場次 Panel Sessions 

本文以赤松克麿（1894–1955）於1930年代初提出的「亞洲國際」構想為線索，探討跨戰期日本社會領域的再領域化過程。本文主張，再領域化不僅意味帝國空間的 擴張，同時是區域秩序中霸權式治理思維對社會秩序的重新編排。

在赤松的論述中，「亞洲」並非既定的文明或種族共同體，而是在土地、資源與人口等多重社會危機中逐漸形成的治理空間。其問題視野在第一次世界大戰至滿洲事變之間，伴隨米騷動、朝鮮半島民族自決運動、關東大地震、昭和農業恐慌、滿蒙問題等一系列社會危機的出現，逐漸由日本本土與殖民地，延伸向滿蒙與亞洲的區域秩序議題，形成「亞洲國際」構想中社會危機與帝國空間秩序連動的重要背景。

「亞洲國際」一方面批判共產國際的革命路線，另一方面亦試圖挑戰帝國主義式遠東經濟圈的區域秩序藍圖。本文認為，赤松的「亞洲國際」可視為國際革命與帝國圈域經濟兩種區域政治方案之間，以社會問題為基礎所構想的亞洲政治連帶，並由此指出社會領域如何在跨戰期的帝國空間政治中，被重新編排為區域霸權秩序的治理場域。

This paper examines the process of reterritorializing the social in transwar Japan, culminating in the vision of the “Asian International” advocated by Akamatsu Katsumaro (1894–1955) in the early 1930s. While distancing himself from both the imperialist Far Eastern bloc and the Communist International, Akamatsu envisioned a region shaped by the entangled logics of imperial domination and social revolution. His “Asia” was not a fixed racial or cultural entity, but a contested space forged in the nexus of imperial governance, proletarian movements, and major domestic crises—including the Ashio Copper Mine pollution, the 1918 Rice Riot, the 1923 Great Kantō Earthquake, and the agricultural depression.

In Akamatsu’s discourse, these crises disclosed the social as a fragmented and spatially unstable field that simultaneously invited state intervention and revolutionary transformation. Rather than interpreting territoriality through the lens of fixed geopolitical borders, this paper considers it as the reconfiguration of socio-imperial governance in the wake of crisis, under conditions of uneven resource distribution and environmental vulnerability.

It concludes that Akamatsu’s “Asian International” was a project of reterritorialization that sought to render the fractured social terrain intelligible as a site of political vision—an alternative regionalism grounded in the governance of precarious land, crops, and population. By foregrounding the social as a site of imperial spatial politics, this study offers a rethinking of both territoriality and region-making in modern East Asia.

本文探討在日韓國人的視角如何挑戰 1945 年後區域政治中「日本」這一空間。後帝國時期的日本對在日韓國人採取了嚴厲的排除政策，加之許多在日韓國人在後殖民處境下懷抱對「祖國」（或者多重祖國）的認同與嚮往，使日本境內出現彼此重疊的民族/國家空間。戰後初期，韓國人，尤其是左翼韓國人，透過維護韓國人貧民聚落的自治，逐漸建立起一種領域性的意識。到了1960與1970年代，在日韓國人的政治活動與南北韓兩國政府的戰略利益彼此交織，形成了人員、資訊與物資得以在「在日」社會跨越南北韓分界、類似於「兩韓邊境」的空間。這樣的情勢為日本社會帶來了深遠的政治與治安影響。本文將透過呈現日本的後殖民與後帝國處境，重新思考並調整我們對區域政治版圖的既有理解。

This paper discusses how the perspective of zainichi Koreans challenges the space of "Japan" in post-1945 regional politics. The harsh exclusion policies toward zainichi Koreans in postimperial Japan and many zainichi Koreans' postcolonial desire to embrace the homeland(s) led to the making of overlapping national spaces in Japan. Koreans, especially leftist Koreans, established a sense of territoriality by protecting the autonomy of Korean slums in the early postwar period. In the 1960s and 70s, these Koreans' politics and the two Korean governments' strategic interests interlinked to create the equivalent of an inter-Korean borderland, where people, information, and goods crossed the divide between North and South Korea via zainichi society. This produced grave political and security ramifications for Japanese society as well. This paper proposes to renew our perceived map of regional politics by revealing postcolonial and postimperial situations in Japan.

華南的小型領土澳門，數個世紀以來始終是鮮為人知的避難之地。與研究較多的香港案例相似，冷戰時期澳門同樣是跨境人口、物資與資訊流通的重要場所，同時也是涉及不同層級的國家與非國家行動者的各種救援活動據點。既有關於香港華人難民的研究，包括 Laura Madokoro和陳欣欣（Angelina Chin）的專著，多聚焦於冷戰時期及其特定的國際與區域政治背景。本文則將視線轉向葡萄牙統治下的澳門，並考察從抗日戰爭／第二次世界大戰到冷戰期間，難民在移動、停留與治理等層面所呈現的相似性、延續性與斷裂。

本文運用多語言的史料，並聚焦於不同國家與非國家行動者如何在澳門與難民互動，主張歐洲殖民管轄在澳門所帶來的限制與機會，與香港的情況高度相似；然而香港往往被描述為特殊的例外案例。有別於香港，澳門的殖民政權與中華人民共和國沒有正式外交關係，但這一點並未使澳門與台灣的中華民國當局或國民黨相關人員建立更密切的聯繫，即使雙方在冷戰時期的意識形態立場非常靠近。這種情況部分可追溯至中國抗日戰爭時期的若干問題；理解這一歷史階段對於掌握澳門難民往後數十年的處境，以及不同政治勢力如何利用這些難民具有關鍵意義。

The small South China territory of Macau has been an unassuming place of refuge for centuries. During the Cold War, it was, like the better studied case of Hong Kong, the site of cross-border flows of people, goods, and information and the site of relief activities linked to state and nonstate actors operating at different scales. Existing scholarship on Chinese refugees in Hong Kong, including important monographs by Laura Madokoro and Angelina Chin, have centred on the Cold War period and its specific international and regional dynamics. This paper shifts the focus to refugees in Portuguese-ruled Macau and will consider parallels, continuities, and disruptions in the movement, presence, and management of refugees from the War of Resistance/Second World War to the Cold War. Drawing on sources in different languages and zooming in on how different state and non-state actors engaged with refugees in Macau, the paper argues that the constraints and opportunities posed by European colonial jurisdiction in Macau mirrored those in Hong Kong, that are often portrayed as exceptional. Although, unlike Hong Kong, Macau was ruled by a colonial power without formal diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China, that did not translate into a closer relationship with the Republic of China authorities on Taiwan and Nationalist agents, despite similar Cold War ideological alignments. This was partly due to issues dating back to China’s War of Resistance against Japan, a period essential to understand the experiences of refugees in Macau in later decades, and how they were used by different sides for their own ends.

On June 18, 1986, a wooden boat carrying nineteen young Chinese civilians washed ashore in Seosan, South Korea. Initially treated as an emergency landing, the incident was later handled under the principle of non-refoulement, enabling their transfer to Taiwan, where they were publicly presented as defectors from Communist China. Although South Korea had previously served as a transit point for defectors from mainland China—most notably in cases involving pilots who defected by flying military aircraft—the protracted negotiations surrounding this case point to broader shifts in Cold War geopolitics in 1980s East Asia.

Drawing on archival records and news reports, this paper revisits the Seosan incident by tracing the transnational trajectory of one passenger—a Chinese-Vietnamese refugee—from southern China to North Vietnam and back, and then onward through Macau, Hong Kong, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. This trajectory reveals how Vietnamese refugee movements and the “floating population” in southern China became intertwined amid rapidly changing border and mobility regimes in the early reform era.

Situating this case within the ROC’s postwar quasi-refugee regime, the paper further examines the group's detention at a refugee reception center in Penghu, where their public portrayal as anti-communist defectors quickly gave way to intensified suspicion and security screening. The paper shows how mobile subjects moved through humanitarian arrangements, territorial controls, and security practices that alternately enabled and restricted movement. The trajectories of the nineteen thus demonstrate how refuge and defection—as both humanitarian categories and Cold War instruments—could open pathways for mobility in a moment of geopolitical and economic realignment, only to foreclose them soon after.

中繼與轉型：1980年代東亞的非正規移動、交疊領域與地緣政治變遷

1986年6月，一艘載有19名中國青年的木船漂抵南韓瑞山。南韓政府最初將此事件定位為緊急登陸，最終則宣稱採取國際難民公約的「不遣返原則」，同意臺灣政府將十九名青年接運來臺。1960年代以來，南韓多次成為中國大陸叛逃者的中繼地，其中尤以駕機來臺「投奔自由」的飛行員案例最為人所知。南韓政府在此案及其前後數起類似事件的回應，反映了1980年代東亞冷戰地緣政治局勢的整體變化。

本文援引官方檔案與新聞報導，追溯其中一位曾旅居越南的華人難民的跨國移動軌跡——從中國南方出發，前往北越，再折返中國，其後輾轉經澳門、香港、菲律賓、南韓，最終來到臺灣——藉此呈現1980年代改革開放初期越南難民與中國南方「流動人口」在邊界與移動體制劇烈變動之際相互交錯的歷史面貌。本文進一步將十九人抵臺後旋即被移送澎湖中南半島難民接待中心拘留審訊的處境，置於筆者前作所探討的中華民國戰後「準難民體制」脈絡中加以分析。透過考察這些移動中的個體如何在冷戰後期的人道主義部署、領域管控與安全化技術之間穿行——時而得以流動，時而遭到攔阻——本文指出，「難民」、「叛逃者」與「滲透者」之間的分類界線，如何在中繼、協商與拘押的不同場域中被反覆解構與重塑。十九人的遷移軌跡，揭示了「難民庇護」與「投奔自由」，如何在地緣政治與經濟秩序重整的脈絡中，為移動者開啟了大門，卻也隨即封閉了通道。

本文關注在臨時或永久安置空間中，使難民生活得以維繫的日常勞動。以1975年後越南「船民」流亡至英屬香港為歷史與地理的關鍵案例，本文認為，要更深入且細緻地理解難民在香港的生活經驗，必須將他們作為「勞動主體」的（自我）定位納入分析之中。透過細讀香港政府檔案處保存的文本與影像資料，本文指出支撐難民生活的兩種主要勞動形式：其一，是沿著跨太平洋「及時帝國主義」（just-in-time imperialism）的基礎設施展開的高度不穩定有酬勞動；其二，是由社群成員與在地志願者擔負的各種社會再生產勞動，維繫難民照護的連鎖網絡。

關注這些勞動地理具有重要意義，因為這為我們開拓了新的政治與知識空間，使我們得以從難民與1975年後在香港日趨重要的其他東亞與東南亞勞動社群--特別是香港工廠工人與菲律賓移工家務勞動者--之間的關係，來重新理解船民。此外，本文也指出，船民如何透過與已安置於北美及其他地區的難民社群建立跨太平洋的團結與互助關係，從而在去殖民化進程中的太平洋世界兩岸，連結起不同的政治實踐與社會抗爭。

This essay attends to the everyday labour that goes into making refugee life possible in spaces of temporary or permanent resettlement. Using the post-1975 exodus of Vietnamese boat people to the British colony of Hong Kong as a historical and geographical fulcrum, it argues that a more complex and nuanced understanding of the refugee experience in the city must necessarily account for their (self)positioning as working subjects. Through a close reading of textual and photographic sources pulled from the Hong Kong Public Records Office, I identify two forms of labour that sustained refugee life in Hong Kong. They are: 1) the waged labour of precarious employment along transpacific infrastructures of just-in-time imperialism; and 2) the various forms of social reproductive labour carried out by community members and local volunteers that sustained refugee care chains. Attending to these labouring geographies is important for how it opens new political and intellectual spaces for understanding the boat people through their relations with the other communities of East and Southeast Asian workers that became increasingly important in post-1975 Hong Kong: namely, the Hong Kong factory worker and the Filipinx migrant domestic. It also shows how boat people worked to build transpacific ties of solidarity and mutual aid with refugee communities that had already been resettled in North America and elsewhere, effectively connecting political projects and struggles on both sides of the decolonizing Pacific.

本研究考察由設於華盛頓的美國智庫「戰略與國際研究中心」（Center for Strategic and International Studies, CSIS）所設計、執行的兵棋推演活動。隨著近年中台之間的緊張關係持續升高，在資深顧問、退役海軍陸戰隊軍官 Mark Cancian 主導下，CSIS 發布了一系列模擬情境，推演中國入侵台灣以及中國與美國／台灣／日本之間爆發戰爭的可能情況。兵棋推演計畫模擬了戰鬥過程及其結果，內容涵蓋空中、海上與地面作戰等不同層面的軍事行動，以及相關國家可能出現的傷亡人數。其模擬同時強調並再次確認了沖繩——自第二次世界大戰結束以來，美國一直於當地駐有重要軍事基地——對美國而言的地緣政治重要性。透過對兵棋推演內容的細緻分析，本研究將探討其中所隱含的前提假設及其所可能產生的影響，並進一步從空間視角關注此模擬的東亞危機情境所呈現與（再）製的殖民性形態。

This study will examine the “wargame” exercise that was created and run by the Washignton-based American think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). As tensions between China and Taiwan have escalated over the past few years, CSIS, led by the senior advisor and retired marine Mark Cancian, published simulated scenarios for a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and a war between China and the United States/Taiwan/Japan. The wargaming projects the processes and results of combat, ranging from air, naval, and ground operations to the number of casualties across the countries. It also underscores, and reaffirms, the geopolitical importance of Okinawa for the United States where its major military presence has been maintained since the end of the Second World War. Through a close reading of the wargaming, the study will explore its underlying assumptions as well as its impacts. It will draw spatial attention to forms of coloniality that manifest, and are (re)produced, in the simulated East Asian crisis.

本文藉由檢視 1945 年起美軍駐台的例外狀態，挑戰傳統將國家主權視為在其領土範圍內絕對且排他的觀點。二戰後，美軍迅速透過多元法律體系取得一系列特權，1965 年的《在華美軍地位協定》(SOFA) 即是最顯著且經過激烈談判的案例。藉由當代關於主權權力實踐的理論啟發，本研究主張，這些治外法權與基地空間不只是侵蝕了中華民國的主權，更是動態地揭示了主權在爭議與協商中形成的過程。

在既有的 SOFA 研究基礎上，本文深入探討特定的制度安排——包含法律、空間與物流層面——如何創造出例外狀態，並透過持續的衝突與複雜的外交談判，重構了司法權威、領土邊界與日常生活。具體而言，研究顯示治外法權的形成是一個不斷變動的過程。 透過利用台美雙方豐富的檔案資料，本研究針對這些特定權利的界定、執行與管理進行了細緻分析。特別指出在戰後台灣的特殊案例中，「基地空間」是一個具有政治爭議且極力被淡化的意象；「基地」儘管仍是重要的線索，卻不足以充分描繪美軍例外的佈署方式。相對地，透過圍繞著美軍個人身體的各種行動與需求——從居住空間、消費娛樂到移動與出入境管制等面向——更能顯現出值得進一步探討的例外狀態。研究最終主張，藉由考察治外法權如何透過「身體性的例外」落實在個別美軍身上，我們得以深化對於國家主權在冷戰與軍事化背景下，其領域化方式的理論理解。

This paper challenges conventional notions of state sovereignty as absolute and exclusive within its territorial boundaries by examining the exceptional U.S. military presence in Taiwan from 1945 onwards. Following WWII, the U.S. military rapidly secured a series of privileges through plural legal systems; the 1965 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) stands as the most prominent and intensely negotiated example. Drawing on contemporary theoretical insights into the practical exercise of sovereign power, this study argues that these extraterritorial privileges and base spaces did not merely undermine the Republic of China’s sovereignty, but dynamically revealed the process of sovereignty's formation through contestation and negotiation.

Building on prior SOFA research, this paper delves into how specific institutional arrangements—spanning legal, spatial, and logistical dimensions—created states of exception that reshaped judicial authority, territorial boundaries, and daily life through constant conflict and complex diplomacy. Specifically, the research demonstrates that the formation of extraterritoriality was a constantly shifting process. Utilizing extensive archival materials from both Taiwanese and U.S. sources, this study provides a detailed analysis of the definition, implementation, and management of these specific entitlements. It highlights that in the unique case of post-war Taiwan, "base space" functioned as a politically contested and deliberately downplayed imagery; while "the base" remains a crucial clue, it alone is insufficient to fully capture the exceptional modes of U.S. military deployment. Instead, a state of exception worth further exploration is more vividly revealed through the diverse actions and needs centered on the individual bodies of U.S. personnel—ranging from residential spaces and entertainment to mobility and border controls. Ultimately, the research contends that by observing how extraterritoriality was manifested through "corporeal exceptions" in individual U.S. personnel, we can deepen our theoretical understanding of the modes of territorialization of state sovereignty within the context of Cold War militarization.

北海道大學斯拉夫—歐亞研究中心的岩下明裕教授曾經提出，自2022年俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭以來，第二次冷戰已然展開；1991年之後的三十年可以視為「間冰期」（Interglacial Period）。

這一概念促使我們重新檢討既有的歷史研究框架。如果我們跳脫馬克思列寧主義及其後續思想體系，或民族主義的歷史敘事框架，那麼像日本帝國這樣的殖民帝國，與俄羅斯帝國／蘇聯／俄羅斯聯邦，以及清帝國／中華民國／中華人民共和國等大型國家之間，是否真的存在顯著差異？殖民統治體制與第一次冷戰體制是否依據完全不同的原則運作？

本文作者將近代界定為「邊界與國家的時代」。俄烏戰爭提醒了我們，「邊界與國家」至今仍是支配世界秩序的經典且根本的原則。因此，我們可以嘗試以第二次冷戰的視角與原則，從更具普遍性的觀點來重新討論二十世紀與二十一世紀的歷史。

本文企圖考察二十世紀與二十一世紀庫頁島邊境史，提出理解第二次冷戰的普遍性歷史視角。

Prof. IWASHITA Akihiro, Slavic Eurasia Research Center, Hokkaido University proposed to define 30 years after 1991 as an “Interglacial Period” because the Second Cold War has already begun since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

This concept forces us to revise our scheme for historical studies. If we stand out of the schemes of Marxism-Leninizm, its successors or patriotism, can we find any meaningful difference between the colonial empires such as the Japanese empire and other large countries such as the Russian empire/USSR/Russian federation and Qing dynasty/ROC/PROC? Did the colonial regime and the first cold war regime work in completely different principles?

The author has defined the modern era as “the era of borders and nations.” The Russo-Ukrainian war indicated us that “borders and nations” has been the classical but fundamental principles of this world still today. Therefore, we can attempt to discuss the 20th and 21st centuries in more universal viewpoints with the principles for the second cold war.

This paper attempts to discuss one of the universal historical viewpoints for the second cold war through the borderland history on Sakhalin Island in 20th and 21st centuries.

本文探討金門領域性在多重層次上的轉變及其所引發的爭議。金門由中華民國（台灣）管轄，但距離中國廈門海岸僅約兩公里。歷史上，金門長期處於閩南地區的社會、經濟與文化網絡之中，其空間認同與發展軌跡在不同歷史階段受到移民流動、軍事化、國家建構與邊界制度變動的深刻影響。從帝國時期的宗族網絡與儒家治理，到1949年國民黨撤退至台灣後金門轉變為冷戰前線，再到2001年「小三通」政策實施後的重新開放，金門先後被塑造為殖民地、軍事駐防地以及爭議地帶。近年來，金門逐漸成為地緣政治的灰色地帶：一方面面臨中國日益頻繁的海上與空中騷擾，另一方面也成為地方社會提出更高度自治、

務實經濟發展以及重新連結中國文化關係的平台。

本文關注以下問題：不同群體的金門居民對地方發展的期待與想像有何異同？這些願景如何受到他們對金門過去與當下經驗的理解所形塑，包括與文化傳統、軍事化、民族國家建構、民族主義與移民流動等因素的交織關係？這些互異的集體認識，又如何反映區域與全球政治經濟秩序的再變遷？

本研究運用多尺度數據，包括台灣與中國的官方政策文件、新聞與社群媒體論述，以及對地方官員、文化與經濟菁英、小規模跨境貿易者、青年社區行動者與婚姻移民所進行的深度訪談，以分析不同社會群體如何參與並理解金門的邊界建構與邊界工作。這些工作不僅涉及人員流動與經濟交換，也包括情感勞動、記憶建構，以及對金門地緣政治角色的重新想像。

年長世代往往透過儒家秩序、冷戰時期軍事化的苦難經驗以及離散情感來理解金門，並常將島嶼被認定的「落後」與鄰近廈門的快速發展相對比。他們的記憶與身份認同強調犧牲與對民族國家的忠誠。有別於此，較年輕的行動者則建立了混合性的認同，結合臺灣的民主價值、閩南文化傳統以及地方軍事記憶的保存。他們對發展的想像往往包含永續觀光、公民參與及文化振興。與此同時，跨境貿易者、地方菁英與婚姻移民則呈現務實取向，利用金門與中國的地理鄰近關係推動貿易、醫療觀光與物流連結，並經常淡化或迴避主權問題帶來的政治爭議。

本文認為，這些多元且彼此競逐的想像，不僅反映不同的意識形態立場，也體現各群體與邊界之間在物質與生活層面上的關係。對不同群體而言，邊界同時是勞動、協商、機會與情感投入的場域。在這個意義上，金門提供了一個重要的觀察位置，使我們得以理解邊界建構不僅透過國家政策或領土衝突而形成，也在地方社會的日常實踐、基礎設施運作與發展願景之中持續被形塑。這座島嶼既是地緣政治博弈中的一枚棋子，也是地方行動者展現能動性的空間，居民在其中周旋於國族歸屬、區域整合與全球流動之間變動的邏輯。

藉由突顯邊界工作在時間、基礎設施與情感層面的多重面向，本研究有助於深化對東亞地區軍事化、遷徙與危機如何擾動並重新調整領土秩序的討論。金門的案例顯示，全球與區域政治經濟的變化如何在一個軍事化的海上邊境中，透過地方社會對發展、認同與歸屬的日常協商具體呈現。這也顯示，若不關注地方層級由下而上的實踐與彼此競逐的空間想像，便無法充分理解東亞領土秩序的形塑與重塑。

This paper explores the layered and contested transformations of territoriality in Kinmen (Quemoy), a group of islands administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) but located just two kilometers off the coast of Xiamen, China. Historically integrated into the socio-economic and cultural orbit of southern Fujian, Kinmen’s spatial identity

and developmental trajectory have been profoundly reshaped by successive waves of migration, militarization, state-building, and shifting border regimes. From imperial-era kinship networks and Confucian governance to its transformation into a Cold War frontline following the Kuomintang’s retreat to Taiwan in 1949, and later its reopening under the “Mini Three Links” policy in 2001, Kinmen has been successively recast as a colony, garrison, and contested zone. In recent years, the island has emerged as a geopolitical gray zone, subject to increasing Chinese maritime and aerial incursions, while simultaneously becoming a platform for local demands for greater autonomy, economic pragmatism, and renewed cultural connectivity with China.

This paper centers on the following questions: What are the similarities and differences among various groups of Kinmen residents in their expectations and imaginaries of local development? How are these visions shaped by their distinct experiences and interpretations of Kinmen’s past and present entanglements with cultural traditions, militarism, nation-state building, nationalism, and migration? And what do these contrasting collective understandings reveal about the (re)transformation of regional and global political economy?

Drawing on multi-scalar and multi-method data—including official policy documents from Taiwan and China, news and social media discourse, and in-depth interviews with local officials, cultural and economic elites, small-scale cross-border traders, young community activists, and marriage migrants—this study examines how different social groups engage in and interpret border-making and border work in Kinmen. These practices encompass not only physical mobility and economic exchange but also affective labor, memory work, and the reimagination of Kinmen’s geopolitical function.

Older generations often frame Kinmen through Confucian hierarchy, Cold War militarized suffering, and diasporic longing, frequently contrasting the island’s perceived “backwardness” with the rapid development of nearby Xiamen. Their memories and identity attachments emphasize sacrifice and loyalty to the nation-state. In contrast, younger activists articulate a hybrid identity grounded in Taiwan’s democratic values, Minnan cultural heritage, and the preservation of local military memory. Their developmental visions often include sustainable tourism, civic participation, and cultural revitalization. Meanwhile, cross-border traders, local elites,

and marriage migrants tend to adopt a pragmatic approach—leveraging Kinmen’s spatial proximity to China to promote trade, medical tourism, and logistical connectivity, often downplaying or circumventing fraught questions of sovereignty.

This paper argues that these heterogeneous and competing imaginaries reflect not only differing ideological orientations but also materially embedded relationships to the border as a site of labor, negotiation, opportunity, and affect. In this sense, Kinmen serves as a critical vantage point for observing how border-making is enacted not only through official state policies and territorial incursions, but also through the everyday practices, infrastructures, and aspirations of local actors. The island is both a geopolitical pawn and a site of active agency, where residents navigate the shifting logics of national belonging, regional integration, and global circulation.

By foregrounding the temporal, infrastructural, and affective dimensions of border work, this study contributes to broader discussions of how militarism, migration, and crisis disrupt and recalibrate territorial regimes in East Asia. The case of Kinmen reveals how global and regional political-economic shifts are locally refracted through everyday struggles over development, identity, and belonging at a militarized maritime frontier. It demonstrates that the making of East Asian territories cannot be fully understood without attending to the bottom-up practices and contested imaginaries that shape and reshape borders from below.

2025年，屏東發生兩件備受矚目的事件：核三廠停機，以及台灣首座國家火箭發射場的開發。透過火箭從面向太平洋的海岸升空的想像圖，台灣最南端的地區被重新打造成「閃耀屏東」，也被視為承載未來願景與太空科技發展的前沿。屏東被比擬為邁阿密，其低緯度氣候被認為適合火箭發射，是發展尖端太空科技的理想環境，而不再只是擁有熱帶沃土的區域。近年來，屏東陸續引入太空科技相關基礎設施，包括2023年啟用的首座短期科研探空火箭發射場，並計畫在2025至2030年間於屏東最南端的恆春半島興建台灣首座永久性國家太空發射場。整體而言，屏東地區似乎正眾望所歸地「崛起」。然而，支撐太空科技與人工智慧產業發展所需的龐大能源需求，也引發對基礎設施暴力、長期的屯墾殖民主義以及迫遷問題的嚴重關切。恆春半島的原住民族社群在二十世紀反覆經歷流離失所，直至今日。

本研究提供了一個難得的觀察契機：恆春半島同時進行核能設施除役與火箭發射基地初期規劃；兩個場域都呈現出由基礎設施暴力塑造的科技地景。本文回顧過往因災難所導致的流離失所，以及當代以國家安全為名、為軍事與科技設施騰出空間而導致的原住民社群流離失所，指出地方記憶與社群聲音往往被排除在協商之外。研究進一步追蹤新一波流離失所如何在基礎設施飛地的邊界與秩序生成過程中被啟動；而此一過程，是透過對海洋領域的策略性界定，以及對科技、知識與地緣政治資源的選擇性運用而得以推進。

The year of 2025 witnessed two eye-catching events in Pingtung, the closure of a nuclear power plant (no. 3) and a development of a national rocket launching pad - the first of its kind in Taiwan. With the image of rockets soaring from its Pacific-facing coast, the southernmost region of Taiwan has been rebranded as "Bright Pingtung," a development frontier of future promise and space technology. Moving beyond its traditional image as a tropical region with fertile soil, Pingtung is now likened to Miami, its low-latitude climate seen as ideal for rocket launches and, by extension, the development of advanced space technologies. In recent years, Pingtung has welcomed infrastructure for space technology, including its first short-term experimental testing ground for rocket research (beginning in 2023), and is set to host the nation's first permanent rocket launch site, planned for construction in Hengchun Peninsula (the very south of Pingtung) between 2025 and 2030. The region thus appears to be steadily approaching its much-anticipated "rise to prominence." Yet the immense energy demands underpinning this vision of space technology and AI-driven industries have raised serious concerns about infrastructural violence, ongoing settler colonialism, and displacement. Indigenous communities in the Hengchun Peninsula have experienced repeated displacement throughout the 20th century, a process that continues into the present.

The research project presents a rare opportunity to observe both the planned decommissioning of a nuclear facility and the initial planning phase of a rocket launch site occurring simultaneously in the Hengchun Peninsula. Both sites exemplify technological landscapes shaped by and brought about infrastructural violence. This study examines the historical displacement caused by disasters and the contemporary displacement of Indigenous communities to make way for military and technological installations justified under the banner of national security—often excluding local memories and voices from the negotiation process. The project traces how new forms of displacement are mobilized through the (b)ordering of infrastructural enclaves, enabled by strategic framings of marine territory and the selective deployment of technology, knowledge, and geopolitics.

1970年代末，中共開始推動改革開放並積極追求全球化，「香港問題」也隨之浮上政治議程。冷戰時期，中國視香港為次國家層級的接觸地帶，以維持與西方的貿易往來。進入改革時期後，中國進一步希望透過香港引入外資、技術以及資本主義的經濟制度。因此，「香港問題」與香港能否維持其接觸地帶的地位密切相關，而此地位又關係到中國改革開放政策能否持續推進。

本文探討在「香港問題」出現的初期階段，中國如何透過大亞灣核電廠計畫重新界定中港邊界，並重新塑造香港在中國對外開放過程中的接觸地帶角色。大亞灣核電廠是中國改革時期第一個跨境合資的基礎設施計畫。該計畫生產的電力主要供應香港使用，透過以港幣計價的銀團貸款融資，貸款期限甚至延長至1997年

之後；整體的規劃同時也包含中國對「香港問題」的政策構想。本文指出，在香港由殖民地走向後殖民轉型的過程中，大亞灣核電廠計畫的啟動對於重新界定香港的地位具有關鍵作用。本文進一步說明，中國能否順利融入國際經濟體系，相當程度取決於能否成功推動大亞灣計畫，以及「香港問題」能否得到妥善處理。

本文提出兩點論述。首先，邊界的性質往往在跨境互動中形成，而跨境基礎設施深刻影響這些互動的型態。因此，分析國家如何規劃跨境基礎設施，又如何在建設過程中與不同利害關係者協商，有助於理解邊界重塑與領域重編的歷史過程。其次，跨境基礎設施的建設，是國家推動邊界化與領域化過程中展現多面向基礎設施權力的重要途徑。

In the late 1970s, as PR China began its opening-up to engage with globalization, the Hong Kong question was also brought to the forefront. During the Cold War, China used Hong Kong as a sub-national contact zone to maintain trade relations with the West. In the reform era, it hoped to further leverage Hong Kong for introducing foreign capital, technology and capitalist economic structures into the nation. Therefore, the Hong Kong question was closely tied to whether Hong Kong could maintain its contact zone status, which, in turn, was critical to the continuation of the nation's reform.

This article examines how, during the initial stage after the Hong Kong question was raised, China used the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) project to re-define the

China-Hong Kong border and Hong Kong’s status as a contact zone for China’s opening-up. The Daya Bay NPP is the first joint venture cross-border infrastructural project of China in the reform era. It was financed through syndicated loans denominated in Hong Kong dollars, with the loan period extending beyond 1997. The electricity generated was intended for supply to Hong Kong. The planning of the project contained China’s proposed solution to the Hong Kong question. I show how the launch of the NPP project was crucial steps in the redefinition of the position of Hong Kong when the city began to transition from colonial to postcolonial period. I further demonstrate how China’s integration with international economies would hinge on the success of the Daya Bay scheme and a proper solution to the Hong Kong problem.

I have two points to make. Firstly, the nature of borders is defined by cross-border interactions, and the forms of these interactions are shaped by cross-border infrastructure. Therefore, examining how states plan cross-border infrastructure and negotiate with stakeholders over its construction provides valuable insights into the processes of (re-)bordering and (re-)territorialization. Secondly, the construction of cross-border infrastructure is central to state’s multidimensional infrastructural power in its bordering and territorializing endeavors.