本論文名稱為「核子武器與國家安全」（以中華民國作個案研究），望文生義，主要 重點乃強調核子武器與國家安全之間的可能關聯。及核子武器所導致各種可能的利與 不利之因素，其中尤為強調嚇阻理論與國家安全的關聯性。同時，並以當前我國的國 家安全處境，作為個案的研究。嘗試分析。評估中華民國如果發展核子武器，對我國 的國家安全的增加，有多少助益，且可能會產生何種不利影響。 全文共分六章，十七節，第一章導論，說明研究的動機與方法。第二章以敘述軍事力 量在國際社會中所扮演的角色為主。第三章則介紹嚇阻理論，及嚇阻所必備的幾項因 素。第四章中華民國的核武選擇，從中共與我國對峙的情形，說明我國是否有發展核 武器的需要。第五章則是從嚇阻的觀點與國家戰略（利益）的角度，評估我國核武器 選擇的各種利弊。第六章結論。

理性選擇理論是第二次世界大戰後國際關係研究一個主要的研究途徑，在當代國際關係理論的爭辯中扮演了概念釐清的角色，並且增進了對無政府狀態內涵與國際合作可能性的理解。國際安全研究中，理性選擇以嚇阻理論為主要研究議題，針對核武嚇阻、傳統武器嚇阻、流氓國家與恐怖份子嚇阻等重要議題，無論是理論建構或實證研究皆有豐富的研究成果。在1980年代，形式化(formal))的理性選擇作為一種國際關係研究途徑成為一時顯學，與傳統國際關係主要研究途徑如歷史分析、文化研究、政治心理學等並駕齊驅，甚或有超越之勢；直至1990年代末期，理性選擇面臨強烈的質疑，進而引發了批評者與辯護者對於理性假設與方法論的爭辯。值得注意的是，自1990年以來，認知科學中的「展望理論」開始跨足至國際關係研究，試圖從行為者如何處理與詮釋訊息的角度來解釋國際政治行為與結果，對理性選擇的假設作了些許修正與補充，兩者的在未來的結合將有助於國際關係研究的發展。

學界常以嚇阻理論觀點詮釋解放軍的外在戰略作為，但經由本研究透過嚇阻理論分析檢證的結果，發現事實上中共有其一貫的「威懾戰略」思維模式，並且為解放軍核心戰略「積極防禦」的依據，此戰略思維內涵承襲中國傳統戰略文化與原則，其實際意義和中共學界定義的威懾戰略不同。「威懾戰略」思維也是解放軍在建構與運用戰略武力時的根本依循原則，而非根據嚇阻理論產生的嚇阻戰略，因此以嚇阻戰略的標準來檢驗與分析解放軍戰略作為，將不能得到正確解答。 解放軍從早期建構核戰略武力開始，即是出自於現實戰略利益考量，並不只是如中共官方所稱，要打破大國核壟斷與追求徹底消滅核武器等理想性、道德化說詞；解放軍隱晦的「不首先使用」核武原則，更是「威懾戰略」思考下，避免引起強國攻擊，以換取戰略武力發展空間的一項策略。隨著國際戰略局勢以及中共安全認知轉變，在美國發展彈道飛彈防禦體系以及調整核武戰略的情況下，解放軍將會持續建構包含非核戰略武力在內的戰略打擊力量，但在核戰略武力建構方面將會有所節制，置重點於技術提升和多元發展，以確保解放軍能在不改變既有原則的基礎上，更加彈性靈活運用各式戰略武力，一方面維持威嚇的效果，另一方面也能在必要時配合「威懾戰略」動用武力，達成中共所賦予解放軍的任務。 關鍵詞：中共軍事、嚇阻理論、嚇阻戰略、威懾戰略、戰略武力、不首先使用 / Researchers often apply the concept of Deterrence Theory to explain the outward strategic actions of People’s Liberation Army (PLA). However, through comprehensive analyses and examinations of Deterrence Theory, the research result indicated that PLA has created its own strategic logic of “Threat and Deterrent Strategy” which became the foundation of PLA’s core military strategy--Active Defense. In addition, this kind of strategic thinking which can be considered as the heritage of traditional Chinese military culture and principle is significantly different from the concept and measures of Deterrence Theory commonly agreed by scholars. “Threat and Deterrent Strategy” also became the foundation of PLA’s main military strategy “Active Defense”. “Threat and Deterrence Strategy” is PLA’s principle of building and operating its strategic weapon. Applying the concept of Deterrence Theory to explain PLA’s military actions may be inappropriate and result in misunderstanding because the concept and application of “Threat and Deterrence Strategy” are different from Deterrence Theory. Even though China official claimed that the goal of obtaining nuclear power is based on an ideal and proper purpose such as to break the exclusive development of nuclear weapon by certain countries and abolish nuclear weapon eventually, the reason why PLA developed nuclear weapon is because of the military advantages and strategic interests from obtaining nuclear power. PLA announced its “no-first-use” principle of using nuclear weapon without notifying the proviso is a typical example of playing “Threat and Deterrence Strategy” so that China can develop its strategic weapon without creating opposition from other countries. Along the strategic interactions among countries, the changing attitude toward national security in China, the development of Ballistic Missile Defense System in U.S, and the adjustment of using nuclear weapon and its strategy, PLA will keep improving its strategic weapon, including nuclear and non-nuclear. However, PLA will not speed up its development of nuclear weapon. Instead, PLA will emphasize more on improving the capacity and variety of its strategic weapon so that PLA can utilize all kinds of strategic weapon flexibly and ingeniously. On the one hand, improving military strength can ensure the effectiveness of deterrence; on the other hand, cooperating “Threat and Deterrence Strategy” and military actions can help PLA to complete the mission from China. Keywords: China Military, Deterrence Theory, Deterrence Strategic, Threat and Deterrence Strategy, Strategic Weapon, No first use

近年來，經濟犯罪問題日益嚴重，其中，詐欺案件發生頻仍，諸如刮刮樂、手機中獎、退稅等詐欺集團作案範圍涵蓋全臺，受害民眾遍及各階層，個人財物損失甚至高達數千萬元以上，此類犯罪已嚴重危害社會經濟秩序及治安，並引起社會大眾及立法、行政部門高度重視與關切。 詐欺犯罪是透過對受害社會民眾或客戶的不便，產生機會成本、非必要的過高價格，而由詐欺犯罪活動中，取得不法利得。並且將此成本，轉嫁社會大眾身上。根據「臺閩刑案統計」80年（1991）詐欺案件發生725件，惟至91年（2002）詐欺案件發生高達23628件，至於破獲率則由80年94.07%下降至91年11.52%。由於詐欺犯罪集團結合高科技，助長發生，擴大社會民眾的傷害與層面，導致民眾惶惶不安。就臺灣地區整體犯罪情勢言，詐欺犯罪問題非止於臺北市一偶，且因獲利高、風險低、刑度輕、及受害層面廣等特性，已改變近十年台灣地區犯罪型態，目前其發生數僅次於竊盜犯罪，為嚴重危害當前社會安全之犯罪，此一犯罪問題，誠值深入研究。 探究當前詐欺犯罪猖獗成因固屬多元，惟刑警人員職司犯罪偵防責任，卻責無旁貸。因此，本研究係以刑警人員角度切入，復因如何提升破獲率及降低發生，學說上嚇阻理論、激勵理論、破窗理論及詐欺管理生命週期理論頗值借鏡與探討；因遏阻乃藉由提升破獲能力達成遏制犯罪發生；至激勵則係藉由警察機關內部之領導、鼓勵及工作環境改善等面向，提升員警偵辦詐欺犯罪案件之意願，有效嚇阻犯罪衍生；而破窗理論乃藉由處處關懷、不以小惡而縱容，俾遏阻犯罪之蔓延與惡化；另詐欺管理生命週期理論，則屬系統化分析詐欺犯罪防制策略之理論。上開四種學說理論，對防制詐欺犯罪均有相當正面作用，故於本研究中加以研析討論，另彙製問卷運用描述性統計、因素分析等，藉以瞭解、分析基本變項、偵辦各類刑案成就感、困難度、對工作環境滿意度以及對詐欺犯罪成因之相關認知與差異，俾供政府機關或警政單位從事規劃偵防詐欺犯罪時之參考。

懲罰性賠償金為英美法傳統下之制度，其目的在於以超越實際損害數額之賠償金，制裁主觀惡性程度特別重大之侵權人，與一般用以填補損害之補償性賠償金有本質上之差異。昔日多適用於被害人尊嚴遭嚴重侵犯之案件，然隨現代經濟社會之發展，亦漸用於處罰公司法人、制裁經濟犯罪。 我國侵權行為法主要繼受德國之體系，以損害填補為原則，故僅於特定領域之立法中承認懲罰性賠償金制度。現行專利法採取懲罰性賠償金之立法例，而目前經濟部之修法草案則擬廢除。 本研究首先介紹美國法發展趨勢、實務重要案例與晚近之專利改革法案，歸納其趨勢為「嚴格限制故意侵權之構成、提高專利權人舉證責任、限縮懲罰性賠償金之適用範圍」；其次，以實證方式分析台灣智慧財產法院歷年相關之判決結果，認為實務運作有「大多數請求懲罰性賠償金之案例，連侵權責任都尚未構成，有請求浮濫、逼迫被告和解之嫌」、「法院認定侵權人故意，實質上往往僅論及侵權人『知悉系爭專利存在』即可，相較於現行法標準實過於寬鬆」；最後，綜合美國法發展趨勢、我國實務情形、懲罰性賠償金功能論與法律經濟分析觀點，認為我國尚不宜廢除專利侵權懲罰性賠償金制度，惟應將其限縮適用於「搭便車」與「專利有效性毋需再確認」之故意侵權情形，以降低社會研發成本、賦與從事研發者挑戰垃圾專利之機會，方切合專利法促進研發之本旨。 / Punitive damages, a traditional system under the common law, aims to sanction those infringers having substantially subjective malice by awarding enhanced damages beyond the actual damages. It is naturally different from compensatory damages. Punitive damages were originally used to dealing with serious violations of the victims’ dignity of the cases. With the development of economic society, this system was gradually used to punishing corporations and sanctioning economic crimes. Since Taiwanese tort laws are mainly inherited from German laws, which only permit plaintiffs claiming for compensatory damages. Punitive damages were only adopted in several specific kinds of tort laws, as in the patent law. However, the provision of punitive damages was revoked in the current patent reform act drafted by Ministry of Economic Affairs. This study starts out by introducing the trend of American law, the essential practical cases, and the recent patent reform acts. It concludes the trend to have the following three characteristics: 1. Strictly limit the constitution of willful infringement; 2. Increase patentee’s burden of proof; and 3. Restrict the scope of awarding punitive damages. The study then empirically analyzes the related judgments of Taiwan Intellectual Property Count over the years. It finds that in majority of the cases claiming punitive damages, most plaintiffs can even not to prove that defendants have infringed their patents, yet force defendants to settle. Also, the court in Taiwan usually award patentees punitive damages loosely only if they can prove that infringers had known the existence of the patent . This phenomenon makes the standard in practice not strict as the standard in law. Lastly, this study sums up the aspects from the development trend of American patent law, current practice in Taiwan, the theory of punitive damages function, and economic analysis of law, and finds that it would be inappropriate to revoke the provision of punitive damages in patent infringement cases. This study suggests that punitive damages should be awarded only in two types of willful infringement: 1. when the defendant is a “free rider, or 2. when the validity of the patent need not be challenged anymore. This way, it may lower the cost of research and development, give developers more chance to challenge junk patents, and finally reach the purpose of patent law – encourage innovation.