本論文目的在於，針對韓國與臺灣及中國貿易結構，探討兩岸ECFA 對韓臺經貿關係的影響。韓國與中華民國臺灣皆是以出口為導向的國家，經濟成長主要依靠對外出口。兩國的經濟、產業結構相似、出口市場重疊，在國際市場成為競爭對手。韓、臺最大的出口市場都是中國，對中國的主要出口產品同質性高，在中國市場難免形成激烈競爭 。兩岸簽署ECFA 之後，臺灣較韓國擁有較大的價格優勢，將會削弱韓國在中國市場的競爭力，這對韓國的外貿而言，堪稱一場災難。為了渡過兩岸簽署ECFA 的難關，韓國需加速與中國簽訂FTA。然而，基於韓國推進FTA 戰略的順序及韓中對FTA 談判方式及敏感領域（包括農業）的看法分歧，雙邊FTA 談判短期內似難有成果。臺灣是韓國的第5 大貿易夥伴，其在中國和東南亞與華商享有文化及語言上的緊密關係，經貿方面也具有密切的互動網絡。因此，隨著兩岸經貿合作領域的擴大，韓國希望與臺灣加強經貿合作，進而積極爭取中國與東南亞市場。從此一面向來看，ECFA 未嘗不是加強韓臺關係的契機。 Both the political leaders and intellectuals in China want to present the image of her being a responsible country in the world. Their understandings of responsibility are not directed at an external audience, although they closely watch what the latter expects of China. In the global age, the expectation is always about China's contribution to conflict resolutions, and alleviation and prevention of global problems, whatever it may be. The Chinese political thoughts, classic as well as modern, are so grounded in their cultural and ideological background that their introspective nature determines that Chinese narratives on their nation's duty in the world unanimously point to China's responsibility for handling its domestic problems well enough to avoid causing global troubles. Xi Jinping's widely circulated quote during his trip to Mexico in 2008 reveals a deep mutual misperception between Chinese narrators and China's criticizers. For Xi Jinping and his colleagues, China has no intention to lead the world, or to provide the world any philosophical guidance regarding their future, or even to participate in initiating problem solving regimes. The Chinese care more about the mode and process of global governance than any substantive value and goal of global governance. Specifically, the Chinese want to make sure that global governance does not infringe upon the national sovereignty of China. This defensive mentality which has a root in Chinese history of political thoughts prepares China's unique style of global governance through self-governance. While this is a style meant to avoid rendering any excuse to other major powers seeking opportunities to intervene in China, once on track, its political thought underpinning inevitably challenges the prevailing liberalistic methodology of global governance.