分離主義與恐怖主義長久以來深切傷害著世人，然而無論是分離主義或是恐怖主義，相對立的雙方均認為本身是正義的一方，為正確的信念而戰，顯見認知的差異性相當大。在世界上許多國家境內存有分離主義，但卻發展成和平與暴力兩種不同的態樣，暴力的分離主義甚至採取恐怖主義的作為，其關鍵性差別在於政府體制的民主或專制。 中國是多民族國家，少數民族維吾爾族與藏族因與漢族間的隔閡及對中共政權統治的不滿，產生分離主義，爆發層出不窮的衝突，維吾爾族更加激烈的演變成恐怖主義，中共為維護其政權，保護領土的完整性，維持社會和諧，強力推動維穩政策，犧牲大量人力及資源，但並無法獲得和平，反而抗爭更加激烈，顯見其民族政策成效不彰。 新疆、西藏與中國中原，在歷史發展的脈絡下，交錯複雜，在近代帝國主義權力爭奪的角力之下使新疆、西藏成為動盪的區域，各方對於主權的爭議各執一詞，難以形成共識。 新疆與西藏同屬中共治理下的少數民族自治區，然而新疆比西藏衝突更激烈，甚至轉化為恐怖主義，主要原因為本質因素的差異，在先天地理環境、宗教信仰與精神領袖的反差，在本質不同的情況演變下，影響中共後天治理政策與維穩力量的不同，最後反饋到維吾爾族與藏族，維吾爾族發展成與藏族相異的恐怖主義道路。

一個種族社群壁壘分明的社會，將在政治、經濟與文化的競爭環境中，激發出社群衝突的動機。斯里蘭卡分離主義運動即是在此種環境下形塑而成，亦即是說，一項規模宏大並且致使生靈塗炭的群眾運動並非一觸即成，它必須端看一些刺激性的因素異化而成。而這些刺激因素往往也是伴隨著世局的變遷，所帶來的政治理論在意識形態上的演化效應。在斯里蘭卡分離主義的歷史發展中，將可看到種族文化的對立所產生的一種充滿政治歧視與仇恨的社會景象，是一場社群領導人、痴狂的追隨者與極端主義者在政治與經濟資源上的互動競爭所造成的結果。而期間社群菁英的政治投機主義取向和以種族作為人口社群劃分在比例上的懸殊差距以及一個缺乏公益的憲政體制所塑造的政治生態，亦將是社群政治菁英甘心沉淪於「種族叫價」(ethnic outbidding)與訴求「種族中心論」的合理動機。 斯里蘭卡分離主義運動在政治理論的實踐上，同樣有其階段性的發展史。原生論與工具論將牽引著自由主義與保守主義的辯證過程，把斯里蘭卡原本族群融合的意識景象帶往社群主義所異化成的「想像」與「假象」，讓那些社群中痴狂的追隨者與極端的憤恨之徒不知不覺地產生了渴望去劃破世界主義充滿博愛與平等之幕的衝動，去甩開錫蘭民族主義的意識圖騰而執起文化民族主義的鮮明旗幟，毅然決然地走向分離主義這種種族文化殊死之途。一場不對稱的游擊戰爭──斯里蘭卡內戰就此展開，而政府(主流族群)那些持續缺乏政治道德(殘暴與激盡的武力鎮壓)的回應，將形同一枝矛戟，把從屬族群(LTTE)逼上恐怖主義這種極具暴戾、蠻橫與陰沉的不歸之途。 關鍵字：分離主義、斯里蘭卡、種族中心論、種族叫價。

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.

對於俄羅斯與烏克蘭而言，由於兩國之間長久以來極為密切的歷史與文化關係，因此始終難以接受蘇聯瓦解之事實。迄今，許多俄羅斯人依然視基輔為羅斯民族之出生地，且不認為烏克蘭是一個主權獨立的國家。更確切的說，俄羅斯人認為基輔羅斯乃是導引東正教與俄語進入俄國之發祥地。儘管俄烏之間具有不可割捨的兄弟之情，但當兩個民族或想像共同體對於其彼此疆界、文化等存有歧見時，則仍無法避免各種紛至沓來的紛爭問題。就克里米亞之黑海艦隊為例，顯示俄烏對於塞瓦斯托波爾城之想像共同體的重疊。同時，亦攸關俄烏兩國對於領土與心理疆界，產生必須且窘困的界定過程。 克里米亞半島素有黑海”鑰匙”之稱，不但是烏克蘭通往世界之大門，亦是各國經黑海進入東歐和亞洲的良港。由於其戰略位置之重要性，致使各種不同的政治勢必，紛紛介入克里米亞半島領土歸屬問題。蘇聯崩解後，克里米亞半島動盪不安的情勢，已造成黑海地區俄羅斯與烏克蘭雙邊關係之威脅，並儼然形成如同納戈爾諾－卡拉巴赫或阿布卡齊亞緊張衝突之溫床。克里米亞在蘇聯繼承國家之中，雖然尚不足以列入族裔衝突之範疇。但隨著反對國家之間領土紛爭的自決主張之聲浪，及自蘇聯時期懸而未決的軍事政治問題遺緒之情況下。致使克里米亞問題，成為俄烏兩國與國際緊張關係之焦點。 簡言之，克里米亞問題之根源在於其地區的人口分佈與地緣政治歷史。一九四四年，史達林以串通納粹敵國之罪名，將所有克里米亞韃靼人（約二十萬人）集體驅逐遷往中亞地區。截至一九八Ｏ年代末期，在近五十年漫長歲月中，克里米亞韃靼人不但其基本文化權及族群認同遭到否決，甚至於在蘇聯的人口統計資料中，未曾出現克里米亞韃靼人。蘇聯瓦解後，克里米亞始終受到兩方面重疊勢力的控制：其一、克里米亞共和國當局，與要求承認其歷史及領土權利的克里米亞韃靼人；其二、尋求獨立並要求回歸俄羅斯的克里米亞共和國親俄領導人士，及反對克里米亞分離主義之烏克蘭當局。這些勢力圍繞著一個相同的基本政治問題：誰擁有克里米亞半島之主權？就目前情勢而論，克里米亞韃靼積極份子要求承認其國家地位；然而，克里米亞境內及外在的敵對勢力，則頗不以為然。無庸置疑，歷史爭論與目前克里米亞的情勢發展，實乃息息相關。 / For Russians and Ukrainians, the disintegration of the Soviet Union has been particularly difficult due to the extremely close historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Many Russians still view Kyiv as the birthplace of their nation（Rus’）and do not conceive of Ukraine as an independent country. Rather, they think of it as Kievan Rus’, the land that brought the Orthodox Christian religion and the Russian language to Russia. As relations between Russia and Ukraine reveal, however, problems can arise when two imagined communities, or nations, disagree over the boundaries（cultural or otherwise） that distinguish them. In the case of the Black Sea Fleet dispute, the imagined communities of Russia and Ukraine overlap at Sevastopol. Throughout Crimea’s complicated history, the peninsula’s strategic location on the Black Sea has made it a desirable military outpost and warm-water port, leading to territorial claims by a great variety of political forces. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the unstable situation in Crimea has threatened to turn the Black Sea region of Russia and Ukraine into a hotbed of tension similar to Nagorno-Karabakh or Abkhazia. While the Crimea still cannot be listed among the numerous areas of violent ethno-political conflict in the Soviet successor states, it has recently become a focus of domestic and international tension, with conflicting self-determination claims voiced against a background of interstate territorial disputes and an unsettled legacy of military-political issues from the Soviet period. Simply put, the conflict over Crimea has its roots in the region’s demographic and geopolitical history. In 1944, accused of collaboration with the Nazi invaders, the entire Crimean Tatar population（by then some 200,000） was deported, mostly to Central Asia. For over forty years, Crimean Tatars were denied basic cultural rights and even an ethic identity; until the 1980s, Crimean Tatars never appeared in Soviet population statistics. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea has been the object of two overlapping rivalries for control: first between the Crimean Republic authorities and the Crimean Tatars, who demand recognition of their historic and territorial rights to the peninsula; and second between pro-Russian leaders of the Crimean Republic, who want either independence or reunification of the peninsula with Russia, and the Ukrainian authorities, who oppose Crimean separatism and insist that Crimea remain an integral part of Ukraine. These movements revolve around the same basic political question: who has sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula? Presently, Crimean Tatar activists regard the Crimean ASSR as a recognition of Crimean Tatar statehood, while their opponents in the Crimea and beyond are convinced that the autonomous formation was purely administrative. The historical controversy is, of course, highly relevant to the present situation in the Crimea.

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.