本論文以隸屬於俄羅斯聯邦架構中的韃靼共和國和車臣共和國作為分離運動比較研究的兩個案例，進行民族分離運動相關問題的探討，包括民族分離意識興起的原因以及影響分離運動往不同路徑發展的因素。由於俄羅斯屬於前社會主義國家，國家體制曾經歷轉型的過程，因此除了具有一般民族問題的特質外，還必須將多重轉型的特殊性列入考量。 除了原生差異與政經利益考量的工具性訴求外，社會主義國家特有的聯邦制與本土化政策也促使民族意識興起，創造了潛在的民族分離團體。當中央的控制力有了鬆懈的跡象，分離意識便有了發揮的空間，分離運動隨之爆發。 韃靼共和國與車臣共和國分離運動的比較研究證明，作為動員基礎的原生性條件以及工具性訴求僅是影響分離運動發展的次要因素，由於領導人的動員可以決定分離運動發展的方向，因此領導人的策略抉擇才是影響分離運動發展的關鍵因素。而在蘇聯末期政治不穩定的局勢中，由誰來主導分離運動的發展相當程度受到莫斯科、原共和國執政者與民族主義力量三角關係的影響。 韃靼共和國的分離運動由立場溫和的夏米耶夫主導，在不斷的妥協談判後，最終以雙邊條約的方式界定與俄羅斯聯邦的關係，創造了「韃靼模式」，分離運動得到平息。相較之下，車臣共和國的分離運動在杜達耶夫激進的領導風格下一步步朝向完全獨立與脫離俄羅斯聯邦的方向發展。如此極端的立場當然不容於莫斯科。為了維護俄羅斯聯邦領土的完整性，莫斯科最後發動戰爭來解決車臣問題。在整個分離運動的發展過程中，領導者的策略決定了分離運動的發展，可見領導者的路線抉擇才是影響分離運動發展最關鍵的因素。 / This thesis focuses on national separatism in former socialist countries and takes Tatarstan and Chechnya for a case study. My research seeks to answer several questions, such as where did the separatist group originate from? Why did nationalist movements explode? How to explain different attitudes towards secession? I argue that primordial attachment and instrumental consideration about interests are the important causes shaping separatist groups. In the cases of former socialist countries, however, it is necessary to take the institutional factor into consideration, that is－ethnic federalism and korenizatsiya. All these elements combined to create the potential secessionist groups. Once the coercive controls formerly imposed by the central authority were removed, the previously repressed national groups inevitably reemerged and led the secessionist movement. The comparative analysis of the secessionist movements in Tatarstan and Chechnya proves that primordial and instrumental factors can only explain the emergence of secessionist movements, however they are of little significance when it comes to explaining the divergent paths of the movements. What matters more is the leadership’s strategy. The crucial problem is who will lead the secessionist movements? In the chaotic years leading up to the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was the triangular relations among Moscow, republican leadership and secessionist movement that determined the exact leader of the secessionist movement. In our cases, the moderate Shamiev led Tatarstan’s separatism by negotiation and was able to reach agreement with Moscow on a new Sovereignty Treaty. This pattern later came to be called the “Tatarstan Model”. After that, the secession in Tatarstan quieted down. In sharp contrast, Dudaev pursued a radical strategy and sought Chechnya’s complete independence from the Russian Federation. To defend his integrity of territory, Moscow dispatched Russian troops to quell this separatist republic. Leadership strategy thus determined the outcome of secessionist movements, and the choice of leaders proved crucial in the whole process.

本文的研究目的，企圖從地緣政治與克里姆林宮政治研究的角度，就俄羅斯聯邦新軍事準則的形成因素作一研究與分析。 本論文發現俄羅斯聯邦新軍事準則形成的主要動因有二： 一、地緣政治惡化是促使俄羅斯調整軍事準則的根本動因。 由於冷戰結束後全球戰略格局的變遷，俄羅斯在國際地位明顯下降，地緣政治環境日益惡化，傳統勢力範圍受到侵蝕，國力嚴重衰退，為續與美國保持低水準戰略平衡以及抗衡北約東擴，確保其國家利益和國際地位。另面對解決境內及獨立國協宗教、民族衝突所爆發局部戰爭及軍事衝突，在軍事上重新制定了俄羅斯聯邦軍事基本準則由單一注重外部威脅，轉為同時注重國內、外兩種威脅，重點由世界戰爭轉向地區性衝突。這說明了俄羅斯的新軍事準則在相當大程度上受到地緣戰略的影響。 二、俄羅斯軍方的態度及國內政治生態是促使軍事準則調整變化的另一因素。 隨著俄羅斯超級大國地位的喪失、地緣政治環境惡化、軍隊地位和待遇的不斷下降及士氣日益低落，軍隊對國家的安全和強烈不滿。強烈要求重樹大國地位、恢復軍隊實力。俄羅斯軍隊一些將領紛紛公開批評外交政策和軍事政策。同時，由於在1993年10月流血事件中，葉爾欽動用軍隊戰勝議會，增大了政府對軍隊的依賴，使俄羅斯軍隊在國家政治生活中的發言權和影響力日益增大。故葉爾欽在制定安全政策和軍事準則時不得不更多地考慮軍隊的利益和主張：如在制定新軍事準則中明確保障軍人及其家屬福利、增加軍費開支、放慢軍轉民步伐、以及在境外顯示軍事存在等方面，都採取了一系列迎合軍隊主張的措施和行動。而葉爾欽為贏得民心，鞏固地位，即開始了以恢復大國地位為中心的內外政策的大調整。在這種特定的政治氣氛中，新的俄羅斯軍事準則應運而生。可見，俄羅斯軍方的態度是促使俄羅斯軍隊準則調整與轉變的重要因素之一。 在此兩個主因中以俄羅斯國內政治生態互動，特別是葉爾欽與軍隊間關係影響最大，加上冷戰後美中俄戰略三角互動的架構的國際政治格局，在此條件下，形成了俄羅斯聯邦新軍事準則。 / The purpose of the thesis is attempting to analyze the factors that exert great impact on the formation of the Russian Federation's military doctrine from the perspective of geopolitics and Kremlin politics. This thesis is taking the position that Russian Federation's military doctrine has been shaped by two main motives: First, the worsening geopolitical situation demands that Russia adjust its military doctrine. Due to the changes of global strategy after the end of the cold war, the decline of Russia's international prestige, worsening geopolitical situation and the severe threat to Russia's traditional sphere of interest, Russia takes important measures to adjust its military doctrine accordingly. In order to keep minimum strategic balance with the United States, ensure its national interest and international status and settle local wars or military conflicts caused by religion and ethnic conflicts within Russia's own territory and Commonwealth of Independent States, new military thinking has to emphasize both internal and external threats. Second, the attitude of Russian army and domestic political struggle also force Russia to adjust its military doctrine. Owing to the loss of superpower status and the decline of army's status and wellbeing, leading generals of the Russian army became increasingly dissatisfied with government's foreign policy and military thinking. They demanded that Russia restore her great power status and restrengthen its army's forces. In the blooding event of October 1993, Yeltsin used army to defeat the parliament, for this reason Yeltsin had to depend more on army. Russian army has became more influential in politics. Yeltsin had to consider army's interests and opinions in draw up security policy and military doctrine. For example, new military thinking clearly ensures welfare of soldiers and their family, increases military expense, slows down the speed of conversion and other measures to satisfy army. Besides, in order to gain people's support and consolidate political power, Yeltsin started to adopt policy to restore status of great power. Among these two dynamics, domestic political struggle－the relationship between Yeltsin and army－plays more influential role. Russian Federation's military doctrine was thus formulated under Kremlin politics and the interaction of strategic triangle.

「語言政策」即「語言規劃」和「語言建設」之總和，為國家、政府、政黨、階級、社會團體用以改變或維持語言之現況或標準的措施。因此語言政策為改變「語言情況」之中要因素之一，它的制定和變更也常被當作多民族國家的政治手段。 近年來，由於語言政策之改變而造成的民族衝突，國際間戰爭不斷發生，更凸顯初制訂與實行語言政策的重要性。俄羅斯聯邦為一多民族國家，在語言政策方面的經驗，相對較豐富，其中一聯邦主體——圖瓦共和國，其境內主要構成民族之語言（圖瓦語）和超語言（俄語）間的關係，和台灣台語與華語的情況較為相似，此外，圖瓦共和國在語言情況之緩解方面已產生諸多對策，其經驗應有助於台灣之語言規劃和語言政策之制定。 本論文分析二十世紀末至二十一世紀初圖瓦共和國的國家語言政策。學者針對圖瓦共和國語言情況與語言規劃相關文獻資料做出統整，歸納出二十世紀末至二十一世紀初圖瓦共和國在學術研究、書籍編纂、官方公務、教育、媒體、宗教與文化個方面之語言規劃及語言建設成果。

擁有廣闊領土且豐富資源的俄羅斯在帝俄及蘇聯時期曾經在歐洲和世界政治社會中扮演著主要角色，左右世界的走向。而其保守與激進相融的風格，對人類歷史文明亦造成深遠的影響。 所以俄羅斯聯邦繼承了蘇聯，雖然國力不如從前，仍具有世界大國的條件，再加上經濟、政治日趨穩定；但是今年（二○○三年）十二月國家杜馬選舉的結果；及選前起訴媒體大亨及逮捕石油大亨的種種事情，對於俄羅斯政治制度重返共產專制，不免有很大的想像空間，所以會關心莫斯科軍對亞太地區軍事安全戰略的形成與未來發展趨勢，因為克里姆林宮的政策走向，勢必會對亞太地區產生決定性和根本性的改變。 筆者是從有限理性決策模式的途徑來從事研究，並從決策中歸納出俄羅斯軍事安全思想具體內容。全文區分軍事安全思想形成與亞太軍事安全戰略核心價值和目標及對亞太地區影響等三大部分。 經研究後獲致其軍事安全核心價值為維護主權、疆界完整不容侵犯和控制周邊領域確保安全及提昇國際地位與聲望等三項，因而產生亞太安全目標為亞太大國地位的塑造與鞏固、和平穩定週邊環境的創造與維護、保持具備足夠防衛能力的軍事武力、營造多邊與雙邊兼容的安全機制等四個目標。並就與亞太國家交往和區域在安全、經濟合作等二部分來說明其影響所在。 研究發現有：俄羅斯具有亞太大國的必要條件。二、經濟因素對俄羅斯軍事安全戰略舉足輕重的影響。三、善用集體安全機制來達成安全目標。四、中國崛起對俄羅斯構成相當程度的心理威脅等四點。同時預測俄羅斯聯邦軍事安全戰略未來發展為：仍將把列為國家政策的重要地位。普京會繼續維持現有防禦性的國防政策，以軍事為經濟發展服務，伺其國力恢復強盛，先成為亞太大國，再向世界大國目標邁進。而莫斯科政局穩定性、國內經濟發展情況、與美國或中國的關係發展情況、國際情勢將影響未來發展走勢。

從近代戰爭史來看，歷史的篇幅總是少不了俄國的存在，作為20世紀兩大領導集團之一的強權國家，國防武力的發展總是佔據最重要的部份，因為唯有國力的強大以及有效的軍事嚇阻力量，才能帶領國家免於遭受他國的惡意侵犯。傳統的戰爭型態在萊特兄弟成功發明具有動力推進能力的飛行器之後迅速改觀，俄國在這場人類科技發展的盛事中，可以說從一開始就參與至今，而空軍的創立，更是具有動燭先機的遠見，不但與世界上其他擁有空軍的國家歷史一樣悠久，更在第二次世界大戰以後與美國佔據了飛行歷史以及航天科技的天平兩端。俄國空軍的發展，讓我們看到俄國人是如何在困難的經濟狀態下以土法煉鋼的方式發展幾乎等同於甚至是超越西方世界的航太科技。本篇論文的內容，就是要將俄國空軍發展的歷史淵源以階段性的方式分別描述於各章節之中，並且也將俄國空軍在發展過程中所遇到的困難以及轉變作真實的敘述，以期能在國內付之闕如的相關資料當中作出微薄的貢獻。

俄羅斯作為一個多民族的聯邦國家，自一九九一年獨立以後採行市場改革與民主制度，轉型後面臨國家、民族與民主化的多重挑戰。民主轉型是一條冗長而複雜的道路，而且通常不是一條坦途。俄羅斯也不可避免要面對這樣的挑戰。俄羅斯的聯邦制度承繼了前蘇聯的遺緒，前蘇聯的民族區域自治政策相當程度的影響了俄羅斯的聯邦制度。聯邦制度被許多人視為是一種能容納民族多元文化的制度化機制，但是採行聯邦制的俄羅斯一開始就面對蜂擁而至的民族分離勢力，統一成為議題而非共識，聯邦制度與民族自治的關係與發展成為攸關俄羅斯未來的一項重要問題，本文就選擇俄羅斯的聯邦制與民族自治作為論文主題，而以一九九○年作為分析的中心。 本文研究架構從新制度主義的研究途徑來探討後共時期的俄羅斯，我們在文中有三項主要的分析架構。首先，我們選擇由轉型學中的一項相當顯著的概念－「協議轉型」，來省視它的民主化過程。我們使用政治學家卡爾對協議的探討，他分析協議內涵包括基礎性與管理性，對於協議有進一步的瞭解。同時，他使用策略與主導力量的變數作出了民主轉型的類型表，本文作者則修正其類型表增加兩項變數，從使用策略與主導力量的角度來分析俄羅斯轉型過程中，涉及聯邦制度與地區自治的幾項協議，包括《聯盟條約》、《聯邦條約》、《俄羅斯聯邦憲法》、《俄韃條約》、《公民協定》與《權力分享協定》作為分析對象；此外，也將俄羅斯轉型初期地區力量最為凸顯的韃靼斯坦與車臣兩個民族共和國，以及本文所分析的三個個案－喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦，也一併置於類型表中作分析。這些協議除了《公民協定》以外，其餘協議對於俄羅斯聯邦制度的發展以及俄羅斯聯邦與地區的關係都有影響。我們在此發現，除了《俄羅斯聯邦憲法》是屬於「菁英與群眾合作」的「強制接受」的類型外，其餘都是「協商妥協」中的「菁英優勢」類型。雖然絕大多數的協議都是以協商妥協的方式通過，但是因為國家根本大法憲法以強制方式通過，也是造成俄羅斯後來政局不穩定的最主要因素之一。其次，我們從多位政治學者對聯邦制度的理論探討，包括不對稱聯邦制度的分析，來探討俄羅斯聯邦制度的安排，由俄羅斯聯邦憲法對於中央與地區的權力劃分來詳細分析俄羅斯聯邦制度的特徵。從學者分析不對稱聯邦制度模式會有衝突的潛在性，對聯邦制度的發展不具正面的功能，甚至可能會危及聯邦的統一，對俄羅斯聯邦制度的不穩定可以提供部分的解釋功能。最後，我們從策略運用的角度來分析俄羅斯聯邦與地區的關係，將俄羅斯由獨立初期至一九九○年代末期，聯邦政府與地區（特別是民族共和國）所運用的策略，由策略型式、時間演進與光譜分布，來研究一九九○年代俄羅斯聯邦政府與地區的關係發展梗概。從一九九○年代初期的「主權的遊行」到一九九四年以後的「雙邊條約的遊行」的現象發展中，可以發現從時間演進與光譜分布來看，俄羅斯聯邦政府是節節敗退，先懷柔與施惠，最後才祭出武力作為施壓。而自一九九四年的第一次車臣戰爭以後，地區分離力量已有所收斂，地區轉而爭取經濟與自治權益居多，直至普丁總統上任以後，才著手積極整頓聯邦政府與地區的幾項爭議問題。 本文使用新制度主義研究途徑探討俄羅斯聯邦與民族自治，以一九九○年代為分析中心，並以喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦三個共和國作為個案探討對象。文中以俄羅斯獨立至葉爾辛下台作為主要的研究分析期，詳實分析俄羅斯聯邦發展過程中如何處理民族問題，以期對多民族國家處理民族問題的做法有更深一層的瞭解。全文分為六章。第一章緒論。敘述研究動機、所使用的研究途徑、研究架構與章節分配。第二章探討民族主義與俄羅斯，敘述俄羅斯與民族主義的關係，對俄羅斯民族主義的特徵、蘇聯的民族理論與政策與蘇聯解體的民族因素，先作背景因素的探討。第三章分析俄羅斯的民主化與聯邦制。對俄羅斯獨立初期的民主轉型，特別是以協議轉型作為分析重心。分析俄羅斯獨立以後的多項協議的內涵與重要性，再從聯邦制的理論來分析俄羅斯所採取的聯邦制內涵與特徵。第四章分析俄羅斯聯邦中央與地區的關係。以俄羅斯的民族政策、俄羅斯聯邦中央與地區的關係，以及地區精英作為觀察中心。第五章選擇喀爾瑪克、布里亞特與圖瓦三個民族共和國作為研究個案，這三個共和國是蒙古族後裔或與蒙古族族源接近的民族所聚居的共和國，文中比較分析三個共和國在俄羅斯獨立以後的策略以及與中央的互動。第六章結論。先評估俄羅斯的民主化與聯邦制度的優缺點，再從普丁總統上任以後對俄羅斯聯邦制度的改革、俄羅斯作為多民族聯邦國家與民主鞏固的關係作前景的探討。 本文認為俄羅斯聯邦制度承繼了前蘇聯的制度遺緒，再披上現代民主的形式，使得俄羅斯的聯邦制難以調適民主化以後的變革。一九九○年代聯邦政府處理地區－特別是民族共和國－的分離勢力捉襟見肘。聯邦政府對分離力量收斂以後所代之而起的地區爭權趨勢，也始終未能理順，導致普丁總統上任以後對地區勢力不斷採取抑制方式。本文認為俄羅斯聯邦制度需作結構性的調整，以適應未來的改革，否則地區力量會隨著中央的衰頹東山再起，對俄羅斯長遠的發展並不利。 / As a multi-ethnic federation nation, Russia, since its independence in 1991, initiated market reform and embarked on establishing a democratic system. In the process of this transformation, it had to confront many challenges related to ethnicity and democratization. Democratization is a long and complex process and, more than often, not an easy road. Russia too, hence, was not exempted from facing such challenges. The federalism of Russia has inherited some remnants of its legacy from former Soviet Union. Former Soviet Union’s policy of regional autonomy based on ethnicity has had substantial degree of influence on Russia’s federalism. The federalism is regarded by many people as a systematic mechanism which is able to accommodate a multi-ethnic culture. However, Russia, at the very onset of adopting this system, had to confront many forces which supported ethnic separation. Unification became a mere agenda not mutual consensus. The relationship between federalism and ethnic autonomy and development became an important issue for the future of Russia. This paper hereby chooses the federalism of Russia and ethnic autonomy as the topic of the thesis, and selects the 1990s as the focal point of this analytical study. The analytical framework of this paper exploits the approach of new-institutionalism to examine a post-Communist Russia. Our paper comprises of three key frameworks for analysis. First, we will pick one of the relatively distinct concepts of democratic transition-“Pacted Transitions” to analyze Russia’s democratization process. Let’s take the reference of political expert Terry Lynn Karl’s study on compromise. His analysis on pacts includes both basics and managerial, thus offering a much better understanding on pacts. At the same time, he employs strategy and leadership as variables to create modes of transition to democracy. The writer of this paper amends this chart to include two additional variables. From the aspect of strategy and leadership, we can analyze some of the compromises undertaken by the federalism and regional autonomies including the “Union Treaty,” the Federation Treaty, the Constitution of Russian Federation, “On Delimitation of Jurisdictional Subjects and Mutual Delegation of Authority between the State Bodies of the Russian Federation and the Russian Federation and the State Bodies of the Republic of Tatarstan,” the Civic Accord, the power-sharing agreements between Russian federal government and its subjects, etc, which Russia encountered during its transition process. In addition to these, this paper will also accommodate in its analysis chart the ethnic republics of Tatarstan and Chechnya - two most prominent regional forces during the initial period of Russia’s transition, plus three study cases on Kalmykiya, Buryat and Tuva. All the above mentioned treaties and agreements, with the exception of the Civic Accord, had significant influence on the development of Russia’s federalism and the interrelationship between the Federation and the territories. Here we’ll discover that, except for the “Constitution of Russian Federation” which can be classified as “Imposition” in the mode of ”Cooperation between the elite and the mass”, the rest belong to the mode of “Compromise” in “Elite Ascendant”. Even though most of the agreements were conceived by way of compromises, but since the national constitution was passed and approved in a coercive manner, this has remained as one of the predominant reason for the subsequent instability of the Russian Federation. Secondly, while referring to the theories proposed by various political experts on the federalism, including studies on asymmetrical federalism, we can examine the arrangement of the Russian Federalism and analyze its characteristics from its constitution’s perspective on division of powers and jurisdictions between the center and the territories. From the analyses of these experts, wherein they infer that this type of asymmetrical federalism holds potential for generating conflicts and does not have any positive influence towards the development of the federalism, even to the extent of possible undermining of the federation’s unification, we can provide some explanation for the instability of the Russian Federation. Finally, let us inspect the development of relationship between the Russian Federation and the regions from the perspective of utilization of strategies - the strategies which were employed by the Federal government and the territories (especially the ethnic republics) from the time of Russia’s initial phase of independence till the late nineteen nineties, and through the type of strategies, time progression and the distribution of spectrum, understand the synopsis of this relationship. From the development of events since the “Parade of Sovereignties” in the early nineties till the “Parade of Bilateral Treaties,” after 1994, by referring to time progression and the distribution of spectrum we can understand that the government of the Russian Federation has been deteriorating progressively –at first posing benign and offering incentives, and then eventually resorting to oppression by military might. Since it’s first conflict with Chechnya in 1994, the secessionist forces in the regions have relatively quailed, with the majority of the territories rather claiming for economic rights and autonomy. It was only after the appointment of President Vladimir Putin that these problems between the federal government and the territories were intensively looked into and dealt with. This paper utilizes the approach of new-institutionalism to analyze the Russian Federation and the ethnic autonomies. We choose the nineteen nineties period as the focus of this research and select Kalmykiya, Buryat and Tuva as the subjects for case studies. This paper allots the time beginning from the independence of Russia till the departure of President Boris Yeltsin as the primary time period for analysis, with in-depth look on ways to resolve ethnic conflicts while studying the process of development of the Russian Federation, with a hope to get a deeper understanding of how to resolve ethnic problems within a multi-ethnic nation. The whole paper is comprised of six chapters. The first chapter explains the motive of this study, the various approaches used for the study, the frameworks of this analysis and the distribution of the chapters. Taking the characteristics of nationalism in Russia, it’s ethnic groups and various related theories and policies instigating the disintegration of the former Soviet Union as the basis of study for its background aspects, the second chapter deals with nationalism and Russia, the interrelationship between the two. The third chapter probes into Russia’s democratization and its federalism. It analyzes Russia’s early stages of transition to democracy with special reference to “Pacted Transition” as the focal point. Here we study the contents and significance of the various treaties and agreements of Russia and thereafter from the theories of the federalism, we analyze the essence and features of the federalism adopted by Russia. The fourth chapter focuses on the relationship between the Russian federal government and the territories. Here we take Russia’s policies on ethnicity, the relationship between the federal government and the regions and the regional elites as the focus of our observation. The fifth chapter partakes the republics of Kalmykia, Buryat and Tuva as case studies for this research. These three republics are either descendants of the Mongol or have close association with Mongoloid ancestry. In this chapter we take a look at the policies adopted after Russia’s independence and their interaction with the center. The sixth chapter evaluates the pros and cons of Russia’s democratization and federalism. Thereafter, as the foreground of this paper, we study all the reforms in Russia, which are undertaken by the Russian Federation following the election of President Vladimir Putin, and the relationship between Russia, a multi-ethnic nation and its democratic consolidation. This paper assumes that Russia has inherited the vestiges of former Soviet Union and at the same time adorning itself with a style of a modern democracy, making it very difficult to adapt to changes following its democratization. In the nineteen nineties, the Russian federal government was quite unsuccessful in handling the secessionist forces in the regions, especially the ethnic republics. The federal government was unable to restrain the trend in regional power struggles, which became fervent after the secessionist forces tempered down. This eventually led to the use of prolonged methods of suppression by President Vladimir Putin. This paper assumes that the Russian Federation needs to make major structural changes in its system in order to adapt itself to future reforms, failing which, the regional forces will once again rise up as the center weakens, thus proving unfavorable for the development of Russia in the long-run.

俄羅斯聯邦是一個多民族國家，共有一百多個不同的民族生活在俄羅斯這塊土地上。這些少數民族有著自己的語言與文化，一有機會即想脫離俄羅斯獨立。尤其是車臣與韃靼斯坦這類文化差異較大的民族，一心渴望擁有自己主權。除了少數民族的獨立要求外，俄羅斯聯邦仍必須應付境內的地方主義聲浪。主要是因為俄羅斯的聯邦體制是由民族聯邦與區域聯邦結合而成的，境內有以民族為基礎的聯邦主體，同時也有以行政區域為劃分基礎的主體。 蘇聯晚期，俄羅斯總統葉爾欽為了與戈巴契夫爭權，喊出「你能夠拿多少主權就拿多少」的口號，各加盟共和國紛紛通過國家主權宣言，俄羅斯聯邦境內亦興起分離獨立氣氛。為了解決問題，葉爾欽於1992年3月與各聯邦主體分別簽署了3個聯邦條約，開始對中央與地方的權利義務關係作了說明。隨著政治情勢的變化，俄羅斯聯邦於1993年12月12日通過新憲法，明確的規範了中央與地方各自的權力，自此權力的行使有了依循的標準；1994年發生車臣戰爭，突顯出憲法無法解決所有問題，於是依據各主體需要簽訂的雙邊條約出現了，首先是俄韃條約，謂之「韃靼模式」。至此俄羅斯的聯邦體制大致完成。 俄羅斯聯邦體制的運作仍然存在許多問題，不論是在政治方面、經濟方面，甚或法律制度方面尚有不夠完善的地方。再加上地方主體的種類繁多，經濟條件、政治情況及文化取向差異甚大，影響著主體對聯邦關係的看法。因此要解決聯邦問題，就必須從制度上的缺陷及地方主體的態度來著手進行。 / Russian federation is a multi-national state, there are more than one hundred kinds of races. These minority races have their own culture and language, they desire to be independent from Russian federation, especially Chechenya and Tarstan. Besides independent demand, there still have localism in Russian federation. In Russian federation, there are two kinds of federal subject. One is ethno subject which based on races different from Russian, the other is territorial subject. Late years in Soviet Union, Russian president Yeltsin in order to struggle with Gorbachev, he said：“swallow what you can get”. Meanwhile, the Union Republics declare their sovereignty. The atmosphere in Russian federation is chaotic. To solve the problem, Yeltsin sighed three federal treaty with all subjects and define the right between center and subjects. Then 1993 passed the Russian Constitution, 1994 Chechen war exploded, that means constitution not suitable for every subject. Yeltsin decided to sign bilateral treaty with subjects, first one is Tartarstan Republic, called “Tartarstan Model”. Russian federal system still has several problems in politic, economic, and law, institution. Besides 89 subjects are so distinguished, their political condition, economic situation, culture are so different, all this affect their perception about federal relation.