20世紀因民族主義的興起，間接地促成了世界上許多地區性的民族開始爭取獨立，其中包括科索沃、阿布哈茲與南奧塞提亞。然而，在90年代共產勢力瓦解時期，此三區域因為歷史地位的關係並未獨立成功，而開始與各自的宗主國持續發生衝突。爾後，世界強權與國際組織介入處理此三區域的問題，卻因為國際法缺乏一致性規範的情況下，使得問題一直無法有效解決，反而淪為世界強權勢力擴張的棋子。因此，儘管科索沃、阿布哈茲與南奧塞提亞的獨立條件相似，最後卻因為不同的支持勢力而產生不同的獨立結果。獨立後，此三區域也將面臨一些難題。 關鍵字：科索沃、阿布哈茲、南奧塞提亞、國際法、獨立議題 / The emergence of Nationalism in the 20th century indirectly promoted the fight for independence of many regional races around the world, including Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Oss- etia. However, during the collapse of communist forces in the 1990s, these three regions failed in becoming independ- ent due to their historical status, and conflicts with their Metropolitan State persisted. The world powers and international organizations hence intervened in an attempt to solve the problems. Nevertheless, without consistency in the norms of international law, the issues could not be unr- aveled effectively, but rather became a tool abused by the world powers for territory expansion. Consequently,although Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia's had similar conditions for independence, the outcomes were different as they each had different supporting powers. Eventually, these three regions will also face challenges afterg aining independen- ce. Key words: Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, international law, independence issue

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.