中共對外使用武力是一個很複雜、龐大的研究議題。自中共建政以來，不僅和意識形態對立的美國發生嚴重的軍事衝突，亦和同屬社會主義陣營的蘇聯、越南爆發軍事衝突；除了涉及統一問題而爆發多次台海危機外，亦與第三世界大國印度爆發大規模邊境衝突。早期的研究通常從冷戰的角度出發，帶有明顯的工具性質，但囿於資料保密，使得研究成果難以突破，臆測性大於實證性，此窘境直至冷戰結束後始有轉變。 有利於學術研究氛圍的主要因素有四點：一是前蘇聯、美國檔案的解密、部分中共檔案的開放、及少數智庫提供部分解密檔案，使得研究者可以取得重要的一手資料；二是關鍵人物之訪談與回憶錄的出版，可以補充檔案文獻的不足；三是中國崛起與中國威脅論成為國際關注焦點後，連帶地使得軍事議題浮上檯面，西方學界主要從權力結構及歷史的角度關注中國權力增長的意義，透過中共使用武力的分析，藉以預測未來是否出現權力轉移與中國在軍事上的應對方式；四是1995-96年台海危機的爆發，以及近期中共與越南、菲律賓及日本，因南海島礁與釣魚臺主權爭議問題而引發的衝突，使得有關中共對外使用武力的研究再度引起學界的關注。 目前有關中共使用武力的研究範疇相當廣泛，少數研究採取多重案例研究，嘗試歸納出中共對外使用武力的模式、步驟、原則或特徵；多數的研究則針對單一案例研究，並聚焦於分析中共發動戰爭的原因。此外，學界開始從歷史文獻分析轉而採取理論分析與建構。凡此種種，皆提供了一個重新詮釋中共對外使用武力的視野。然而，現有的研究成果雖然相當豐碩，卻無法建立一個一般性的分析框架或理論性模式，並且忽略中共對外使用武力的預防性動機與其政策選擇之間的動態關係，因此無法完整地解釋中共對外使用武力行為。 本文的研究目的並不是建立一個宏大的普遍理論，而是在一定的時空範疇內針對某一類現象建立一個合理、具有經驗性與理論性意涵的模式。換言之，即是借鑒相關國際關係、心理學及經濟學等相關理論的核心概念，並透過將中共對外使用武力的原因概念化過程，以預防性動機為主軸，提出一個「中共對外使用武力之動態衝突抉擇模式」，以解釋：中共較容易與何者發生軍事衝突、領導人在戰爭（衝突）前的認知、為何會使用武力、以及使用武力的決策選擇如何確立？並透過六個正例（1950年韓戰、1953-54年第一次台海危機、1962年中印邊境衝突、1969年珍寶島衝突、1979年懲越戰爭、1995-96年第三次台海危機）及一個反例（1999年「特殊國與國關係」）的多重案例檢驗，以回答上述的問題。 本文的研究發現： 一、中共的確比較容易與實力或意圖上具有潛在挑戰其周邊權力地位的國家發生軍事衝突。 二、中共領導人在戰爭（衝突）前，的確有產生錯誤認知。 三、中共是出於防止周邊權力地位衰退的預防性動機而對外使用武力。 四、中共對外使用武力中，領導人對周邊權力地位衰退的程度與衰退的必然性之認知強弱，會影響其決策選擇。

環境影響評估法公民訴訟條款的解釋與操作在我國訴訟實務中已發展十餘年，文獻上亦多有討論。但是在觀察過我國環評案件的公民訴訟判決，尤其是近幾年頗受矚目的美麗灣度假村案，就可知道縱使環保團體與周圍居民以公民訴訟取得勝訴判決，後續仍不斷產生撤銷訴訟的現象，代表開發案件之核心爭議並未被終局解決。另外，經由比較美國公民訴訟的起源與發展，就會發現我國公民訴訟制定在環評法中是一項有問題的立法。在美國制度原型中公民訴訟條款並非搭配環評制度運作，而我國將兩者結合，似乎並未釐清其中制度目的的差異。 本文欲從環評法的原理原則，也就是以風險管理與預防原則為基礎，說明環評法在環境法規中之角色與作用。並透過介紹美國、德國與中國的環評制度與相關訴訟制度，如美國的公民訴訟、德國的團體訴訟與中國的公益訴訟，進而釐清公民訴訟真正的制度目的，與探討監督環評制度的正確模式。最後再回到我國法，分析環評法與公民訴訟條款與整理訴訟實務案件，了解我國目前環評法公民訴訟條款的操作現況，並提出批評與檢討。 就結論而言，本文認為環評制度做為風險管理中之風險評估與預防原則之體現，不應以公民訴訟為司法監督管道。公民訴訟僅應用在監督風險管理決定之開發案件，規避環評與環評審查有瑕疵之案件都應遵循傳統行政訴訟，對開發許可提出撤銷訴訟，以達成紛爭一次解決並減少人民訟累。 / Citizen suit in Environmental Impact Assessment Act (hereinafter EIAA) in Taiwan has been developed and discussed over ten years. By the analysis of the relative cases, several issues in our citizen suit legislation would be discovered. Especially in the case of Beautiful Bay Resort, which was once the focus of public attention , the problem of the citizen suit in EIAA was been highlighted that the main issue wasn’t been solved, even though the environmental group won this citizen suit. Another problem is that compare to american legislation, the combination of EIAA and citizen suit clause is inappropriate because these two systems are established on different legal theories. In the thesis, the basic theories of the EIAA, that is, the risk management system and precautionary principle, would be illustrated at first. Then the american, german and chinese relative legal systems would be introduced in the second session in order to clarify the real purpose of the citizen suit and environmental impact assessment. In the third session, the citizen suit clause and the cases in EIAA in Taiwan would be explained. In conclusion, the opinion in this thesis is that the citizen suit could only be applied to the case in which the risk management decision has been made. Otherwise people should institute the revocation of administrative action to avoid the litigation diseconomy.

保險詐欺是自有保險制度以來就有的問題，世界各國都被這個問題所困擾。因為沒有受到廣泛的宣傳及討論，加上執法機關的忽視、抗拒提供調查機能及加強追訴，所以在1980年代以前沒有被當作重大問題予以重視，一般民眾完全不知它的嚴重性，把它當作「沒有被害人的犯罪（victimless crime）」。然而保險詐欺隨時都在發生，而且範圍及程度日益擴大，已堪稱為「溫和的巨災（quiet catastrophe）」，不但影響個人經濟負擔，且破壞社會安定，因此本文就如何防制保險詐欺加以探討。 保險詐欺直接衝擊的是保險公司的經營穩定性與安全性，對保險公司而言是經營上的風險，因此從風險管理的角度，分析保險公司的實務運作，探討運用各種風險管理對策防制保險詐欺的可行性。經本文研究發覺以風險管理模式可以防制保險詐欺或減輕保險詐欺的損失，各種風險管理對策運用如下： （一） 風險自承原則：對規模小、影響層面小的保險詐欺案件，列為「堪忍的詐欺」，予以承受，以節省相關的查證經費。 （二） 風險規避原則：建立「防範保險詐欺查核表」，在進行核保、理賠作業時嚴格查核，積極避開保險詐欺風險。 （三） 風險分散原則：針對損失頻率低、損失幅度大的案件採取同業共保的方式；對損失頻率高、損失幅度小的案件採取約定自負額方式承保，以分散風險。 （四） 風險轉嫁原則：約集保險同業成立相互保險組織，把保險詐欺所帶來的風險移轉給相互保險組織。 保險詐欺基本上是犯罪行為，要消弭犯罪行為可以藉由對犯罪環境加以有效管理、設計或操作，以及降低犯罪機會達到目的。本文研究發現推動「詐欺管理生命週期理論」的嚇阻、預防、察覺、緩和、分析、政策、偵查、追溯等措施，及「情境犯罪預防理論」的增加犯罪困難度、提升犯罪風險、降低犯罪報酬、削弱犯罪動機等措施，喚起全民共同防制保險詐欺的意念，可以壓制保險詐欺之發生。 嚴謹的法令規範是防制犯罪的根本，經由本文的探討發覺保險詐欺的盛行，除了民眾法治觀念差以外，現行法令不周全，讓歹徒有機可乘及執法單位強制力不足，亦是原因之一。修訂保險法及刑法，對於防制保險詐欺有很大的效益。 / “Insurance Fraud” has been an issue, by which the countries all over the world are perplexed, since there exists the system of insurance. By 1980’s, not much attention has been paid to this issue which deemed a victimless crime and the public does not realize how serious the problem is due to the lake of broad propaganda and the ignorance, being rejected to offer the function, and being refused to strengthen prosecution by the law enforcement agency. Nevertheless, insurance fraud happens all the time and has already been called the “quiet catastrophe” because the range and severity caused keep expanding day by day. Resulting from, not only the financial burden of the individual is influenced, but the social stability is destroyed as well. Therefore, this paper probed into “how to prevent Insurance Fraud”. Since Insurance Fraud would strike the financial stability and security of an insurance company, it becomes kind of risk on company’s management. This paper would be analyzing the practical operation of an insurance company and trying to find out the feasibility of Insurance Fraud Prevention by using various kinds of risk management countermeasures. By which, this paper discovers the losses caused by insurance fraud could be prevented and/ or reduced. The followings are those risk management countermeasures studied and applied: A. The principle of “Risk Retention & Reduction”: Sorting out those cases by loss amount scale. Smaller ones are classified & named as “Admitted Fraud”, and settled without verification in order to save the related expenses for investigation. B. The principle of “Risk Avoidance or Hedging”: Setting up “Checking List of Insurance Fraud”, by using which to actively avoid the risk of insurance fraud while carrying on the operations of underwriting and claim handling. C. The principle of “Risk Sharing & Diversification”: Co-insuring with peer companies for those accounts with the characteristic of low frequency & high severity in terms of loss exposure. As to other accounts, appointing an appropriate policy deductible level to disperse the risk of Insurance Fraud. D. The principle of “Risk Transference or Shift”: Establishing the pooling system or organization to transfer the risk of Insurance Fraud to the peer companies. Basically, Insurance Fraud is a criminal offence, which could be eliminated and / or reduced by way of methods of management, design, and operation on the crime environment. It is found that the occurrence of Insurance Fraud could be depressed by: A. Promoting measures of “The Fraud Management Lifecycle Theory”, such as deterrence, prevention, detection, mitigation, analysis, policy, investigation, prosecution etc., and B. Executing the countermeasures of “The Situational Crime Prevention Theory” such as increasing perceived efforts, increasing perceived risks, reducing anticipated reward, removing excuses etc., and C. Arousing the public the thought of fighting Insurance Fraud mutually. A rigorous legal system is the base of preventing criminal offence. As discovered and presented by this paper, reasons why the Insurance Fraud has been prevailing are not only because of a poor sense of legal compliance of the public, but also the un-thoroughness of the current legal system resulting in offering ruffians opportunities to take advantages from Insurance Fraud and the in-sufficient power of prosecution of the law enforcement agency. Therefore, to revise the insurance law and criminal law would be greatly workable for preventing Insurance Fruad.

毒品法庭自美國發展而逐漸影響世界各地，甚至成為台灣修法倡議，是晚近刑事政策的重要議題。為深入了解毒品法庭，除介紹制度的發展概況與具體內涵外，尚將進一步考掘歷史成因及改革困境，並從制度構造及程序法理的二方面剖析其所引發的爭議。最後，將問題帶回台灣，在透過實證數據理解實務現況的基礎上，將改革情勢與制度問題脈絡化進行比較研究，試圖從刑事政策的觀點提出評價性建議，以作為台灣毒品施用者處遇的策進方向。 毒品法庭於其權限範圍內，避免對於毒品施用者施加刑罰，而改採治療的態度與方法，促使其參與以治療為主、多元且細緻的處遇。在此同時，也視其表現給予懲罰或獎勵，進行嚴密監督以強化治療義務的要求，加深毒品施用者兼具病人與犯人身分的矛盾。另一方面，程序轉為合作、案主導向、問題解決，則與以往對抗、案件導向、真實發現有別。藉此反思台灣毒品施用者處遇，重要的毋寧是檢討制度的各種爭議，以及其背後所顯示的刑事政策的價值選擇。 / Drug Courts that have risen from development in the United States have had a gradual influence on the rest of the world, and have even been amended into Taiwanese law. This has been an important issue in recent discussions of criminal policy. In order to understand Drug Courts in detail, this article first introduces the background and the contents of the system, and then explores historical causes and reform dilemmas. It then analyzes the issue from the perspective of institutional structure and procedural legal principles. To then focus the issue back on Taiwan, on the basis of understanding the current state of practice through empirical data, a comparative study of the context of reform and institutional issues is conducted. Finally, this article will attempt to put forward a proposal for an evaluation from the perspective of criminal policy as a strategy for dealing with drug addicts in Taiwan. Within its jurisdiction, the Drug Court will avoid applying penalties to drug users, and instead adopt attitudes and methods that focus on meticulous and multi-faceted methods that promote participation in treatment. At the same time, they also punish or reward based on performance, carry out strict supervision aimed at strengthening requirements and treatment obligations, and deepen the contradiction between the identity of patients and prisoners among drug users. On the other hand, the transition of procedures to collaboration, case-director orientation, and problem solving is different from confrontation, case-orientation, and truth discovery. In this regard, it is important to reflect on the problems with the system and the choice of values of the criminal policy seen behind them.