also based on the real situation, with special emphasis on setting out from the real development needs of cross-strait relations at different stages to analyze the basic connotations of the 1C2S Taiwan formula, so as to explore paths for an 1C2S formula for Taiwan.

1、历史与现实相结合。一方面,学者们不仅密切关注“一国两制”方针的思想来源,注重挖掘运用“一国两制”方针解决台湾问题的历史渊源,而且也系统考察了“一国两制”台湾方案形成与发展的历史背景、历史脉络;另一方面,已有成果也立足于现实情况,特别强调从不同阶段两岸关系的现实发展需要出发,来分析“一国两制”台湾方案的基本内涵,探索“一国两制”台湾方案的路径。

2. Uniting openness with principles. As an important result of the liberation in thought in the early stages of reform and opening up, the 1C2S approach has been characterized by distinctive openness and tolerance since its inception, and this has led to the study of an 1C2S Taiwan formula being characterized by significant openness. This openness is reflected in the study of origins of thought. The focus has been on contemporary Mao Zedong Thought, Western Marxist-Leninist thought, and Chinese historical and cultural thought. Second, in terms of research on the theoretical connotations, it has been rather open and inclusive in terms of theoretical capacity. It has not only involved analysis of mainstream theories such as Marxist philosophy, state structural form, sovereignty and “administrative power,” and constitutional jurisprudence, but has also included the theoretical investigation of some reunification models that are not “one country, two systems.” Of course, while emphasizing openness, the study of the 1C2S Taiwan formula has also always adhered to and upheld certain basic principles and requirements of the 1C2S approach. Regardless of the perspectives from which scholars expand and consider the 1C2S Taiwan formula, they are essentially all based on the fundamental connotations of the 1C2S principle, namely, “one country, two systems, a high degree of autonomy, and peaceful reunification.” They all adhere to the belief that “one country, two systems, a high degree of autonomy, and peaceful unification” is the best way to achieve national unification.

2、开放性与原则性的统一。作为改革开放初期思想解放的重要成果,“一国两制”方针自提出伊始就具有鲜明的开放、包容的特性,而这也导致“一国两制”台湾方案的研究具有显著的开放性特征。开放性其一体现在思想来源的研究上。关注的内容既有当代毛泽东思想、也有西方马克思列宁主义思想,还有中国历史文化思想。其二是在理论内涵研究方面,具备相当开放且包容的理论容量。不仅涉及对马克思主义哲学、国家结构形式、主权“治权”、宪法法理等主流理论的分析,还包含对一些非“一国两制”统一模式的理论考察。当然,在强调开放性的同时,“一国两制”台湾方案的研究也始终坚持与维护一些关于“一国两制”方针的基本原则与要求。学者们不论是从何种视角来拓展与思考“一国两制”台湾方案的研究,基本上都立足于“一国两制”方针的基础内涵,即“一个国家、两种制度、高度自治、和平统一”,都坚持认为“一国两制”是当前实现国家统一的最佳方式。

3. Combining disciplinary diversity and interdisciplinarity. First, existing research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula covers a very diverse range of disciplines, including Marxism, political science, law, economics, and so on. Scholars from different disciplines have each examined the origins of thought and theoretical scope of the 1C2S Taiwan formula from their own perspectives, which has widened the ambit of research on the 1C2S formula for Taiwan and made the basic content of study richer and more complete. Second, research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula also exhibits typical interdisciplinary characteristics. In exploring the theoretical basis and implications of the 1C2S Taiwan formula, some scholars have conducted interdisciplinary analyses by integrating the Marxist theory on the state, state structural form theory, and constitutional theory. Some have taken a political economy perspective to focus on the connections between 1C2S and the past practice of cross-strait political and economic interaction. All of this will promote the innovative development of research exploring the 1C2S formula for Taiwan and deepen understanding and awareness of the connotations of the policy propositions in the 1C2S Taiwan formula.

3、学科多样化与跨学科相结合。首先,现有“一国两制”台湾方案的相关研究,学科覆盖面非常多样化,主要包括马克思主义、政治学、法学以及经济学等学科。不同学科的学者分别从各自学科视角切入来考察“一国两制”台湾方案的思想来源、理论容量等各个面向,使得“一国两制”台湾方案的研究视阈更加开阔,研究的基本内容更加充实与完整。其次,“一国两制”台湾方案的研究还呈现出典型的跨学科特征。在探讨“一国两制”台湾方案的理论依据与意涵的时候,一些学者就综合马克思主义国家学说、国家结构形式理论以及宪法理论来展开跨学科分析。也有学者从政治经济学的角度出发,专门关注“一国两制”与两岸政经互动的实践背景之间的关联。这些都将推动“一国两制”台湾方案探索研究的创新发展,深化对于“一国两制”台湾方案政策主张内涵的理解与认知。

4. Giving equal weight to theory and practice. Although 1C2S is more of a policy practice issue, it would be difficult to make its formulation and implementation stable and far-reaching without the support of rich basic theoretical research. At present, research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula basically takes both theoretical and practical orientations into account. On one hand, more and more scholars have begun to delve deeper into the theoretical basis and significance of the 1C2S Taiwan formula, focusing on setting out from a thorough study of basic theory in order to explore the formula’s concrete institutional forms. Li Yihu [et al.]’s The ‘One Country, Two Systems’ Taiwan Model” and Wang Yingjin’s Research on National Reunification Models are representative of this kind of research. On the other hand, the academic community has all along particularly favored a practical orientation in research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula. Many scholars, based on a practical orientation, have long examined the peaceful development of cross-strait relations and 1C2S, the development of the 1C2S Taiwan formula in Taiwan, the practical significance of the Hong Kong-Macau model for the Taiwan formula, and so on. In recent years, the new practice of 1C2S in Xi Jinping’s important remarks on Taiwan-related work has also produced some excellent results.

4、理论与实践并重。“一国两制”虽然更多是一个政策实践问题,但如果没有丰厚的基础理论研究的支撑,也很难使其制定落实行稳致远。目前来看,“一国两制”台湾方案的研究基本上兼顾理论导向与实践导向两个面向。一方面,越来越多学者开始深入挖掘“一国两制”台湾方案的理论依据与理论意义,注重从基础理论的充分研究出发来探索“一国两制”台湾方案的具体制度形式。李义虎的《“一国两制”台湾模式》与王英津的《国家统一模式研究》就是这类研究的代表作。另一方面,学界一直以来都特别青睐“一国两制”台湾方案研究的实践面向。不少学者基于实践导向,长期考察两岸关系和平发展与“一国两制”、“一国两制”台湾方案在台湾发展、港澳模式对台湾方案的实践意义等问题。近年来,习近平对台工作重要论述中关于“一国两制”的新实践,也涌现出了一些优秀的成果。

ii. Shortcomings and problems in research on the “one country, two systems” Taiwan formula
(二)“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究的不足和问题

First of all, from the perspective of overall frameworks of thinking, there are currently two main problems in the relevant research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula. First, although existing research does give equal weight to theory and practice, in the context of the new era, there is an urgent need for 1C2S Taiwan formula research on both theory and practice to be further enriched and developed in order to keep up with the changing times. In terms of theoretical research, it remains necessary to continue improving both the breadth and depth of the theoretical capacity of the 1C2S Taiwan formula, not only by promptly absorbing the Centre’s new theories, new ideas, and new strategies on Taiwan-related work since the 18th Party Congress, but also by opening up thinking and more extensively incorporating the excellent theories and research results from Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and abroad. With regard to practical research, the practical content of the existing studies has obviously lagged behind, focusing mostly on the practice of cross-strait relations development before the 18th Party Congress. In recent years, cross-strait relations and the international environment for Taiwan-related diplomacy have both undergone profound changes. Therefore, there is a great need to further enrich research on how to better promote exploration of the 1C2S formula for Taiwan based on new content regarding the Taiwan issue and the practice of cross-strait relations development since the 18th Party Congress. Second, there is a relatively obvious imbalance between static and dynamic research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula. Scholars have focused more on the institutional arrangements and sources of thought of the Taiwan formula at the static level, while research on dynamic changes in the context of Taiwan’s formula in practice has been lacking. Static research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula is primarily focused on establishing principles-based fundamental norms and political arrangements for after reunification. Such research falls under analysis of basic connotations and is of course very important. However, in the context of the Taiwan issue’s continuous development and evolution, it is also necessary to focus research on the dynamic context of the 1C2S Taiwan formula in practice prior to reunification.

首先,从整体的思路框架来看,目前关于“一国两制”台湾方案的相关研究主要存在以下两点问题。第一,已有研究虽然坚持理论与实践并重,但在新时代的背景下,“一国两制”台湾方案的研究在理论与实践上都亟待进一步丰富发展,紧跟时代的变化。就理论研究而言,“一国两制”台湾方案的理论容量还有必要在广度与深度上继续加强,不仅需要及时地吸收党的十八大以来中央对台工作的新论述新思想新战略,而且亦需要开放思维,更广泛地借鉴吸收港澳台地区与国外的优秀理论研究成果。就实践研究而言,已有研究所对应的实践内容明显滞后,大多聚焦于十八大以前的两岸关系发展实践。近年来,两岸关系形势与涉台外交的国际环境都发生了深刻变化。因此,立足于十八大以来台湾问题与两岸关系发展实践新的内容,怎样更好地推进“一国两制”台湾方案的探索,这方面的研究非常需要进一步充实。第二,“一国两制”台湾方案研究在静态与动态研究上存在较为明显的不平衡。学者更多关注静态层面台湾方案的制度安排、思想来源等内容,而对台湾方案实践背景的动态变化则研究不足。“一国两制”台湾方案的静态研究主要是确立原则性的基础规范与统一后的政治安排,属于基本内涵的分析,固然非常重要。但在台湾问题不断发展演变的背景下,对于统一前“一国两制”台湾方案实践背景的动态情况的研究关注也非常有必要。

Moreover, from the perspective of specific content, the study of the 1C2S Taiwan formula is still inadequate in the following four respects and awaits further strengthening. The first is differentiation along the reunification process. Studies have paid more attention to the post-reunification situation, focusing on how to design the post-reunification 1C2S Taiwan formula institutional structure. But there research is lacking on the content of pre-reunification 1C2S and the institutional arrangements for the transition period. To some extent, given that the country has not yet been reunified, it would be of more positive practical significance to conduct thorough explorations of democratic consultation and institutional arrangements for formulating and implementing the 1C2STaiwan formula prior to reunification. Second, although existing studies have focused on comparative research on the Hong Kong-Macau model and the Taiwan formula, still few have conducted comparative research considering the new situation in the development of the Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan issues. Of late, the practice of 1C2S in Hong Kong and Macau and the exploration of the 1C2S Taiwan formula have both encountered new problems and new situations, thus making it necessary for us to further consider and analyze the similarities and differences between the two solutions and the significance of the Hong Kong-Macau model’s lessons for the Taiwan formula. There are relatively big differences between the Taiwan issue and the Hong Kong and Macau issue in terms of their nature, international factors, historical factors, and practical factors, all of which need to be analyzed more meticulously in light of the new situation. Third, most of the basic theoretical studies on the 1C2S Taiwan formula have been conducted from political science and legal theory perspectives, and mainly explore macro-political issues such as sovereignty and “administrative power,” state structural form, and constitutional arrangements. Comparatively speaking, there is a lack of specialized research on issues of micro-governance arrangements involving fields such as Taiwan’s society, economy, and culture before and after reunification. Consequently, in the future, it will be necessary to extend research on the 1C2S Taiwan formula “downward,” strengthening the focus on more concrete socio-economic and cultural issues, and from there enriching research on concrete forms for realizing the 1C2S Taiwan formula and the connotations thereof. Fourth, the specialized study of the Taiwan side’s perceptions of 1C2S in the new situation needs to be further strengthened. In the final analysis, the policy orientation provides the basic footing for the study of the 1C2S Taiwan formula. Its aim is to propose a reasonable model of reunification that does not violate the one-China principle or the 1992 Consensus, but that also satisfies and is accepted by Taiwan’s authorities and its people, thereby actively contributing to the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. In recent years, under the influence of a series of complicated factors, the state of public perceptions of 1C2S in Taiwan has become increasingly grave, so there is an urgent need to strengthen research and offer policy thinking in this area. Starting from the basic requirement that the concrete realization of 1C2S in Taiwan “will fully take into account the realities of Taiwan, fully incorporate the opinions and suggestions of all sectors on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and fully accommodate the interests and feelings of Taiwan compatriots,” 56 one of the important criteria for a good “two systems” Taiwan formula is that it not be limited to its own conceptual framework. In the design process, it should actively understand the objective research of Taiwanese scholars and the opinions and feelings of the Taiwanese people, and then take whatever is reasonable.

再者,从具体内容来看,“一国两制”台湾方案的研究在以下四个方面尚有不足,有待加强。一是从统一进程来划分,已有研究更多关注统一后的情况,聚焦于如何设计统一后“一国两制”台湾方案的制度结构,但对于统一前“一国两制”的前置形式内容或者说过渡时期的制度性安排,则缺乏足够的研究。某种程度上来看,基于当前国家尚未统一的实际情况,对统一之前因应“一国两制”台湾方案制定与实施的民主协商和制度性安排展开充分探讨,将具有更积极的现实意义。二是已有研究虽然注重港澳模式与台湾方案的比较研究,但结合港澳台问题发展的新形势来展开比较分析的还不多。当前,“一国两制”的港澳实践与“一国两制”台湾方案的探索都遭遇到新问题与新情况,因而也使得我们需要对两种解决方式的异同、港澳模式对台湾方案的借鉴意义等问题进行进一步地深入思考与分析。台湾问题与港澳问题在性质、国际因素、历史因素和现实因素方面都存在较大不同,这些都有必要根据新形势展开更细致地剖析。三是目前“一国两制”台湾方案的基础理论研究多是从政治学、法学理论切入,主要探讨主权与“治权”、国家结构形式、宪制安排等宏观政治性议题。相比之下,对一些涉及台湾社会、经济、文化等领域统一前后的微观治理安排议题的专门研究还比较缺乏。因此,未来需要推动“一国两制”台湾方案研究的“向下”延伸,加强对更多具象化的社会经济文化议题内容的关注,进而充实“一国两制”台湾方案具体实现形式及其内涵的研究。四是针对新形势下台湾方面对“一国两制”的认知状况的专门研究有待强化。归根到底,政策导向是“一国两制”台湾方案研究的基本立足点,它旨在提出一个既不违反一个中国原则和“九二共识”,又能让台湾当局与民众都满意与接受的合情合理的统一模式,从而积极促成和平解决台湾问题。近年来,在一系列复杂因素的影响下,“一国两制”在台湾的民意认知情况日益严峻,因而迫切需要加强这方面的研究并提出政策思考。从“一国两制”在台具体实现形式“会充分考虑台湾现实情况,会充分吸收两岸各界意见和建议,会充分照顾到台湾同胞利益和感情”的基本要求出发,一个好的“两制”台湾方案的重要标准之一便在于,不局限于自身的思维框架,设计过程中应积极认识到台湾学者的客观研究与台湾民众的意见感情,然后取其合理之处。

To top

Cite This Page

黄继朝 (Huang Jichao), 靳环宇 (Jin Huanyu). "A Review of Current Research in Mainland Academia on the "One Country, Two Systems" Formula for Taiwan [当前大陆学界“一国两制”台湾方案相关研究述评]". CSIS Interpret: China, original work published in Taiwan Studies [台湾研究], August 1, 2021

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link