This thesis examines the main domestic security issues of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and the impact of their securitization processes on the domestic and regional security policies of these countries in the post-Soviet era. Two outstanding issues that have been securitized in these countries, separatism and ethnic conflict for Kazakhstan and radical Islam for Uzbekistan, are scrutinized in detail with a comparative analysis. This thesis argues that Kazakh and Uzbek leaders, Nursultan Nazarbayev and Islam Karimov, as the main securitizing actors in their countries have securitized the above-mentioned issues for certain political objectives in the chaotic order of the post-Cold War era. However, these securitization processes for both of these countries have become an obstacle to find permanent solutions to their domestic security problems and develop more effective security policies at the regional level. Kazakh and Uzbek leaders should renounce manipulating these problems and produce more comprehensive policies by paying equal attention to all other problems of their countries. In addition, Astana and Tashkent should try to ensure regional security rather than overemphasizing domestic one(s) if the aim is to benefit from an effective regional integration on Central Asian security. Contrary to the most of existing studies on the subject, the thesis argues that Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are accepted as the active players that could contribute to the solution of their own security problems to a great extent, rather than being passive subjects of the &ldquo / New Great Game&rdquo / played among major actors.

俄羅斯與西方在南奧塞梯及科索沃宣布獨立問題上採取截然不同的立場，科索沃宣布獨立後，俄羅斯表示堅決反對科宣布獨立，此舉破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，國際社會不應奉行雙重標準，也不能出於政治考慮有選擇地利用國際法。 俄羅斯在協助南奧塞梯的獨立運動支持喬治亞分離主義的同時，卻強硬鎮壓其境內的車臣與印古什獨立運動，前者可以幫助俄羅斯擴大在前蘇聯境內的影響力，後者可以確保俄羅斯境內不會產生分離主義的骨牌效應，支持前者、鎮壓後者都確保俄國在歐亞政治板塊中的地緣政治優勢。 俄羅斯在對南奧塞梯及科索沃獨立態度上，可就下列面向比較討論：(1)當南宣布獨立時，俄國立即宣布承認，並認為其有權決定自己命運；當科宣布獨立時，俄則認為其獨立破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，負面影響如車臣(2)國際法方面：對南的態度是根據局勢發展做出的決定符合有關國際文件；對科則要求安理會遵守1244號決議，並認定其單方面宣布獨立無效(3)考量因素：對南則是捍衛在喬治亞戰略、政治利益、經濟與生態維護利益；對科則是俄與塞同為斯拉夫民族，科在沙皇時期為俄傳統勢力範圍，另以經濟角度來看，巴爾幹是俄對歐出口能源通道。 南奧塞梯和阿布哈玆問題反應國家主權與民族自決權的獨立。維護國家主權和領土完整是國際關係的一個普遍原則，然而現在美國歐盟與俄羅斯卻都出現雙重標準，在科索沃獨立問題上，西方國家強調民族自決權，俄羅斯則譴責美歐破壞塞爾維亞主權將帶來嚴重後果。而在俄喬衝突中，俄羅斯支持南、阿獨立。在此兩事件中，在國家主權及民族自決權雙重標準下，造成國際關係的動盪。在科索沃和南奧塞梯的問題上，美國、俄羅斯和歐盟正是依民族自決權原則為依據，先塞爾維亞後喬治亞，通過對別國的干涉而維護自己的利益。 / Russia and the West take different positions on the issue in declaration of independence on South Ossetia and Kosovo. After Kosovo's declaration of independence, Russia is firmly opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence, and this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law. The international community should not take double standard, and use international law selective out of political considerations. Russia helped to support Georgia secessionist movement and South Ossetia's independence, but it had tough crackdown in Chechnya and Ingushetia independence movement. The former can help Russia to expand the territory of the former Soviet Union's influence, which can ensure that Russia will not produce a domino effect separatism. This will ensure that the Russian preserve geopolitical advantage in the Eurasian areas. Russia's attitude towards the independence of South Ossetia and Kosovo, we can compare in the following aspects: (1) When the South Ossetia declared independence, Russia announced to recognize immediately, while Kosovo declared independence this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law such as Chechnya (2) in the international law: Russia made a decision according with the situation toward South Ossetia; and Russia required to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1244, and concluded its unilateral declaration of independence is invalid (3) consideration factors: to protect the political, economic and ecological interests of the South Ossetia, while in Kosovo, with the economic perspective, the Balkan is a Russian exports to the EU energy channels. South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues react the national sovereignty and national self-determination of independence. Maintaining national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a general principle of international relations, however, the EU, Russia, and the United States had double standards on the issue of Kosovo's independence. In Western countries they stressed national self-determination, but Russia condemned the United States and Europe undermine the sovereignty of Serbia and it will bring serious consequences. Russia supported the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in this incident. With the double standard in national sovereignty and national self-determination, it will cause turbulence in international relations. On the issue of Kosovo and South Ossetia, the United States, Russia and the EU are on the base of according to the principle of national self-determination, to protect their own interests by the interference of other countries.