2.What is the difference between power and authority? Please include an example to illustrate the difference in your analysis. 

1.請閱讀下列由紐約時報(The New York Times)記者 Keith Bradsher 於 2020 年 1 月 15 日之報 導，並以英文評論此發展對政治學的意涵。China Renews Its ‘Belt and Road’ Push for Global Sway BEIJING — China’s big-money push to build ports, rail lines and telecommunications networks around the world — and increase Beijing’s political sway in the process — seemed to be running out of gas just a year ago.Now the program, called the Belt and Road Initiative, has come roaring back. Western officials andcompanies, for their part, are renewing their warnings that China’s gains in business and political clout could come at their expense.Chinese companies signed Belt and Road contracts worth nearly $128 billion in the first 11 months of last year, according to China’s Commerce Ministry, a 41 percent increase over the same period in 2018. The contracts are mostly for construction and equipment by big Chinese companies using Chinese skilled labor and loans from Chinese banks, although the projects often create jobs for local laborers as well.The latest contracts include a subway system for Belgrade, Serbia； an elevated rail line in Bogotá, Colombia；and a telecommunications data center near Nairobi, Kenya.The return of Belt and Road is likely to raise tensions with the United States, which worries that China isbuilding a globe-spanning bloc of nations that will mostly buy Chinese goods and tilt toward China’sauthoritarian political model. The initiative figures into many of the disputes between the two countries over national security and technology.The rush of new Belt and Road contracts follows a public pullback by Chinese officials in 2018 afterprojects in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and elsewhere were criticized by local officials and others asbloated and costly. China argues that since then, it has fine-tuned practices to trim waste.“We will continue to follow a high-standard, people-centered and sustainable approach to promotehigh-quality Belt and Road cooperation with partner countries,” Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, said during a visit to Brazil in November.Chinese officials have long presented Belt and Road as a chance to give emerging markets the same kind of world-class infrastructure that has helped make China a global economic powerhouse. Under Belt and Road,state-owned Chinese banks typically lend practically all of the money for a construction project to be carried out by Chinese companies. The borrowing countries are then required to repay the money, often with oil or other natural resources.Officials in the United States and Western Europe have long criticized Belt and Road as predatory, and in recent years, some officials in developing countries began to agree. In 2018, Sri Lanka gave its major port to China after it could not repay loans, while Malaysia halted its own costly Belt and Road projects.Chinese leaders began to acknowledge the criticism. Vice Premier Liu He of China publicly raised concerns in early 2018 about heavy lending by Chinese banks, not just for the Belt and Road Initiative.In the months that followed, Chinese financial regulators clamped down hard on domestic and overseaslending alike. New Belt and Road contracts plummeted, Chinese data showed. China’s financialregulators told the country’s banks to look twice at further lending to poor countries. Top leaders practically stopped mentioning the program.But the credit crunch produced a much broader slowing in the Chinese economy in 2018 than expected.Financial regulators reversed course. That has produced a revival of lending for domestic infrastructureprojects and for Belt and Road projects alike. Contracts started to be signed in earnest again in the finalweeks of 2018, and momentum built through last year.In recent days, two groups representing Western governments, companies and banks have raised questions about the resurgence of the Belt and Road Initiative.A report released on Thursday morning by the European Chamber of Commerce in China concluded that Chinese-built telecommunications networks and ports are set up in ways that make it hard for European shipping companies, computer software providers and other businesses to compete.A survey by the chamber of its members also found that they had been almost completely excluded frombidding on Belt and Road Initiative contracts, which went mostly to Chinese state-owned enterprises.“It was rather sobering to see that for businesses, it is quite insignificant what we get out of this,” said Joerg Wuttke, the chamber’s president.The Institute of International Finance, a research group in Washington backed mainly by big Western banks,issued a different warning on Monday as part of a broader report on global debt.The institute’s report said that many poor countries in the Belt and Road Initiative now find themselves with sharply increased debt burdens. Many of these countries could barely qualify to borrow money even before they took on the new debt, the report said.The institute’s report also said that 85 percent of Belt and Road projects involved high emissions ofgreenhouse gases linked to climate change. These projects have included at least 63 coal-fired power plants.The new reports come after a warning issued last year by European International Contractors, a trade group of construction and engineering companies. The trade group cautioned that loans for Belt and Road Initiative projects tend to carry considerably higher interest rates than those from lending institutions like the World Bank.The construction industry group, and also the European chamber, said that the costs of Belt and RoadInitiative projects are often greatly underestimated so that they can pass muster with Beijing officials. Poor countries then end up paying for cost overruns, they said.European business groups, which include telecommunications equipment makers, have focused lately on Belt and Road’s emphasis on telecommunications. Many developing countries now have national telecom networks built by two Chinese companies, Huawei and ZTE, that have been big participants in the Belt and Road Initiative. Huawei won a contract last spring to build a large telecom data center in Kenya.The European chamber report said the networks were designed in ways that made it hard for Europeancompanies to sell any further hardware or software in these markets. European markets for telecomequipment, by contrast, are often more open, it argued. Huawei, for example, has sought to provideequipment for Germany and Britain.Alongside telecommunications, the biggest security concern in the West about the Belt and Road Initiative has involved China’s construction or expansion of extensive ports. These ports now ring the Indian Ocean and extend up the west coast of Africa and into the Mediterranean.The European Chamber report said that European shipping companies, which have ranked among theworld’s largest since the Middle Ages, increasingly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage. The new ports are designed and managed by Chinese state-owned enterprises that are under the same Chinese government agency as Chinese shipbuilders and Chinese shipping companies.China has contended that economic growth has long suffered in many emerging markets from hightransportation costs, and that the construction of new ports can reduce these costs. 

3.What is the difference between rule of law and rule by law? Please include an example to illustrate the difference in your analysis. 

4.Develop a dialogue between person A, who believes that the authority of the state must be obeyed under almost all conditions, and person B, who believes that the authority of the state can be dispute in which B substantially disagree with the state’s decision. Whose arguments you think is more convincing? Please state your reasons. 

三、After reading the following article from Nature, what is your opinion toward this issue? Do you agreewith the budget cut? Why? Please elaborate your opinion in English and focus on the possible impacts on political scientists, students, and the society. NSF cancels political-science grant cycleUS funding agency said to be dodging restrictions set by Congress.Beth Mole02 August 2013US political scientists are usually busy in early August, polishing proposals for grants from the US National Science Foundation (NSF). But not this year.Less than one month before an annual mid-August application deadline, the funding agency has scrapped new political-science funding for the rest of 2013. The NSF declines to explain its reasons for eliminating the grant call, one of two that typically take place each year. But leaders in the field are blaming Congress,which on 21 March passed a bill requiring that NSF-funded political-science research benefit either national security or economic interests.“It’s hard to imagine that it’s not a factor in the decision,” says Michael Brintnall, executive director of theAmerican Political Science Association in Washington DC, who describes the funding cut as “troubling”.Brintnall says that the NSF notified him about the cancellation on 25 July. Other calls for funding in the NSF division of social, behavioural and economic sciences — which includes political science — are continuingas usual.  The NSF’s decision removes one of the main financial lifelines for political-science research. “This issomewhere between devastating and crippling,” says Henry Farrell, a political scientist at GeorgeWashington University in Washington DC and an author of the Monkey Cage, a widely read political-science blog. But Farrell blames the political climate rather than the funding agency for the cut. “The NSF is in an extremely awkward situation,” he says.The requirements for NSF political-science spending came during eleventh-hour negotiations for the 2013 omnibus spending bill. Some of the law’s language, proposed by Senator Tom Coburn (Republican,Oklahoma), prevents the NSF from “wasting federal resources on political science projects, unless the NSF Director certifies projects are vital to national security or the economic interests of the country.”Since then, NSF officials have struggled to translate that language into rules for evaluating grant proposals and spending its roughly US$10-million budget for political science. On 7 June, the agency said that peer-review panels would take into account the extra requirements in their evaluation of grant proposals. But the cancellation of the August funding call suggests that the agency buckled under the uncertainty of how to interpret the law's stipulations, says John Aldrich, a political scientist at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, says that he is uncertain whether Coburn’s efforts can be linked to the NSF’s decision. But Coburn has vocally supported getting rid of political-science funding altogether. On its website, the NSF cites budget uncertainties as the reason behind its decision. NSF spokeswoman Deborah Wing declined Nature's request to interview Brian Humes, a political-science programme director, and she would not answer questions about the cancelled grant cycle.The agency’s website says that it will hold its call for political-science proposals in January as usual. Aldrich says that this suggests that the funding shutdown is a response to the Congressional requirements, which are set to expire on 30 September — the end of the 2013 fiscal year. Avoiding the August funding round may be a strategic move by Humes to see whether the constraints disappear when the next spending bill is passed,says Aldrich. “If he can save the money and spend it later when there’s more clarity, that would be helpful,”Aldrich says.Other researchers agree. “I think they’re probably worried about upsetting Congress,” says Rick Wilson, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and editor of the American Journal of PoliticalScience. “So why not pull the plug rather than risk it?”Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13501

2. Public Private Partnership.

1. Policy stakeholder.

2. Most forms of idealism are underpinned by internationalism: that is, the belief that human affairs should be organized according to universal, and not merely national, principles. This, in turn, is usually reflected in the assumption that human affairs, on both the domestic and international levels, are characterized by harmony and cooperation. One of the most influential forms of idealism has been found in liberalism. Although liberals have traditionally accepted the nation as the principal unit of political organization, they have also stressed the importance of interdependence and free trade, arguing quite simply that 'war does not pay'. Such internationalism is also reflected in a faith in collective security and international law, which is embodied in organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations. President Woodrow Wilson of the USA, for example, argued that the First World War had resulted from the 'old politics' of militarism and expansionism pursued by multinational empires. In his view, the best antidote to war was the construction of a world of democratic nation-states that were prepared to cooperate in areas of common interest and had no incentive to embark upon conquest or plunder. After years of ridicule and denigration at the hands of realist theorists, idealism was revived in the late twentieth century. What has usually been called neo-idealism reflects disenchantment with the amoral power politics of the superpower era. An early example of this was the attempt by President Carter in the 1970s to restore a moral dimension to US foreign policy by emphasizing that economic and military aid depended on the human-rights records of recipient regimes. The theme of international cooperation and common security was taken up more boldly in the late 1980s by the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke of a 'common European house', and proclaimed that the doctrine of human rights transcended the ideological rivalry between communism and capitalism

1. Although socialist ideas can be traced back to the Levellers and Diggers of the seventeenth century, or to Thomas More's Utopia, or even Plato's Republic, socialism did not take shape as a political creed until the early nineteenth century. It developed as a reaction against the emergence of industrial capitalism. Socialism first articulated the interests of artisans and craftsmen threatened by the spread of factory production, but it was soon being linked to the growing industrial working class, the 'factory fodder' of early industrialization. In its earliest forms, socialism tended to have a fundamentalist, Utopian and revolutionary character. Its goal was to abolish a capitalist economy based on market exchange, and replace it with a qualitatively different socialist society, usually to be constructed on the principle of common ownership. The most influential representative of this brand of socialism was Karl Marx, whose ideas provided the foundations for twentieth century communism. During much of the twentieth century, the socialist movement was thus divided into two rival camps. Revolutionary socialists, following the example of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, called themselves communists, while reformist socialists, who practised a form of constitutional politics, embraced what increasingly came to be called social democracy. This rivalry focused not only on the most appropriate means of achieving socialism, but also on the nature of the socialist goal itself. Social democrats turned their backs upon fundamentalist principles such as common ownership and planning, and recast socialism in terms of welfare, redistribution and economic management. Both forms of socialism, however, experienced crises in the late twentieth century that encouraged some to proclaim the 'death of socialism' and the emergence of a post-socialist society. The most dramatic event in this process was the collapse of communism brought about by the eastern European revolutions of 1989-91, but there was also a continued retreat of social democracy from traditional principles, making it, some would argue, indistinguishable from modern liberalism.

四、A controversial issue in recent years is whether it is acceptable for states and international actors to use force (or the threat of force) against a state that is abusing the human rights of its own citizens. Is humanitarian intervention an acceptable action if it violates a state’s sovereignty? Please write your analysis in English.

三、There are always interest groups in the democratic regime. According to the democratic theory, individuals can and should form political interest groups to promote public policies that serve their goals. But on the other hand there are the complaints among the concern citizens that interest groups are too powerful and effective in influencing government to enact policies that serve their own interests rather than the public interest. Do interest groups hinder or facilitate the democratic process? Please write your analysis in English.

110年 - 110東吳大學_碩士班招生考試_政治學系︰政治學英文#99990

109年 - 109東吳大學_碩士班招生考試_政治學系︰政治學英文#100355

108年 - 108東吳大學_碩士班招生考試_政治學系︰政治學英文#100907

107年 - 107 東吳大學_碩士班招生考試_政治學系：政治學英文#101962