本論文旨試圖透過克里姆林宮政治暨嚇阻戰略研究途徑，剖析俄羅斯將獨立軍種「戰略火箭軍」裁併至空軍編制的原因。 本論文假設戰略火箭軍遭到裁併是基於下列兩項原因： 第一、俄羅斯武裝力量本身的態度與國內幾次重大政治鬥爭，導致俄羅斯必須修正軍事準則。 由於總統葉里欽在獨立初期，並沒有為俄羅斯的外交與國家安全政策領域構築一個法制化、有效率的決策系統，造成諸如國防部、外交部、總參謀部、聯邦安全會議、國防會議與國家軍事檢察署等相關機構，彼此間不斷爭奪軍事資源、議題詮釋權，政治鬥爭頻仍。另外，在某些政治危機中，例如1993年砲轟國會事件、第一次車臣戰爭以及1996年總統大選，葉里欽需要拉攏軍方支持以應付反對勢力，這就讓俄羅斯武裝力量有機會涉足克里姆林宮政治。結果是國家安全政策領域呈現各行其道、莫衷一是的混亂局面，並且有愈來愈多的政府官員對於在國家安全政策領域中攫取政治利益躍躍欲試。 其次，俄羅斯地緣政治環境的劇烈惡化導致龐大的反軍事改革勢力。 為了要在冷戰後與美國保持最低限度的戰略均勢狀態，好保障俄羅斯的國家利益及國際地位，並且順利解決因宗教或種族要素在俄羅斯或獨立國協境內所引發的區域戰爭或軍事衝突，有些官員諸如思科可夫、謝爾蓋耶夫等人主張俄羅斯應該繼續維持強大的戰略武力，特別是著名的戰略火箭軍。他們反對軍事改革以及裁減軍備。而由於當前國防預算困窘，葉里欽與普欽必須兩害相權取其輕，整肅拒絕裁軍的官員或是部隊。 在謝爾蓋耶夫與克瓦什寧激烈的政治鬥爭結束後，最後的贏家克瓦什寧終於如願以償，將戰略火箭軍予以裁併，由軍種單位降為兵種單位。不過俄羅斯的戰略武力仍然將在未來扮演極具影響力的角色。 / The purpose of the thesis is to attempt to analyze the factors that exert great impact on the reduction of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces(SMF) in status from a separate branch of service to a separate command from the perspective of Kremlin politics and Strategy of Deterrence. This thesis takes the position that the SMF has been reduced by two main motives: First, the attitude of the Russian army and domestic political struggle has forced the Russian government to adjust its military doctrine. Due to Yeltsin failing to set up a well-organized and efficient system for foreign and national security policy decision-making, so the struggle between the key ministries involved in foreign and security policy- the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff, the National Security Council, the Defense Council, the State Military Inspectorate- was hard. And in some political crises, such as the bloody event of Oct. 1993, the presidential election in 1996, and the crisis in Chechnya, Yeltsin needed army to defeat the counterforces. The Russian army has became more influential in politics. As a result, the decision-making process has been chaotic and confused, and various bureaucratic players have often been able to impose their their own special interests on the security policy agenda. Second, the worsening geopolitical situation has brought about considerable resistance to the military reform. In order to keep minimum strategic balance with the United States, ensure its national interest and international status and settle local wars or military conflicts caused by religion and ethnic conflicts within Russia’s own territory and Commonwealth of Independent States, some officials like Yuri Skokov and Igor Sergeyev advocated maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent force, especially the prominent role for the SMF. The president was likely to face considerable resistance to the reform. Owing to the current financial constraints on defense spending, Yeltsin and Putin carried out a purge of army officers who were against arms reduction. After the hard political struggle between Igor Sergeyev and Anatoliy Kvashnin, the winner- Kvashnin demanded the SMF must be reduced in status from a separate branch of service to a separate command. But the Russian strategic force will still play influential role in the near future.

論文摘要 〈論純粹知性概念之推證〉一章可以說是《純粹理性批判》當中最重要的章節之一。康德在這個章節中企圖證明完全根源於知性自身的純粹知性概念（也就是範疇）運用到經驗對象上的可能性，並藉此劃定認知的有效範圍。這是《純粹理性批判》企圖解決形上學紛爭的一個重要關鍵。然而，這個章節同時也是康德宣稱他花費了最大心力，並在第二版《純粹理性批判》當中完全改寫的篇章之一，在這個短短的五六十頁的篇幅當中卻包含了許多詮釋上的爭議。而本論文則以第二版〈推證〉為主要討論範圍，並嘗試回答其中三個詮釋上的問題：1. 〈推證〉是否包含了一個反懷疑論的論證？2. 第二版〈推證〉可區分出的兩個部份分別負擔了什麼任務？3. 先驗統覺在〈推證〉中扮演了什麼角色？並在確立對以上幾個問題的觀點之後，提供一個的對第二版〈推證〉的細部解釋。 為了回答這幾個問題，筆者比較了Paul Guyer、Dieter Henrich、Henry Allison等幾個詮釋者的觀點。而本論文總共包含了五個章節。第一章作為導論，介紹筆者在本論文中所欲處理的問題以及對論文所安排的架構。在第二章當中，筆者以Guyer作為一個反懷疑論式詮釋〈推證〉的類型，並指出這種詮釋方式與文本的不合之處。在第三章當中，筆者將介紹Henrich針對第二版〈推證〉所提出的「一個證明兩個步驟」的詮釋架構以及對兩個步驟的詮釋，並藉由Allison的批評，介紹另一種同樣在「一個證明兩個步驟」下且筆者認為更適當的詮釋方式。在第四章當中，筆者嘗試回答關於解釋統覺的諸問題，它們包括了統覺的含義、統覺與雜多表象的關係、統覺原理的邏輯地位、統覺原理在〈推證〉中起的作用等。在確立了以上諸觀點後，筆者在第四章和第五章當中，按照兩個步驟的架構提供一個對第二版〈推證〉的完整解釋。 / Abstract "On the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of Understanding" is widely agreed to be the most important chapter in the Critique of the Pure Reason. In this chapter Kant attempts to demonstrate that the pure concepts of understanding, namely, categories, which completely stem from understanding itself, can be applied to empirical objects and thereby define the boundary of cognition. This is critical to resolve the dispute in the metaphysics of his predecessors. However, Kant also claims that this chapter is the part, which costs him the greatest effort and which he entirely rewrites in the second edition of the Critique. There are so many controversial interpretations related to this chapter, which is yet only complied up to 50-60 pages. In this thesis I focus on Deduction in the second edition of the Critique and try to answer the following three questions about these controversies: 1. Whether the Deduction contains an anti-skeptical argument? 2. What are the tasks of the two parts respectively that can be distinguished in B-Deduction? 3. What is the role that transcendental apperception plays in the Deduction? After establishing these answers, I will contribute a detailed explanation of whole B-Deduction. In order to answer the questions, I compare the perspectives of three interpreters of Kant, namely, Paul Guyer, Dieter Henrich and Henry E. Allison. This article is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction, in which I introduce the problems that I hope to resolve and the structure of the thesis. In Chapter 2, I introduce Guyer's interpretation of Deduction, which is an anti-skeptical Model, and I will indicate that his interpretation doesn't conform to the Kant's text. In Chapter 3, I introduce Henrich's famous thesis about the structure of the B-Deduction, namely, the thesis of two-steps-in-one-proof, and his interpretation of the contents of the two steps.Then I introduce Allison's criticism against Henrich and his alternative interpretation of B-Deduction under the frame of two-steps-in-one-proof. I believe this interpretation is more consistent and more conformable to the text. In Chapter 4, I try to answer the questions about the interpretation of apperception, where the issues such as the meaning of apperception, the relation between apperception and manifold, the principle of apperception's logical status, the apperception's role in the Deduction etc. will be discussed. After establishing my perspectives about these interpretative problems, I will present a complete and detailed explanation of B-Deduction according to the two-step structure.