本文共乙冊，約九萬言，分為六章二十二節。 規劃、執行及評估是政策過程中的三個主要階段。學者已言，上述三個階段並非是一 個簡單直線的過程，它祗是便利學理討論之架構；而評估更不必然係政策過程的最後 一個階段，事實上，它存在於政策過和中的任一階段，且擔任階段與階段間聯結之中 介及資訊反饋之憑藉。 其次，規劃與執行兩個階段一必分立且前後接連並存。實際政策過程中，該二者之前 後次序可能互換，且不一定同時存在。 因此，為彈性肆應政策過程的複雜性及外在環境之變動不居，政策伊始，規劃與執行 兩者結合考量，實為園滿達成目標與建立一般性政策過程理論之基礎。 本文內容概要如后： 第一章：緒論。敘述本文研究之動機、目的、方法與限制。 第二章：規劃與執行聯合之權變設計。首先自「政策與行動」之關係「目標與手段」 之相段性兩個途徑探討並建立聯合之論證基礎；其次舉「偏頗」設計概念之案例為佐 證；然後，借取亞歷山大（Ernest R Alexander）之「政策－方案－執行－過程模式 」（PRIP）為本文理論架構之基礎並闡述之；最後，提出本文研究之概念架構。 第三章：規劃與執行聯合之途徑。從政治性活動，官僚組織，溝通、順服與政策評估 等五個途徑來討論。 第四章：個案研究。以我國台灣光復迄今之檢肅流氓政策為個案，並將「動員戡亂時 期檢肅流氓流例」之制定作為分界點，首先敘述前期適用「台灣省戒嚴時期取締流氓 辦法」時，有關檢肅流氓之規劃與執行。此外，並特別分立專節討論台灣光復以來， 我國最大規模之掃黑行動－－一清專案－－之規劃與執行過程，並喻其為規劃與執行 結合成功之範例。其次，再敘述「檢肅流氓條例」之制定過程及生效迄今之執行情形 ，最後，就上政策提出檢討與展望。 第五章：規劃與執行聯結之困境。歸納促成規劃與執行歧異之四大變項：（一）議會 監督；（二）領導功能；（三）第一線執行人員；（四）執行策略。並逐項加以探討 。 第六章：結論。提出本文研究之發現及建議。

本文主要從圖像著手討論18世紀以後西方的中國觀察。18世紀及其之前西方的中國圖像，與中國相距甚遠，後現代主義認為，此時期的中國形象被扭曲，甚至妖魔化。但18世紀以後，西方的中國圖像與前期有極大的差異，因此本文嘗試透過圖像來討論西方中國觀察的變化。 首先，從文本的記載到外銷瓷、外銷畫上的中國圖案，以及18世紀歐洲中國風所發展出的中國象徵符號，討論西方中國想像的形成。 其次，亞歷山大及湯姆遜二者所記錄的中國分別代表18世紀末、19世紀初及19世紀後半的中國，所採用的工具繪畫與攝影正好反映當代圖像記錄工具的變革，因此，透過對亞歷山大及湯姆遜作品的討論，期能理解西方的中國觀察及影響因素。 / This dissertation discusses China observation in the West after the eighteenth century. Before the eighteenth century, images about China in the West were very different from the real China. Post-modernists argue that in that period the images about China were distorted or even demonized. This dissertation tries to explore the changes of understanding of China through examining images about China in the West. First, to discuss the emerging of the imagination of China in Europe, it discusses Western texts about China, the images on the eighteenth-century China porcelain and exported paintings, as well as the symbols of the “Chinoiserie” style. Secondly, it examines the drawings of William Alexander in the late eighteenth century and the photographs of John Thomson in the nineteenth century. Not only do they represent the shift of media of image recording images but also the change of the understanding of China. In the conclusion, it tries to understand the factors that brought about the changes of China observations in the West.

「沙皇亞歷山大一世之研究」主要以歷史分析法(History Analysis Method)為主軸，針對俄國沙皇亞歷山大一世（Tsar Alexander Ⅰ）從出生(24 Dec 1777)一直到逝世(26 Dec 1825)的一生事蹟，包括了少年成長時期、執政時期(1801-1825年)的社會情況、內政外交、軍事行為等加以研究分析，以提出對此段歷史的分析解釋以及對其後歷史的影響。 由於凱薩琳大帝精心設計的教育歷程，使得亞歷山大一世成為俄國皇室中有史以來第一位具有啟蒙思想的沙皇並且懷有著改革俄國的夢想。然而亞歷山大一世經常在言行上出現不一致的狀況。舉例來說，少年時代的他曾不只一次地表明本身並不適於擔任沙皇，然而日後他卻在一場弒父的流血政變中登基﹔他宣稱自己熱愛憲政，但卻未能實踐他對憲政主義的理想；他一再地表示對農奴制度極端地憎惡，但卻沒有對這項制度有較為激烈的改革﹔他在外交上表示別無所求只願歐洲和平的想法，卻一再地與法國以及瑞典、顎圖曼土耳其帝國等發生戰爭。因此，為了解釋這種矛盾性，大部分的史家經常將亞歷山大一世描寫為一個謎題一般神秘而且矛盾的人物，或者將他描繪成詭計多端、不真誠的乃至於白癡與精神分裂，以提出對於亞歷山大一世如此矛盾不協調的統治的解釋。除了以這種方式來解釋亞歷山大一世的統治歷程外，本篇文章旨在更進一步地深入瞭解沙皇的性格與人格特質，以及將外在條件的制約納入分析思考的範圍中，以對此段歷史提出更為全面而廣泛地解釋。 終亞歷山大一生，他耗費了相當多的時間在國內改革與外交事務的參與上。1801年即位之始，他便汲汲營營地進行各項改革，然而由於國內改革事務存在的艱困阻礙加上拿破崙的壓力，逐漸促使他遠離內政改革而將心思轉向外交事務上。在提爾斯特條約暫時地解脫亞歷山大一世在外交與軍事上的壓力之後，亞歷山大一世又回到內政改革上，他任命了麥克海爾•史普蘭斯基為國務卿，並且命他進行憲政計劃的草擬。由於許多的原因，史普蘭斯基所提出的計劃沒能夠全盤被執行，而憲政改革又再次陷入了停擺。1812年，俄國面臨了拿破崙侵略的威脅，最終又捲入與法國的戰爭中。在拿破崙經歷了征俄戰爭以及最終受到聯軍的圍剿而徹底失敗之後，亞歷山大一世成為歐洲最有勢力的統治者，他的功績在此時達到最高峰，並且要將歐洲改造成新的局面，最終藉由神聖同盟的設立而完成他的志願。在回到國內之後，亞歷山大一世似乎已經準備好再次面對內政的改革。然而沙皇對於革命的畏懼更勝於他對改革的熱情，1820年代俄國國內的不安以及國外的革命騷亂終究使得他的改革劃下了句點。雖然亞歷山大一世未能完成他的改革理想，但無可置疑地，他仍是19世紀裡俄國與歐洲歷史上的重要角色。 本文第一章緒論針對研究動機與目的、研究途徑與架構、文獻分析與研究限制與問題提出說明。第二章係對亞歷山大一世之成長背景，主要探討十八世紀末俄國現況，凱薩琳二世及保羅一世對亞歷山大一世成長的影響。第三章則對亞歷山大一世的內政改革，包括農奴政策、憲政改革、以及其他經濟文教的改革加以研究論述。第四章論述亞歷山大一世的外交與軍事作為，包括俄法戰爭、維也納會議、歐洲協調、四國同盟與神聖同盟等問題。第五章針對亞歷山大一世晚期的作為提出綜合檢討與回顧。第六章為結論。 / The Study of Tsar Alexander I mainly explores the history of the whole life of the Russian Tsar Alexander I (1801-1825). This article basically use the historical analysis method to describe and analysis the history from Alexander I's birth (24 Dec 1777) until his death (26 Dec 1825), which covers his childhood, youth, and his behaviors after his ascended to the throne. And finally provides the explanation and analysis of the history about this period of time, and it’s influence for later history. Due to Catherine II’s delicated education, Alexander I was the first tsar who had the enlightened thoughts and had dreams to reform Russia. But his behaviors were usually contradictory to his words. More than once he professed he was unsuitable for the exercise of power, yet he ascended to the throne in a bloody coup which involved the murder of Paul I; He claimed to love constitutions, yet he failed to realize his ideal to implement the constitutional reform; He frequently expressed his abhorrence of serfdom, yet he did little to challenge this institution; He asserted that his only ambition is to promote the peace of the Europe, yet he fought not only with France, but also with Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. Historians usually explained the incongruities of his highly paradoxical reign by portraying Alexander as everything from scheming and insincere to idiotic to schizophrenic. In addition to this kind of explanation for his reign, This article aims at exploring the tsar’s personality and character more deeply and taking the outside constraints on his reign into consideration in order to analysis and explain the history of his lifetime more broadly. Through his lifetime, Alexander I spent most of his time in domestic reforms and diplomatic affairs. After his coronation, he eagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pushed him to turn away to diplomatic affairs. Until the temporary relief of Tilsit treaty, he proceeded to domestic reforms again. He appointed Mikhail Speransky as the state secretary, and ordered him to draft the plan of constitution. Due to a lot of reasons Speransky’s plan was canceled and the constitution reform was delayed again. In 1812, Russia faced the aggression oeagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pushed him to turn away to diplomatic affairs. Until the temporary relief of Tilsit treaty, he proceeded to domestic reforms again. He appointed Mikhail Speransky as the state secretary, and ordered him to draft the plan of constitution. Due to a lot of reasons Speransky’s plan was canceled and eagerly engaged in domestic reform. However, the difficulties he faced in domestic reforms and the oppressions from Napoleon gradually pusArakachev to start oppressive and cruel rule until his death. Despite of his failure to fufill all the reforms, generally speaking, he still is a dominant figure in both Russian and European history in the nineteenth century. The construction of this article is as follows：The first chapter focuses on the tropics about motives and intentions of this study, study methods and construction, the article analysis and the study limits. The second chapter explores the background of Alexander I’s growth, which about the tropics of current situations of the end of 18 century, and the influence of Catherine II and Paul I on the growth of Alexander I. The third chapter explores the tropics about the domestic reforms which include the serfs question, the constitutional reform, and other reforms about economy and education. The fourth chapter explores the diplomatic and military behaviors of Alexander I, which includes the tropics of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the Vienna conference, the European settlement, the Quadruple Alliance and the Holly Alliance. The fifth chapter explores the last years of AlexanderⅠ’s rule, and provide the full analysis and overview. The sixth chapter is conclusion.