本研究主張前中華民國總統李登輝於1999年7月9日「特殊的國與國關係」的陳述對台灣的發展有其顯著的衝擊。對照普遍的認知，認為他的陳述「對事件無影響力」，本研究顯示前總統的決定強調台灣的主權並影響社會政治的面貌。藉由政治心理學的理論以驗證李登輝的陳述如何強調「台灣經驗」與其台灣主權的政治實體在「存在」上的見解。就算李登輝是一位強勢有決斷力的政治領袖，在美國的壓力和中國的威脅下也無法合法化「國與國」的意圖，不過他依然成功的改變了島國人民的自我定位。被強化的台灣身分對後續政府的正當性扮演了決定性的因素。
這事件指出「事實上的」台灣自治權朝向「權利上的」中華民國在台灣的主權無法推動。無論如何，此陳述已冠上台灣人民的看法，他們更進一步明白自己是有自治權的，主權其實掌握在自己的手中。「國與國」事件加速並鞏固台灣人的信念，意識到台灣島是一個具主權的政治實體。此發展在西方脈絡對「民族國家」的觀點上被細查了一番，它並不能完整的符合中國與台灣的經驗。有關「國民」的遺產討論在20世紀初期已展開，當傳統的儒家思想轉化成現代化的國家社會，台灣的例子可能重新激勵其他中國人民去堅持民權與人民主權。
This thesis argues that the ‘special state-to-state relationship’ statement of the former President of the Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui, on July 9, 1999, had a significant impact on Taiwanese developments. In contrast to the widespread belief that the statement was an ‘episode without repercussions’ this study shows how Lee Tenghui’s determination to strengthen Taiwan’s sovereignty influenced the socio-political landscape of Taiwan. With the help of the theories of political psychology it will be examined how Lee Teng-hui utilized the statement to reinforce the ‘Taiwan experience’ and the idea of ‘the
existence’ of a Taiwanese sovereign political entity. Although even a strong and decisive political leader like Lee Teng-hui could not legalize such a ‘state-to-state’ notion in the face of pressure from the United States and threats from the People’s Republic of China, he still successfully changed the self-image of the island population. This strengthened Taiwanese identity in turn is a decisive factor for the legitimacy of succeeding governments.
The incident shows that there was no way to push the ‘de facto’ autonomy of Taiwan towards a ‘de jure’ sovereignty of the ‘Republic of China on Taiwan’. However,
it was this statement which tilted the opinion of the Taiwanese population towards an ever increasing understanding that they are autonomous people who hold sovereignty in their own hands. The ‘state-to-state’ incident thus had accelerated and consolidated a mindset of the citizens which perceives the island as a sovereign entity.
These developments are scrutinized in the context of the Western concept of the ‘Nation-State’ which does not fully accommodate the Chinese and Taiwanese experience. The legacy of the ‘Guo-Min’ discussion of the early 20th century, when Confucian clan tradition was transformed into a modern state society, might well resurface again with the Taiwanese example inspiring other Chinese citizens to insist on civil rights and popular sovereignty.
