地緣政治係俄羅斯制定外交政策的重要考量，俄羅斯領土橫跨歐亞洲，向東與東北亞地區相連，該區域之和平穩定關乎俄國國家利益。韓國位居朝鮮半島，因冷戰時期的意識形態對立，俄韓兩國無交流合作，然而隨著冷戰結束，國際局勢的變化替兩國發展交流帶來契機。 本文研究係從俄羅斯外交政策之演變探討俄國逐漸向東轉之因，後從兩國政治、經濟、安全三大面向之互動，歸納出俄羅斯對韓國外交政策方向。 / Geopolitics is the crucial concern for Russian foreign policy. Russia has the most extensive territory in the world, and its eastern part is right next to Northeast Asia, in which the stability and peace is Russia’s national interests. South Korea is located on the Korean Peninsula, but because of the ideological conflict in Cold War era, there was barely no exchange or cooperation between Russia and South Korea. However, after the end of Cold War, the change of international relations brought the opportunity to these two countries. The dissertation focuses on discussing the policy “Pivot to East”of Russian foreign policy, and sums up Russia’s Foreign Policy toward South Korea by studying the political, economic and security interactions between two countries.

俄羅斯與西方在南奧塞梯及科索沃宣布獨立問題上採取截然不同的立場，科索沃宣布獨立後，俄羅斯表示堅決反對科宣布獨立，此舉破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，國際社會不應奉行雙重標準，也不能出於政治考慮有選擇地利用國際法。 俄羅斯在協助南奧塞梯的獨立運動支持喬治亞分離主義的同時，卻強硬鎮壓其境內的車臣與印古什獨立運動，前者可以幫助俄羅斯擴大在前蘇聯境內的影響力，後者可以確保俄羅斯境內不會產生分離主義的骨牌效應，支持前者、鎮壓後者都確保俄國在歐亞政治板塊中的地緣政治優勢。 俄羅斯在對南奧塞梯及科索沃獨立態度上，可就下列面向比較討論：(1)當南宣布獨立時，俄國立即宣布承認，並認為其有權決定自己命運；當科宣布獨立時，俄則認為其獨立破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，負面影響如車臣(2)國際法方面：對南的態度是根據局勢發展做出的決定符合有關國際文件；對科則要求安理會遵守1244號決議，並認定其單方面宣布獨立無效(3)考量因素：對南則是捍衛在喬治亞戰略、政治利益、經濟與生態維護利益；對科則是俄與塞同為斯拉夫民族，科在沙皇時期為俄傳統勢力範圍，另以經濟角度來看，巴爾幹是俄對歐出口能源通道。 南奧塞梯和阿布哈玆問題反應國家主權與民族自決權的獨立。維護國家主權和領土完整是國際關係的一個普遍原則，然而現在美國歐盟與俄羅斯卻都出現雙重標準，在科索沃獨立問題上，西方國家強調民族自決權，俄羅斯則譴責美歐破壞塞爾維亞主權將帶來嚴重後果。而在俄喬衝突中，俄羅斯支持南、阿獨立。在此兩事件中，在國家主權及民族自決權雙重標準下，造成國際關係的動盪。在科索沃和南奧塞梯的問題上，美國、俄羅斯和歐盟正是依民族自決權原則為依據，先塞爾維亞後喬治亞，通過對別國的干涉而維護自己的利益。 / Russia and the West take different positions on the issue in declaration of independence on South Ossetia and Kosovo. After Kosovo's declaration of independence, Russia is firmly opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence, and this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law. The international community should not take double standard, and use international law selective out of political considerations. Russia helped to support Georgia secessionist movement and South Ossetia's independence, but it had tough crackdown in Chechnya and Ingushetia independence movement. The former can help Russia to expand the territory of the former Soviet Union's influence, which can ensure that Russia will not produce a domino effect separatism. This will ensure that the Russian preserve geopolitical advantage in the Eurasian areas. Russia's attitude towards the independence of South Ossetia and Kosovo, we can compare in the following aspects: (1) When the South Ossetia declared independence, Russia announced to recognize immediately, while Kosovo declared independence this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law such as Chechnya (2) in the international law: Russia made a decision according with the situation toward South Ossetia; and Russia required to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1244, and concluded its unilateral declaration of independence is invalid (3) consideration factors: to protect the political, economic and ecological interests of the South Ossetia, while in Kosovo, with the economic perspective, the Balkan is a Russian exports to the EU energy channels. South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues react the national sovereignty and national self-determination of independence. Maintaining national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a general principle of international relations, however, the EU, Russia, and the United States had double standards on the issue of Kosovo's independence. In Western countries they stressed national self-determination, but Russia condemned the United States and Europe undermine the sovereignty of Serbia and it will bring serious consequences. Russia supported the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in this incident. With the double standard in national sovereignty and national self-determination, it will cause turbulence in international relations. On the issue of Kosovo and South Ossetia, the United States, Russia and the EU are on the base of according to the principle of national self-determination, to protect their own interests by the interference of other countries.

本論文旨在探討俄羅斯外交政策之動機與推動因素，文中以新古典現實主義做為研究架構，並結合了體系層次因素（自變項）及個體層次的中介變項（如：領導人形象和戰略文化）。本論文所探討之時間軸橫跨1991至2014年，重點著重於以下兩研究案例：2008年南奧塞提亞戰爭及2014年克里米亞危機。針對此兩研究案例，作者使用「過程追蹤」和「歷史敘事」的研究方法，以驗證體系與個體層次因素對於俄羅斯外交政策的影響。 分析結果印證了新古典現實主義的主要假設：俄羅斯在相對物質權力提升的情況下，會同樣地擴大外交政策行動上的野心與版圖。雖然由第一個研究案例可得知，所謂的體系修正因素（如：地理位置、限制/允許因素、和體系明確性）對於俄羅斯介入喬治亞的決策有著重要的影響。而第二個假設提到，「總統普丁選擇設計、校正、調整策略上的選擇，反映文化上可接受的偏好，以維持國內的政治支持度」這個說法也已經被印證。本研究分析顯示，體系因素和個體層次中介變項對於2008年介入喬治亞及2014年併吞克里米亞的決策皆有影響。整體而言，當分析一個國家的外交政策時，新古典現實主義確實是個強而有力的架構，但作者也深知仍有進一步研究的必要。 / This thesis aims at contributing to the debate on the motives and drivers of Russian foreign policy. It uses neoclassical realism as an enhanced research framework which combines systemic stimuli (independent variable) and unit-level intervening variables such as leader images and strategic culture. The work investigates the period from 1991 to 2014 with focus on two case studies, namely the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. This two case studies use process-tracing method and historiography to test the effect of systemic and unit level factors on the Russian foreign policy. The analysis has confirmed the main neoclassical realist expectation that an increase in the relative material power of the Russian Federation will lead to a corresponding expansion in the ambition and scope of Russian foreign policy activity. Although, especially the first case study showed, that the so called systemic modifiers, such as geography, restrictiveness/permissiveness and systemic clarity had significant effect on the decision to intervene in Georgia. The second hypothesis stating that, “President Putin chooses to frame, adjust, and modify strategic choices to reflect culturally acceptable preferences to maintain domestic political support” was also confirmed. The analysis has shown that both systemic stimuli and unit level intervening variables influenced the final decision to intervene in Georgia in 2008, and to annex Crimea in 2014. Overall, neoclassical realism proved to be enhanced and a useful framework for analyzing foreign policy of a state. But the author is fully aware that a further research is needed.