國家安全的研究一直是國際關係中重要的課題之一，而「安全」的定義在此研究領域一直是具有爭議性的概念。自從冷戰開始，「安全」便成為各國最關切的重點，此時國家為了維持人民生存與安全，於是軍事力量不可避免的就成為「國家安全」範疇內最重要的議題。安全的定義隨著國際情勢的變遷而擴大，國家為維護生存的安全也必須改變國家安全的政策作出因應。 九一一事件改變了傳統軍事安全定義與傳統強權國家間的互動模式，使得國際社會從冷戰後努力將國際秩序規範在建制下的狀態，重新拉回由軍事武力強者主導國際互動狀態，而欲主導的國家—美國，在因應新環境與新目標的改變時刻，國家安全政策的內涵也須隨之調整。 本論文分為六章二十三節，重點在分析九一一事件對傳統國際典範中安全的內涵帶來的挑戰與影響，焦點集中在軍事力量、軍備部署等範疇內，並且將比較柯林頓政府、小布希政府至九一一事件後國家安全政策的轉變，最後將研究心得與發現條列於結論之中。

小布希總統及其外交領導團隊執政後，在外交政策取向上，明顯呈現出單邊主義之傾向。小布希政府不僅全力推動彈道飛彈防禦計畫，退出「反彈道飛彈條約」；公開反對「全面禁止核子試爆條約」；並退出「京都議定書」。自此之後，外界探討美國外交政策時，往往將焦點放在單邊主義。因此，單邊主義之定義為何？小布希政府行使單邊主義之動機？以及單邊主義為小布希政府帶來何種影響，為本論文之研究重點。此外，2001年突發的911事件，帶給美國多面向的重大衝擊。在外交政策方面，911事件之影響甚為廣泛且深遠，小布希政府之單邊主義傾向是否有所轉變？為本論文之研究核心。 　　為觀察美國外交政策中，有關單邊主義現象與911事件影響，本論文採「系統分析法」為研究途徑，以內外部因素與決策者個人因素為自變項、單邊主義為因變項、911事件為中介變項，逐一探討這些自變項在911事件影響下，小布希政府單邊主義之傾向是否有所改變。此外，本論文亦分析哪些因素對單邊主義有增強或弱化效果？哪項因素則具有關鍵性影響？ 　　從本論文得知：選定之自變項中，屬內部因素之「美國例外論」、「新保守主義」與「官僚政治」具有強烈增強單邊主義之效果；至於「兩黨政治」與「國際體系」則具一般增強效果。另外，屬外部因素之「全球化」與「國際法」對單邊主義具有強烈抑制效果；而「國內民意」則具一般抑制效果。本論文認為影響美國單邊主義外交政策取向之關鍵因素，為小布希總統個人。 　　本論文獲致以下研究結果：一、為單邊、多邊與雙邊主義提供定義與優缺點分析。二、提供美國外交政策的單邊主義發展脈絡。三、分析影響小布希政府單邊主義外交政策取向之來源。四、說明「布希主義」主要內涵。五、證明決策者個人因素對外交決策具關鍵性影響。

北韓問題是二十世紀延續至今卻始終未能解決的複雜議題，這是因為牽涉的因素眾多：南北韓、周邊國家以及國際的考量使「維持現狀」與「模糊」政策成為處理北韓問題可以接受的模式。但事實上，吾人必須認知到在此議題上，最重要的主角仍是北韓與美國，但顯然雙方各有盤算而不能或不願直接解決。因此本文旨在探討2001至2011年美國對北韓之政策，且嘗試在現今相關領域的多數美國立場中，盡可能尋求以相對公允、同理心的角度分析問題，而非美國觀點的一言堂。本文以法國戰略學家薄富爾(André Beaufre)之「行動戰略」(Strategy of Action) 理論作為研究途徑，輔以大量相關數據資料及專著，用意在於平衡地討論美國戰略並批判其中好壞。 本文認為，小布希與歐巴馬政府對北韓政策目標一致，但戰略有所不同。受制於北韓核報復攻擊、中東戰事、經濟與他國因素，美國難以動武直取北韓，因此必須從軍事外的選項著手。筆者從軍事、政治、經濟與外交面向，以政治診斷(political diagnosis)及戰略診斷(strategic diagnosis)探討兩屆政府對北韓之行動方案。小布希和歐巴馬政府在戰略應用上符合薄富爾的觀點，但在架構面上卻有缺失，最終由於無法促使中國相助，以及自身立場的謬誤，導致兩屆政府北韓政策之失誤。 / The North Korea issue remains unresolved, and the only acceptable options for the neighbor countries are the status quo policy and the policy of deliberate ambiguity. However, it has to be acknowledged that the most important roles are North Korea and the U.S., and it is obvious they have different plans in their minds. The main idea of this thesis is to study the U.S. Policy toward North Korea (2001-2011), and present unbiased points of view instead of only the U.S. aspect. This thesis uses the Strategy of Action of André Beaufre, a French Strategist, as the research method, to analyze data and studies to fairly find out the pros and cons of the U.S. Policy toward North Korea. This thesis shows that the George W. Bush administration and the Obama administration share the same goals but different strategies toward North Korea. The U.S. have difficulty in using military action since it tries to avoid North Korea taking nuclear retaliation, and the war in the middle east and the sinking economy also limit the ability of the U.S. government. This thesis analyzes the U.S. policy toward North Korea from the aspects of military power, politics, economy and diplomacy, and it uses political diagnosis and strategic diagnosis as the approaches to examine the action plans of both Bush and Obama administrations. The research shows that the actions plans match the point of view of André Beaufre strategically, but the flaws of the plan structure, the failure to have China take a stance against North Korea and the illogicalness of the government position finally led the U.S. policy toward North Korea to a frustrated end.

1991年及2003年，兩任的布希政府均面臨因伊拉克情勢而引起的中東危機，兩位總統也均選擇了以武力因應危機。在危機處理的過程中，兩位布希總統均組成了因應危機的團隊，其成員多來自於國家安全會議（National Security Council; NSC），並且有部分成員如錢尼（Dick Cheney）、鮑爾（Colin Powell）等參與了兩次危機的處理過程。本文將分析兩任總統與參與決策成員在兩次危機處理過程中的立場，及所持立場對最終危機處理政策帶來的影響。兩任總統均有強烈的使命感，決策成員也多支持武力的使用，因此對危機處理策略的選定上決定使用武力因應。 本研究將透過危機處理的相關理論，包括國際關係學派、歷史學派及組織與決策理論學派的論點，來檢視兩任布希政府所面臨危機情勢、因應手段的差異。布希政府是被動的因應危機，小布希政府則是主動的挑起危機；布希在動用武力前取得了聯合國的授權，小布希則是單邊行動推翻了海珊，並未得到聯合國的授權；並且小布希總統並不僅僅以制裁海珊政權為最終目標，而是加以推翻並重建伊拉克。 最後本研究亦將對美國未來領導世界的策略提出建言。根據學者奈伊（Joseph Nye）的看法，軟權力（soft power）是美國外交上的重要資源；往後美國如何避免過度的仰賴單邊行動，重新凝聚盟邦，並且善用美國軟權力上的優勢，將是美國所必須面對的重要課題。想要領導世界之前，美國必須先學會

冷戰結束，使得美國全球安全環境發生了歷史性的巨變，在中共快速崛起，區域軍力與經濟力的發展愈形失調之際；從北韓核武威脅、台海主權爭議，到區域民族主義、分離主義與恐怖組織的推波助瀾，將原已嚴峻的亞太情勢推向更為複雜的形勢。基於全般世局的變因與發展，誘發吾人從事國際關係研究的動機，除期望取得一般性國際關係理論與實際知識之外，更期望就小布希政府主政前後美國全球、亞太戰略的主要政策內容，去嘗試發現東亞戰略之理論依據與其關聯性，俾利於我國防政策與戰略發展之研究參考。 經研究發現，促成美國戰略轉變的根源係在不同時空的敵情威脅、全球政經安全情勢與美國內部的政治等因素上；故如何審時度勢，厚植實力，睥睨時局，也就成為美國主導戰略發展的關鍵。 研究也發現，美國東亞安全戰略是其全球、亞太戰略與整體外交、安全戰略設計的一環。冷戰結束後，歐洲呈現安全穩定發展，亞洲則因中共國力竄升與北韓核武危機等新的威脅，既影響東亞區域的平衡穩定，且衝擊到美國的國家利益，迫使美國必須對其東亞安全戰略作出因應的調整，以持續維持美國在世界的領導地位。 「九一一事件」後，促使美國戰略做了重大的改變，對其東亞安全戰略的建構，也針對不同的威脅來源與挑戰，做出國家安全戰略與區域安全戰略的調整和強化；而兩岸三邊關係也出現了若干的調整，從歷史之觀點分析，美國之台海政策基本係依戰略環境之需求而變遷，故台灣如何因應美國戰略之轉變，調整戰略思維，落實「有效嚇阻、防衛固守」戰略構想，達到「預防戰爭」、「維持台海穩定」、「保衛國土安全」之國防目的，實為當務之急。 / Due to the end of cold war, the role of the US in global security environment occurred historic changes. The issues of the North Korea nuclear weapon’s threat, the Taiwan’s sovereignty dispute, regional nationalism, separatism and terrorist groups surged the severe situation of Asia Pacific region more complicate. Owing to the overall variants and developments of the world, I am motivated to study international relation. I expect not only to consume general international relation theory and genuine knowledge but also to explore the theory’s basis and connections of East Asia strategy from those primary policies of the US global and Asia Pacific strategies before and after President George W. Bush assumed his office. This study may useful to the research and reference in our national defense policy and strategy development. Through the study, we discover the fountainheads of promoting the changes of the US strategy are the causes of enemy’s threat, global political & economic security situation and the US domestic politics. So, how to evaluate the world trend, build up immense capability and overwhelm the present posture of affairs become the key factors for the US to lead the strategic development. According to my study, we also discover the US’s East Asia security strategy is a part of its global, Asia Pacific strategies and strategic designs of overall diplomacy and security strategy. After cold war, the Europe develops safely and steadily. But in Asia, the unprecedented threats from the arisen PRC national power and North Korea nuclear weapon’s crisis affect the balance and steady of the East Asia, also pose great influence to the US interests. Thus, the US is forced to make certain adjustments on the East Asia security strategy for dealing with those aforementioned issues in order to maintain its leading status in the world. Post “September 11, terrorist attack”, the US made significant changes on its strategies. The US adjusted and strengthened its national and regional security strategies on East Asia security strategy construction and different threat resources and challenge. Also the US is induced to adjust trilateral relations with Taiwan and China. The US basic policy toward Taiwan Straits, analyzed from historical viewpoints, is changed by the strategic environment need. The ultimate work of Taiwan now, is to response the changes of the US strategy, adjust strategic thinking, fulfill the strategic concepts of “effective deterrence, solid defense” to achieve the national defense goals of “prevention of war”, “maintaining stabilization in Taiwan Straits” and “defending homeland”.

本論文試圖透過戰略三角政治研究途徑和克里姆林宮政治研究途徑，探討普欽時期的俄羅斯對美國政策。 蘇聯解體後，俄羅斯對外政策路線的走向，由葉里欽執政初期的一面倒向以美國為首的親西方之大西洋主義政策路線，轉向為葉里欽執政後期的拉攏中國抗衡美國的東西平衡對外政策路線；到了普欽執政時期，又重新定位為與美國進行戰略和解，進而進行戰略合作的全方位對外政策路線, 以擺脫俄中戰略協作夥伴關係所導致的戰略羈絆之制約。本文試圖探討，驅動普欽時期此一俄羅斯對美國政策路線轉變的內外在因素。 本論文認為，普欽執政期間，俄羅斯對美政策之形成，乃是在承襲葉里欽對外政策的遺緒，在普欽的強勢領導之下，俄羅斯之決策菁英，以俄羅斯的國家安全及國家利益為訴求，援引包括戰略三角互動、美國的政策與做為、俄羅斯經濟發展與政治生態互動等俄羅斯內外在環境因素，作為其政策辯論的依據，透過克里姆林宮政治的互動形塑而成。 上述假設命題可以引申出下列邏輯相關的子命題： 一•普欽的對美政策，受到包括戰略三角互動與美國的政策與做為等俄羅斯外在環境因素之影響形塑而成。 1999年普欽上台前夕，科索佛戰爭及北約戰略新概念的提出，加深了俄羅斯的安全疑慮；而2001年4月，美中軍機擦撞事件，則加深了中美關係的裂痕；此一發展促使俄中戰略夥伴關係趨於密切。2001年6月中國主導「上海合作組織」的成立，以及7月俄中睦鄰友好合作條約的簽訂，就是此一發展邏輯的結果。然而，隨著中國在□海地區爭霸戰中影響力的增長，有關中國威脅論的聲音，也在俄羅斯安全決策階層引起越來越多的迴響。而此一發展，則促使俄羅斯尋求與美國進行戰略和解，以防範中國之威脅。另一方面，蘇聯解體後，中國勢力快速崛起，美國不再視俄羅斯為其戰略對手，轉而防範中國之威脅。911事件之後，美國面臨反恐之戰以及分散油源之需求，小布希總統調整了對俄政策，讓普欽得以順利與美國進行戰略和解；從而，普欽得以擺脫俄中戰略協作夥伴關係所導致之戰略羈絆的制約。 二•普欽的對美政策，受到包括經濟發展考量與政治生態互動等俄羅斯內在環境因素之影響形塑而成。 面對俄羅斯國內的經濟窘境，普欽認為，唯有與美國進行戰略和解，才能儘快加入世界貿易組織、增加歐美的投資和援助、減輕外債負擔、從而促進經濟發展。另一方面，普欽的強勢領導地位以及務實的政治手腕，使得普欽得以操控國內政治生態的互動，主導俄羅斯國家安全概念的重新定位；從而，得以順利推動全方位對外政策路線，與美國進行戰略和解，藉以擺脫葉里欽後期所建立的俄中戰略協作夥伴關係所導致之戰略羈絆的制約。 / The purpose of this study is aimed at exploring Russia’s policy toward the United States under Bladimir Putin, 2000-2003. The strategic triangle politics approach and the Kremlin politics approach are applied in this study. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia’s line of foreign policy had been shifted from the one-sided pro-Western Atlanticism in the early stage of Boris Yel’tsin’s administration toward the East-West balanced strategy, attempting to draw China on the same front against the United States, in the latter stage of Yel’tsin’s regime. After Putin had come to power, Russia’s line of foreign policy was reoriented as a comprehensive one, engaging in strategic reconciliation and strategic cooperation with the U.S. and, consequently, getting rid of the strategic entanglement resulted from the establishment of the partnership of strategic coordination between China and Russia. Against this background, this study attempts to investigate the internal and external factors that drive this shift in Russia’s line of foreign policy under Putin. The hypothesis of this study is as follows: Shadowed by Yel’tsin’s legacy of foreign policy and forged under Putin’s strong leadership, Russia’s policy toward the United States under Putin has been shaped by the interaction of Kremlin politics, engaged by Russian decision-making elites, who appeal to Russia’s national security and national interests in their policy debates, referring to Russia’s external and internal factors, such as the interaction of strategic triangle politics, the US policies and conduct, Russia’s economic developments, and domestic political ecological changes in Russia. This hypothesis can be further developed into the following logically consequential sub-propositions: 1•The formulation of Russia’s policy toward the United States under Putin has been driven by Russia’s external factors, such as the interaction of strategic triangle politics and the US policies and conduct. In the spring of 1999, on the eve of Putin’s coming to power, the breakout of War in Kosovo and the pronunciation of NATO’s new Strategic Concept had created serious concerns for Russians about their national security. And in April 2001, the collision of US-Chinese military aircrafts above the South China Sea had deepen the Sino-US fissures. Consequently, the development of these events had pushed closer the Partnership of Russo-Chinese Strategic Coordination. As a result, the creation of Chinese-initiated Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in June 2001 and the conclusion of the Treaty of Good-Neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation between China and Russia in the following month were only a logical outcome. However, accompanying the growth of China’s influence in the area of Caspian Sea, the voice of “China threat” has received more and more attention in the circle of Russia’s national security decision-makers. These developments, in turn, had forced Russia to search for strategic reconciliation with the United States in order to prevent China from becoming a threat. On the other hand, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rapid rise of China’s influence, the United States no longer treat Russia as a strategic rival; instead, they shift their efforts to prevent China from becoming a threat. In the wake of the terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, in order to meet the needs for engaging campaigns against terrorism and for deconcentrating the sources of petroleum, President Bush has readjusted US policy toward Russian. As a consequence, these shifts in US policy provide Putin with a golden opportunity to engage in strategic reconciliation with the United States and thus get rid of strategic entanglements derived from the establishment of partnership of strategic coordination with China. 2•The formulation of Russia’s policy toward the United States under Putin has been driven by Russia’s internal factors, such as the economic development and the political ecological changes in Russia. In the face of Russia’s economic predicament, in Putin’s opinion, the only way to promote economic development is the strategic reconciliation with the United States, which will accelerate the process for Russia to obtain the access to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and in turn to gain the access to investments and financial assistance from the West and to lessen the burden of foreign loans. In addition, with his strong leadership and his pragmatic political skills, Putin has been able to maneuver the interaction of domestic political econlogies in favor of the reorientation of Russia’s concept of national security. As a result, Putin has been able to forge a comprehensive line of foreign policy and, accordingly, to conduct strategic reconciliation with the United States. Consequently, he has been able to get rid of the strategic entanglements derived from the establishment of partnership of strategic Coordination with China in the latter stage of Yel’tsin’s regime.

二次世界大戰時，美國擊敗日本，使朝鮮半島脫離殖民統治，然而隨後的美蘇冷戰，使得朝鮮半島分裂成南北兩韓，而美國與南韓簽訂條約，成立美韓同盟(U.S.–South Korea Alliance)，成為繼日本之後，美國在亞洲的另一個戰略同盟。冷戰與後冷戰期間，美韓關係雖有波折，但不影響美韓同盟的強度。直到2000年美國小布希就任，其強硬的北韓政策與南韓金大中的陽光政策形成對比，成了美韓關係不協調的開端。而後連任的小布希延續其北韓政策，南韓繼任的盧武鉉將陽光政策擴大實施，推出和平繁榮政策，美韓兩國的北韓政策再度不同調，兩國關係持續跌宕起伏至2008年。本研究試圖以攻勢現實主義分析美國此時期的北韓政策；以新自由制度主義檢視南韓的交往政策，透過理論交鋒研究兩國利益的差異，並檢視外部因素如中國、日本、俄羅斯的影響，進而解釋此時期美韓關係不協調的原因。 / In 1945, the U.S. defeated Japan. The Korean peninsula was liberated from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II. However, the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union left two Koreas separated by the Demilitarized Zone from the Cold War to the present. In addition, based on the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, the U.S.–South Korea Alliance was established. During the Cold War and Post Cold War era, the U.S.-South Korea relations faced hard times, but the alliance remained strong. When George W. Bush became the president of the U.S. in the year 2000, his hardline policy toward North Korea collided with South Korea’s Sunshine Policy, which was made by the president Kim Dae-jung. These different policies toward the North caused tensions to the U.S.-South Korea relations. Then the re-elected Bush continued hardline policy against North Korea, but South Korea’s new president—Roh Moo-hyun—decided to inherit the sunshine policy and develop Peace and Prosperity Policy. Washington and Seoul still failed to reach a consensus on how to deal with Pyongyang. The U.S.-South Korea relations continued to fluctuate until 2008. This study tries to analyze the U.S. policy toward North Korea through offensive realism and examine South Korean engagement policy through neoliberal institutionalism from 2000 to 2008. Besides, this thesis also considers exogenous factors such as China, Japan, and Russia, trying to explain the inconstancy of the U.S.-South Korea relations.