許多哲學家主張’民族文化認同（national identity )的價值足以 證成一個民族社群，建立一個屬於自已民族、主權獨立國家的初步權 利('prima facie right)。我把這些論證統稱為「認同論證」。這篇論文 裡，我先說明認同論證裡三個步驟，再逐一檢視它們是否足以推導出 該論證支持者所想要得到的結論。我的看法是，這個論證的有效性依 賴著「最高保障原則」（the Optimal Protection Principle)，但是，該原 則並不適用於保護一個民族的權益。此外，即使假設該論證成功地證 成了民族自決權，這樣的論證方法下所推導出的權利，也沒有任何實 質意義。最後，認同論證也會推導出「移民的民族也有自決權」這樣 的結論，這個主張與近代反殖民思想有明顯衝突。因此，民族認同論 證並沒有成功地證成一個民族自決的初步權利。

Nationalists often appeal to the importance of national identity to justify the right of a national community to establish an independent, sovereign state. This type of argument is commonly referred to as the identity argument. In this paper I consider whether the identity argument is sound. I begin by explaining the three steps in this argument and then critically evaluate it. My examination reveals that the identity argument relies on the hidden premise that I call The Optimal Protection Principle. While this principle applies to cases of personal autonomy, it does not apply to the case of collective autonomy. In addition, even assuming that the interest in national identity was sufficient to justify a group’s right to self-determination, such a right would be empty as any group with important interests would equally be entitled to the same right. Lastly, the identity argument would entail the implausible conclusion that even an immigrant, polyethnic group has the right to self-determination. Thus, the identity argument fails to justify the right of a national community to establish an independent state.