長期以來兩岸關係，都是依附在美中關係權力結構下的結果，台灣政權輪替後，美中台三角關係的起伏動盪，應以深層的國際體系下權力結構宏觀觀察，始能獲致較完整清晰客觀的看法。新現實主義認為分析一個國家的行為，必須從結構去觀察，而國際結構由無政府狀態、國家與權力的分配所組成，無政府狀態和國家是運作的基本形式，屬於不變項，權力的分配才是真正決定國際結構的重要變項，不同的國際權力分配型態產生不同的國際結構，而不同的國際結構和國家所處的地位會決定國家的行為，結構與單元之間互為影響，從此互動過程可以分析國家行為的原因與後果。 　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　 從新現實主義觀察小布希時期美中台三角關係，可以以九一一事件做為區分，九一一事件之前，小布希的對華政策有向台灣傾斜的趨向，而台灣也積極接攏與美國的關係，使兩岸關係維持對立僵持的局面，九一一事件之後，由於美國全球反恐戰略布局的考量，積極改善與中國大陸的關係，而中國大陸第四代領導階層也順勢改善與美國之關係，使美中朝「建設性合作關係」發展，小布希的對華政策向中國大陸傾斜，此一政策的調整，係基於美中雙方在全球及亞太權力平衡的考量的結果，另外中國大陸藉由社會化融入國際社會，提昇其地位並增強影響力，美中關係在小布希第一任任期期間變化，至少在一部分驗證了新現實主義理論的合理性。 台灣2003年台灣的相關作為似乎在尋求自己的能動性，以擺脫美中兩強的束縛，這種溢出新現實主義理論的現象亦間接證明新現實主義理論結構的限制－過分強調結構的自主性存在，強調其對系統變化及單元行為的強大約束力而忽視了單元的能動性，但這種溢出新現實主義的結果是台灣陷入美中兩強間的雙緩衝國的困境，似乎反而證明了新現實主義結構理論的合理性，即在國際體系結構中小國僅能依附於大國的結構體系，任何溢出此一概念的作為將危及小國的生存安全。

本文主要通過新古典現實主義的層次分析法對2012至2013年間中國在釣魚臺爭端中的重要外交決策進行分析。希望以此探討中國外交決策形成中的幾個主要影響因素。首先，本文以中國通過「過度反應」策略將日本對釣魚臺的單方面控制成功轉變為中日交叉控制為例，探討了國際體系層次上的結構變化對中國外交決策的影響。接著，本文以中國組建新的國家海洋局為例，探討了國內政治層次上的部門分工對中國外交決策的影響。最後，本文以設立東海防空識別區為例，探討了個人層次上的領導人特質對中國外交決策的影響。 國際體系、國內政治、領導人三個因素都在中國外交的決策過程中發揮著重要影響。首先，國際體系因素作為自變量，同時影響著國內政治因素和領導人因素。其次，國內政治因素和領導人因素作為幹預變量同時受到國際體系因素的影響，並且這兩者之間也存在相互影響。最後，最終的外交決策作為因變量同時受到上述三個因素的影響。

正如古典現實主義者所提倡的，最初的政治學中的關係探究存在於人類的本質中。權力的交替定義了君主世界中的相對關係，也因而形塑了我們對利益的追求。這樣的權力轉變正在中國發生，同時這也反應在中國對南海戰略的政策上。古典現實主義提供了海洋的國際政治學一個嶄新觀點。透過地理政治學上的解釋性分析，此研究檢視中國的政策與對世界的影響。在南海，中國持續崛起的力量、戰略與政策導致由中國主導的區域秩序。本研究所採用的研究方法發現到，中國崛起是一股相對的力量，且美國所企圖採取的權力平衡，可能無法成功圍堵中國的崛起。 / The primordial causal relationship within politics lies in the condition of our human nature, as classical realists argue. The constant exchange in power defines the relative relationships within the anarchical world, and shapes our pursuit of interests thereof. Such a change in power is occurring within China, and this is being reflected on its shifting policy and conduct in the South China Sea. Classical realism ought to shed light on and put forth a new perspective on the situation in the maritime sphere of international politics. The thesis scrutinizes, through interpretive analysis within a geopolitical approach, China’s policy and how it sees the world. The outcome of China’s increasing power, strategy and subsequent policy results in a China-led regional order starting in the waters of the South China Sea. The importance of this method in seeing China’s rise is the relativity of power and how the balance of power, including US, may prove to be inconclusive in trying to contain China’s unprecedented rise.

於1991年底蘇聯解體後正式獨立的白俄羅斯共和國，其與俄羅斯之間特殊的地緣政治因素、經濟上的依存關係、相近的種族文化與歷史傳統，促使兩國建立相較於獨立國家國協（Содружество Независимых Государств, СНГ/ Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS）更為緊密的政治、經濟、軍事、外交組織，亦即使兩國走向整合的白俄羅斯─俄羅斯聯盟（Союз Беларуси и России/ Union State of Russia and Belarus）。自1996年4月始，時任白俄羅斯總統的盧卡申科（Лукашенко, Александр Григорьевич, Alexander Grigoryevich Lukashenko）與前俄羅斯總統葉爾欽（Ельцин, Борис Николаевич, Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin），就俄白聯盟簽署一系列協議，諸如《俄白共同體組織條約》（Договор об образовании Сообщества Беларуси и России）、《俄白聯盟條約》（Договор о Союзе Беларуси и России）、《關於進一步整合宣言》（Декларация о дальнейшем единении России и Беларуси）、《兩國公民權利平等條約》（Договор между Российской Федерацией и Республикой Беларусь о равных правах граждан）、《建立國家聯盟經濟共同體協議》（Соглашение о создании равных условий субъектам хозяйствования государств-союзников）和《建立聯盟國家條約》（Договор о создании Союзного государства）等，朝俄白整合目標邁進的條約。 然俄白聯盟自成立之初至今，負面批評不斷，且除了在軍事同盟上兩國具有較為成功的碩果外，其他領域均無突破性的進展。此外，俄白雙方兩次的油氣之爭與白俄羅斯兩次經濟危機俄羅斯態度不明的事件，使俄白整合蒙上陰影。另一方面，歐盟與北約的東擴，明顯以白俄羅斯、烏克蘭與喬治亞等前蘇聯衛星國為主要拉攏目標，在此國際因素影響下，如何解釋俄白雙方政府仍決定繼續俄白聯盟，是為此論文關注的焦點，並試圖以新古典現實主義的角度，由個案研究的途徑，分析解釋並預測俄白聯盟的發展。 / After the Soviet Union disintegrated, post-communist countries in East-Central Europe were either divided (the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia) or were reunited (the German Democratic Republic with Federal Republic of Germany). Meanwhile, these countries developed different patterns of association. Some of the newly independent states joined the European Union and NATO, while others formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at the collapse of the USSR. Six of the former Soviet member states established the Collective Security Organization. Five of them established the Eurasian Economic Community. Four of them—Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine—formed the Single Economic Space. Among these nations, Belarus and Russia have built the closet relationship, first with a “Community” and then a “Union” in 1997. Belarus sits between Europe and Russia, but history shows its ambiguous leaning towards the latter. The country had been incorporated in the Russian Empire for two hundred years, and later also in the USSR. Belarus was also the Slavic republic that supported the USSR the most its the referendum on a “renewed union” held in March 1991. Furthermore, the referendum in November 1996 reconfirms the Russia-leaned stand of Belarus, which differs from other former Soviet member states in Middle-East Europe. Despite conflicts between the two countries and the political advancement from the West, Belarus and Russia still tend to compose Belarus-Russia Union on international platforms. This research focuses upon several analytic factors from the viewpoint of Neoclassical Realism, including ethnology, culture, geopolitics, economy, security, political interests, international environment, and leadership factors to examine the relationship between Belarus and Russia.

現實主義的理論特色在於偏好以權力的角度理解國際政治（特別是國家的行為）並且認為在一個處處充滿衝突的無政府狀態體系中，國家是最主要的分析單元。惟類此觀點不僅是一般研究者對於現實主義的誤認，更是現實主義對自我認知的不完備。雖然現實主義將法律或規範置於權力的概念之下，認為國際法只是國家可有可無的一項工具，但事實上國際法律規範與權力卻經常彼此相互影響。 本論文之目的並非要否定現實主義，而是欲對之進行修正及反省。由國際秩序此項議題作為起點，作者處理了下列幾個問題：首先，在國家所組成的國際社中，現實主義維持秩序的策略及其效果為何？其次，若此方法不具成效或有所疏漏，吾人是否有其它的選項可供作為維持國間家往來關係穩定與和平的方法？藉由探索國家創建國際法律規範的原因以及國際法的法源等諸問題，吾人發現國際法律規範之創立往往並沒有一套如同國內法那般正式且專責的機制，但被國家承認為規範或被接受為法律者的方式（例如：國家間的共識），卻不可反駁地存在於國際社會，在這些形成法律規範的方式中，國家（或其他行為者）可以清楚的認知到規範內容中所要求的義務與責任。 因此，儘管現實主義認為國際法不具重要性，但吾人仍應探就國家為何有時願意遵守法律規範的原因。並且設法釐清在現實主義是項研究典範中不同流派的現實主義理論，對於客觀存在的國際法律規範之評價與認知。基於現實主義並非單一的理論而是為一研究典範，故本文在內容上分別從古典現實主義、結構現實主義（包括守勢與攻勢兩種現實主義）、新古典現實主義，以及較為一般人忽略的英國學派等現實主義理論的派別中去探討國際法律規範在國際政治中的地位及功能。文中指出，長期以來人們對於現實主義的理解受限於權力政治這樣的標籤，從而視現實主義與國際制度或國際法為水火而不相容！但事實上，採用現實主義理解國際關係，不意謂著就必須對國際法持以否定的態度。毋寧，在現實主義與國際法律規範之間，存在的不是一種絕對的互斥關係。非結構理論型的現實主義，如古典現實主義，對於國際法即是採取正面肯定其功能的態度。 當瞭解現實主義的秩序觀及其維持秩序策略（權力平衡）的疏漏所在之後，本文解釋了國際法律規範形成的原因以及不同流派現實主義理論對於它的評價和觀點。接著，作者就國際政治的變遷情形做了觀察和檢驗，國際政治自冷戰結束後有了鉅幅轉變，雖然體系的本質依舊如昔，即由主權國家所組成的無政府狀態體系；但是體系內部已有了不同以往的發展和變革。舉例來說，全球化現象已經從經濟領域擴展到政治和文化等其它層面，並向傳統的國家主權及其權力提出挑戰。其它諸如民族分離運動、環境生態等問題也對冷戰後的國際政治造成衝擊，這些影響主要體現在：行為體之間高度的互賴性、行為體之間差異性的擴大，以及對國際法律規範的迫切需要。上述事實使得傳統現實主義以國家作為主體的國際政治體系正朝向一個近似中世紀主義的新政治體系在形成。在此體系中，國家將喪失其原本在體系中的優勢主導性地位，而國際法律規範的發展也將相應的有所提升及調整。 事實上，並非所有行為者的行為皆忠實反映現實主義關於國際法無用論的主張。學者布爾即就國際法律規範所具有的三項政治性功能來解釋國際政治與法律規範間的關係：一、幫助國家認同與瞭解在他們彼此間所形成的「社會」事實；二、在國家和其他行為者間定訂一套基本的互動規則；三、裨益國際社會的成員達成進一步的共識與承諾。結論指出，國際法律規範是國際政治中一項不可獲缺的部分，為了克服傳統現實主義及以結構理論為核心的現實主義在解釋上的不足，「國際社會」的概念必須被深入瞭解和應用在現實主義的理論建構中。同時，吾人應投入心力展開對全球性議題的研究，例如：人權與環保，因為在這些領域中，一項現實主義最為核心的思考—國家主權的獨立與完整，將會遭遇到越來越多的挑戰並使國家藉口主權作為脫逸國際法律規範的可能性大為減低。 / The characteristic feature of Realism is its use of the power concept to explain the course of international politics (especially the behavior of state). The primary unit of analysis is the State which is regarded as operating in an anarchical system dominated by conflict. However, both notions above are misunderstood not only by general students, but the partial of Realism itself as well. Although Realism aligns norms or law with power in so far as international law is considered a tool at the disposal of the most powerful. Yet international legal norms and power also frequently do interact actually. This thesis doesn’t mean to deny the value of Realism, instead, tries to modify and introspect its viewpoints. Starting at the issue of international order, there are several tasks having been done: what is the strategy for Realism to keep order in the society of states and how does it work? Then, if the way for keeping order in Realism wasn’t constructive or in vain, do we have other choices to retain the relationship among the states stable and peaceful? By way of finding out why the states created international law and what the sources of international law are, we can think that the making process of international legal norms and norms itself don’t possess one formal mechanism responsible for law creation like the domestic law, but there are recognized and accepted methods by which legal norms or rules came into existence, for example, the consent of states. In those methods the precise content of legal norms can be identified by states (or other actors). Despite, therefore, the realist perspective deems international law to have no significance in its own right but we still have to seek to ascertain why do the States obey international law sometimes, if not always, but at least. And make it clear to know what the appraisal and perception in different schools under the Realism Paradigm. As we have known the Realism is not a single theory but a research paradigm, the author investigated respectively the different schools of Realism; they are Classical Realism, Structural Realism (including Offensive and Defensive Realism), Neoclassical Realism and Realism in English School. As the content points out, people whose stereotype of Realism has been limited to power politics are used to thinking that international institutions (and regimes) or international law is incompatible with the Realism, usually. However, it’s not absolute for us to consider that Realism turns down international law necessarily. For one instance, Realism without using structural concept, like Classical Realism, takes the positive attitude toward the role and the functions of international legal norms. After realizing the Realism’s conception of order and what the flaw of its strategy (Balance of Power) to maintain order is, this thesis then mentioned about the reasons why international law is created, and how different school under the Realism Paradigm evaluates international law. Following up, the author inspected the change in international politics. In the post Cold War era, though the nature of international system is still like what it used to be, a Anarchical system, the different and new phenomena do really happen. Globalization, for instance, is one momentous challenge to the sovereignty of States and their political power. The rest like separatist movements, environmental problems are also influential to international politics. The central issues of those influences are the interdependence among actors, the dissimilarities among actors and the yearning for international legal norms. Under the perceptions like this, the traditional state-centric international system of Realism has been being toward a Neo-Medieval system. In that system, state actors will lose their predominant and leading stand. On the other hand, the development of international legal norms will adjust itself to the new world and become more important. In fact, the behavior of international actors does not seem to bear out the realist assumption of the impotence of international law. Bull, for example, explains the international law-international politics relationship in terms of three political functions fulfilled by international law: to identify the idea of a society of sovereign States, to state the interactive basic rules of coexistence among States and international actors, and to help mobilize compliance with the rules of international society. As the conclusion in this thesis pointed out, international legal norms is one part of international politics. In order to overcome the inadequacies of the traditional and structural realist interpretation, the concept of ‘International Society’ must be dealt and applied explicitly and deeply in constructing theory of Realism. Meanwhile, people should spend more time researching the global issues, such as human rights and environmental protection, because in these sectors, the most core of realist thinking, independence and integrity of sovereignty, will get into plight and encounter more and more challenges, and the possibility for the States to get rid of international legal norms in the name of sovereignty becomes less and less.

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.