本文研究將政治文化視為一國民主建立與鞏固的關鍵因素，政治文化的適切與否將直接影響民主轉型與鞏固之成敗。藉由回溯俄羅斯的歷史經驗，探討在俄羅斯的政治文化中是否具備有利於民主發展的元素。 本文重新檢視在普丁政權的建立與鞏固過程中，強大的國家機器與政治強人實為民意所望，而這樣的民意表徵並不全然來自於短期性的政策改變，而且是根深蒂固於政治文化之中。 本文研究發現，現行的俄羅斯民主政體並非真正的民主，甚至可將之歸類為威權政體。尤其在官方思想定調之後，自由競爭與人權大幅倒退，均無損於普丁政權的民意支持。即使俄羅斯的民主招致許多的批辦，但她確實是根據俄國獨特國情所發展而成的。

在普丁就任總統之後，讓一個經濟衰敗、國力萎靡的俄羅斯，從谷底翻身，進入世界強國之列。其間與歐盟的合盟與競爭，成為普丁強國戰略的運用。然而當俄羅斯開始強大，無法避免的也與歐盟有了政治現實利益的衝突，烏克蘭事件即是俄歐利益衝突具體的體現。 　　本研究探討普丁時期，俄羅斯與歐盟的關係。採歷史研究法、文獻分析法，來獲得本研究進行之資料與文獻，並由現實主義以及地緣政治理論，做為本研究的研究途徑，得出研究結論有三項。 一、 強化俄歐合作，以尋找多極世界建構的可能 二、烏克蘭事件是普丁俄歐關係之底牌 三、克里米亞入俄公投揭示俄歐關係的遠程目標 / After Putin took up a post, he let the economy decline, debilitating national power in Russia ,turning over the lowest point, and entering one of the most powerful nations. During the period of cooperating and competing with European Union, he uses the strategy of becoming a powerful country. However, when Russia becomes stronger, it can't avoid having conflicts of political benefits with European Union. The Ukraine incident embodies the beneficial conflict concretely. This research probes into the relationship between Russia and European Union during Putin's time, and it adopts research law documentation analyses to acquire it's information and document, through the realism and geopolitics theory as the means to reach the following three conclusions: First, intensify the cooperation between Russia and European Unions to seek the possibility of multi world design. Second, The Ukraine incident is the relation between Russia and European Unions the card in Putin's hands. Third, Crimea's referendums to Russia reveals the long range relations between Russia and Europe.

冷戰時期，蘇聯對印度支那半島政策的變化，是東南亞地區穩定的重要變數之一。蘇聯解體後，俄羅斯聯邦獨立，並且繼承原蘇聯所有的國際義務與權力。問題在於，在當代東南亞多元權力互動的格局中，俄羅斯在其間扮演何種角色？普丁政府在面臨國內外局勢變化之下，能否恢復俄羅斯（前蘇聯）在東南亞的國際政治利益？ 本文試圖透過地緣經濟分析途徑，來觀察冷戰後俄羅斯在普丁時期對東南亞政策之形成背景、主要內涵，以及互動關係。本文認為，隨著冷戰終結和亞太國際局勢之變化，亞太地區主要政治力量都在調整自身的政治、經濟、外交和安全戰略。為了保障區域安全、和平與穩定，東南亞國家加速東協整合及擴大的腳步，期望在政經及安全問題方面達成共識，並力求獲得區域事務的主導權和影響力。俄羅斯與東南亞諸國發展關係在於保障國家經濟利益的實現，進而追求在亞太地區中取得優勢地位，最終完成大國地位的目標。 首先，本文探討自蘇聯解體後俄羅斯獨立以來，俄羅斯外交思想、地緣戰略思想之演變與俄羅斯亞太政策的關係。同時，回顧蘇聯最後一任領導人戈巴契夫、俄羅斯前任總統葉爾欽及現任總統普丁亞太政策的變遷重點，旨在檢視俄羅斯對東南亞政策的歷史脈絡時，有比較清晰的政策變動觀點以供分析。 其次，本文討論俄羅斯（包括前蘇聯）與東南亞主要國家的雙邊關係，而以政治、經濟、軍事及文化等面向為分析層次，依次觀察和分析雙邊關係所呈現的特色和問題。研究分成俄羅斯與傳統邦交國和俄羅斯與美國盟國兩部份，分析雙邊關係合作的原因、過程、變動和影響。 最後，藉由回顧前蘇聯與東協關係的發展歷程，探討俄羅斯與東協國家之多邊政治對話、經貿及軍事關係，主要目的在瞭解普丁政府對東南亞地區各國間多邊關係之態度、立場及政策。 / During the cold war, Soviet involvement in Indochina Peninsula was one of the crucial factors which affected the political stability in Southeast Asia. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation gained independence and inherited all the privileges and obligations of the former Soviet Union in the international arena, but the situation in Indochina and Southeast Asia has changed a great deal. What role does Russia play in this important geopolitical region? Given the new domestic and international realities, will the Putin government regain the political interests and influence which the former Soviet Union once possessed in this region? Through geo-economic analysis, this thesis tries to explore the main contents of the Putin government's policy toward Southeast Asia, its formation background and the establishment of multi-lateral relationship with the major countries in this area. We observe that, with the end of the Cold War, and facing a different international situation, all the major political entities in SE Asia are making adjustments on the political and economic fronts, as well as in foreign and security policies. For the sake of regional security and stability, SE Asia countries have accelerated the expansion and integration of the ASEAN organization to secure its leadership in the regional affairs. From the Russian point of view, economy is no doubt a major factor which influences it policy formation in recent years. Starting from the pursuit of national economic interests, Russia also hopes to regain the status of a major player in this region, as the former Soviet Union once had. To start with, we study the evolution of Russian foreign policy and geopolitical thoughts and its relation to Russia's Asian Pacific policy. Also, we review the changes in the Asian pacific policies during the years of Gorbachov, Yeltsin, and Putin. The aim is to gain a clearer view of the factors which affected the making of the policies. Secondly, we discuss the bilateral relationships between the major countries of SE Asia and Russia (and also the former Soviet Union), which include political, economic, military, and cultural aspects. We try to extract the special features and problems in these bilateral relationships. This studies is divided into two parts, one includes countries which were traditional allies of the former Soviet Union, while the other includes countries which belonged to the opposite camp - aligned with the USA. We study the major driving factors and the historical steps which resulted in the establishment of full bilateral cooperation between Russia and various SE Asian countries. Finally, after a review of the relationship between the former Soviet Union and ASEAN, we investigate Russia's establishment of multi-lateral dialogue with ASEAN countries on political, economic, and military fronts. The aim is to understand the motive and policy of the Putin government in the area of multi-national cooperation in SE Asia.

本文目的在於探討普丁時期（2000-2012年）的俄喬關係發展。當面對內外環境的轉變，俄羅斯如何因應並調整對喬治亞的外交政策，以鞏固自身國家利益及國際地位？普丁主政的不同時期，俄羅斯與喬治亞兩國關係發展的過程與影響因素為何？經由文獻回顧，研究結果顯示俄喬關係發展在普丁時期每況愈下，影響兩國關係發展的主要因素為：喬治亞政權替換之影響、喬治亞欲加入北約的衝擊、薩卡希維利執政下的喬美合作、五日戰爭對俄喬關係之影響。 本文認為即便俄羅斯利用能源、經濟手段施加對喬治亞的影響力，然而俄羅斯未能解決喬治亞內部的民族分裂問題，因此導致喬治亞政府日益親向西方。雖然俄羅斯與喬治亞在外交關係交惡，相關研究數據仍然顯示喬治亞居民認為發展俄喬之間的經濟、政治關係相當重要。

在民主政治中，所謂「第四權」的大眾傳播媒體，具有監督國家的功能。大眾傳播媒體的自由與獨立的程度，乃是民主化的重要指標之一。本論文旨在探究普丁時期，俄羅斯大眾傳媒體與政權的關係。 俄羅斯大眾傳播媒體的功能與運作模式，隨著蘇聯解體與民主轉型，有著重大的改變。然而，普丁政權藉由「愛國主義」和「管理式民主」，對俄國傳媒進行控制，從新聞自由的角度來看，此舉造成了俄國民主的倒退。 普丁藉由國家控股公司、大眾傳播媒體法，以及限制國外媒體等手段，達成媒體國家化的目標。雖然電視深受俄國人民喜好與信賴，但是多屬國營電視台。作者分析了政治對大眾傳播媒體的影響，尤其是電視台在處理俄國總統大選及對於反恐怖行動的新聞及議題設定上，均可看出克里姆林宮高層所操作的痕跡。 / The mass media, the so-called fourth estate, have a function of oversight over the state in democratic politics. The extent of the mass media’s freedom and independence is one of the important criteria of democratization. The thesis aims to explore the relations between the mass media and regime in Putin’s Russia. The functions and operational mode of Russian mass media have changed significantly after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during democratic transition. However, the mass media have been under regime’s control through “patriotism” and “managed democracy” in the Putin era, and that has caused Russia’s democratic setbacks from the perspective of press freedom. The Putin regime used state holding companies, laws on the mass media, and limitations on foreign media to achieve the goal of nationalizing the mass media. Television is popular and trusted by Russian people, but most of Russia’s TV stations are under state control. The author analyzes the political effects of the Kremlin-controlled mass media, especially the impact of television broadcast on presidential elections and anti-terrorism campaign.

本文探討俄羅斯的社會福利改革過程。透過說明俄羅斯社會福利制度改革模式的選擇，解釋影響改革的因素，具體描述了蘇聯解體以來的俄羅斯福利制度改革過程，特別是普丁政府的改革策略。討論主題為俄羅斯的福利制度改革模式為何？影響俄羅斯福利制度改革的因素有哪些？何以普丁政府得以克服阻礙推動福利制度改革？ 本文套用Esping-Andersen的分類法來分析俄羅斯的福利模式，發現俄羅斯福利制度轉型採用自由模式作為改革方法。至於普丁政府何以克服困難進行福利制度改革，本文從經濟、政治和國家治理三個角度分析之，發現國家治理能力的改善是普丁政府得以推動福利改革的重要原因。 / This study aims at exploring the process of social welfare reform in Russia. To fulfill this goal, the author describes the pattern and factors of reform during the Post-Soviet era with a specific focus on the Putin government's policy. The main subjects of the study are the pattern of reform, the factors contributing to reform, and the Putin government’s reform strategy. By applying Esping-Anderson’s classification of welfare reform to Russia, the author finds that the Russian government has taken a liberal approach to reform. The thesis analyzes Putin government's reform policy from three perspectives, economy, politics, and state governance, and concludes that the improvement of state governance plays the main role in advancing Russian social welfare reform.

本研究以普丁於2012年後所提出之「傳統價值」──東正教、愛國主義與中央集權為出發，在其談話與文件為基礎上，以文獻分析法分析自2000年以後普丁執政以來之傳統價值意涵。並以歷史研究方法分析，其所提出的傳統價值在俄羅斯歷史上的意義與形成模式，以及在俄羅斯歷史上的作用，並藉此比較傳統價值在普丁執政期間的復甦現象，以及探討其意欲復甦傳統價值的原因、目的與政策執行。 / This study focuses on the emphasis on traditional balues by Vladimir Putin since 2012. Various documents including speeches by Putin since he first took presidency in 2000 are analyzed to decode the true meaning of what the Russian leader considers as the traditional values of Russia. The study explores the evolutions of Orthodoxy, patriotism and government centralization in the history of Russia, compares them with the modern definition of traditional values today, and by analyzing how Putin proactively formulates his policies to resurrect these traditional values, the study attempts to explain the reason and intention of Putin’s such policies.

蘇聯時期性質單一的「意識型菁英」在戈巴契夫的政經改革下開始分化成政治菁英與經濟菁英兩大類。到了葉爾欽時期，由於國家制度不彰、政府職能紊亂以及聯邦從屬關係被破壞，再加上總統本人執政後期健康情形不佳而導致大權旁落等緣故，造成各方菁英團體為了自身利益而彼此傾軋不已，也形成了以地方勢力、反對派政黨以及經濟寡頭為箭頭的「分散型菁英」。進入普丁時期，新執政者承繼了前朝唯一「正面」的遺緒 –「集權總統制」，再佐以個人的施政風格與高人氣支持，於第一任期內便大抵完成收編菁英的政治改革：於新設立的七大聯邦區派駐聯邦權力代理人 – 總統全權代表；改革聯邦委員會以削弱地方首長勢力；組建權力黨「統一俄羅斯黨」 並掌控國家杜馬。而在「共識型菁英」的氛圍下，作為普丁政權主要幹部甄補來源的「聖彼得堡幫」成員當中，又以所謂的「強力部門幹部」為大宗。其軍警情治背景與國家治理手法不僅為普丁治下的俄羅斯型塑了「軍事政體」的外觀，更讓後共俄羅斯或多或少出現了「蘇維埃化」的傾向。 / The single-natured “ideocratic elite” of the Soviet Union begins to differentiate into political and economic elite under the impact of Gorbachev’s reforms. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin’s elites jostled with each other for their interests and transformed into the “fragmented elite,” characterized by regional leaders, opposition parties and economic oligarchs. This occurred due to the malfunction of state institutions, disorder of government functions, destruction of central-peripheral relations and the regency by the President’s cronies during his illness in the second term. Later in Putin’s Russia, with the only “positive” legacy – “authoritarian presidential rule” that the new ruler inherits from his predecessor as well as his own personal ruling styles and high popularity, Putin achieves the approximate incorporation of Russian elites with the political reforms in his first term, including the delegation of Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys as federal agents in the seven new federal districts, the weakening of regional elites by reforming the Federation Council, and the seizure of the State Duma with the party of power – “United Russia.” Under the atmosphere of the “consensual elite,” the “Petersburgers” – especially the so-called “siloviki” – constitute the main source of cadre recruitment in Putin’s Russia. The security-intelligence background and state governance tactics of these siloviki not only mold the façade of “militocracy” for Putin’s regime, but more or less contribute to the tendency of “sovietization” in post-communist Russia.

國家社會主義制度下的蘇聯，政治和經濟集權化，國家對社會進行全面而深入的干預與管控。一直到了蘇聯末期，戈巴契夫推動「重建」與「公開性」等重要的改革政策之後，公民社會才開始萌芽。一九九一年蘇聯正式解體後，共產黨的威權統治被民主制度取代，因此，俄國的公民社會、民主制度和市場經濟的建立，幾乎是同步進行的。由於葉爾欽為了能順利進行改革而不受到社會的牽絆，因而對公民社會刻意疏離。公民社會就在政治混亂與經濟衰退的條件下，自謀生路。 在進入了普丁時代後，為結束俄國轉型過程中的混亂，普丁透過「垂直的總統權力」與「法律獨裁」手段來打造強大的國家。俄羅斯原本的混合政權在普丁「管理式民主」的治理下，以轉型為某種準威權主義政權。 在普丁「管理式民主」框架下的國家與公民社會關係是：國家承認公民社會的存在，並為公民社會提供制度性的法律保障，同時，國家也要對公民社會進行必要的干預和調節，為公民社會確立人人適用的普遍法律規則、對公民社會自身無力解決的矛盾或衝突進行干預協調；然而在這裡，存在一個國家對公民社會干預的界限確定問題。而二ＯＯ一年十一月由克里姆林宮所舉辦的「公民論壇」則是最受爭議也最具有代表性的例子。普丁透過公開的對話正式地承認了公民社會團體在政治和社會上的重要性，但事實上，「公民論壇」只是政府收編俄羅斯支離破碎之公民社會的實質工具。 / Political power and economy were highly centralized under state socialism. Society was intervened thoroughly and overwhelmed by the Soviet state. Civil society was unable to emerge until the final years of the Soviet Union due to Gorbachev’s reform programs of perestroika and glasnost. Since the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, Russia’s civil society, democratic institutions, and market economy have to develop simultaneously. Because of Yeltsin’s alienated attitude toward civil society for the sake of smooth reforms without considering social demands, civil society had to develop on its own under the conditions of political chaos and economic depression. In order to end the transition turmoil left by Yeltsin, Putin has been trying to craft a strong state through the “presidential vertical” and the “dictatorship of law.” Russia’s hybrid regime under Putin has been transformed to a sort of quasi-authoritarianism which is caused by the so called “managed democracy.” The relationship between the state and civil society under the framework of “managed democracy” is the following: State recognizes the existence of civil society and provides legal regulations for the latter’s development. The Civic Forum which was held in November 2001 by the Kremlin authorities represented the most controversial case of state’s role in the development of civil society. Putin officially recognized the importance of civil society through open dialogue, but in fact the Civic Forum was just a tool for the government to co-opt Russia’s fragmented civil society.

本文運用結合資本主義與父權制的雙系統理論探究普丁時期俄國婦女地位之現況。文中首先從蘇聯時期切入，貫穿至普丁時期，深入剖析俄羅斯婦女地位變化之歷史脈絡。第二部分則接續探討下列問題：普丁時期的俄國經濟因資本主義蓬勃而快速發展，而普丁的「管理式資本主義」所引發的後續社經現象對俄國婦女地位是否產生正面影響？普丁的強人統治與中央集權象徵父權制復甦，此傾向是否箝制俄羅斯婦女的發展？ 整體而言，「管理式資本主義」並未消除俄國婦女過去在就業市場上面臨的不平等，而其建構出「女性商品化」的形象，不利於俄國女性產生自覺。此外，父權制統治仍深植於俄國社會，迫使俄國婦女受限於傳統性別模式。 / By applying the dual-system theory, combining capitalism and patriarchy, this study aims at exploring Russian women’s status in the Putin Era. The first part of the study focuses on the historical context of Russian women’s status. The second part discusses the following research questions: does Putin’s “managed capitalism” have positive impact on Russian women? Does his strongman rule suppress women’s development? “Managed capitalism” doesn’t eliminate the gender inequality on labor market, and it creates the phenomenon of “commodification of women”. Furthermore, the patriarchy rule is deeply rooted in Russian society, and forces Russian women are limited in traditional gender model.