釣魚台主權爭議的懸而未決，其時間延宕之久似乎遠超過其牽涉之利益所能解釋。對於這類多年來遲遲無法化解的小型領土爭端，海斯納（Ron E. Hassner）曾提出「物質深化」（material entrenchment）、「功能深化」（functional entrenchment）、「象徵深化」（symbolic entrenchment）等三種過程，說明這類爭議為何會隨著時間累積而日益難以化解。只是，這三個過程似乎都無法適用在釣魚台的爭議上。物質方面，釣魚台並未與爭議任何一方的既有領土，有日益加深的經濟生活聯繫；功能上，作為海島的釣魚台，其界線並不曾模糊不清；象徵層面而言，釣魚台的土地並未與爭議任何一方的人民發生直接情感。因此，本文嘗試在海斯納的基礎上，提出「觀念深化」的過程，也就是一片爭議領土如何被認為是不可退讓的，來解釋釣魚台爭議的長期延續，並對此一假設進行初步檢驗。對此，本文已發現了相當的證據，值得日後以持續加以檢驗。 The sovereignty dispute over Diaoyutai Islands has protracted far longer than the tangible interests involved can explain. Regarding this sort of prolonged disputes over tiny territories, Ron E. Hassner proposes a theory of three entrenchment processes, “material entrenchment,” “functional entrenchment,” and “symbolic entrenchment” to account for the increasing difficulties in resolving these disputes overtime. Nonetheless, these processes are not applicable to the Diaoyutai case. Materially, Diaoyutai Islands are not intergrated to the economy of any disputing party; functionally, the boundaries of Diaoyutai Islands are always clear; symbolically, Diaoyutai Islands do not have emotional linkage to the people of any disputing party. Therefore, based on Hassner’s theory, the article proposes a concept of “ideational entrenchment,” the process that a disputed territory is considered as irreplaceable, to explain the continuing dispute of Diaoyutai Islands. The article provides a preliminary test to this “ideational entrenchment” hypothesis and finds considerable evidence. Further studies are desirable.
