Partindo de uma análise histórica comparativa do tratamento da questão nuclear no Brasil, buscou-se compreender os condicionantes da estrutura normativa constitucional do tema atômico na atual Carta de 1988 para então lançar-se a uma análise crítica do atual quadro institucional, posto que é anterior à Constituição, mas que teria sido pela mesma recepcionado. Após esta análise crítica, tenta-se, no mesmo ambiente, reconstruir uma tessitura mínima para um ramo jurídico da energia nuclear, analisando, juntamente, a natureza das atividades do chamado ciclo nuclear. Enfim, cotejando todos estes dados, procura-se demonstrar que o atual marco legal é, ao menos, desatualizado e não atende a um projeto maior de desenvolvimento e controle das atividades nucleares no Brasil. Insta ainda salientar que, devido à própria natureza de uma tese de doutoramento, fez-se um recorte temático na questão nuclear, propositadamente não se aprofundando na temática referente à responsabilidade civil por dano nuclear, uma vez que já é tema tratado com bastante propriedade por variados escritos e autores. / From a historical comparative analysis of the nuclear issue treatment in Brazil, we sought to understand the constitutional constraints of the normative structure of atomic matter in the current Federal Constitution of 1988 and then embark on a critical analysis of the current institutional framework put - that is earlier the Constitution, but that would have been approved by it. Following this review, attempts to, in the same environment, rebuilding the fabric of a legal minimum for one class of nuclear energy, and examine, to-gether, the nature of the activities of so-called nuclear cycle. Finally, comparing all these data, we seek to demonstrate that the current legal framework is, at least, outdated and does not attend to a broader project of developing and controlling nuclear activities in Brazil. It must also be remembered that due to the nature of a doctorate, became a thematic focus on the nuclear issue, purposely not delving into themes related to civil liability for nuclear damage since it is already subject dealt with enough property for various writings and authors.

Partindo de uma análise histórica comparativa do tratamento da questão nuclear no Brasil, buscou-se compreender os condicionantes da estrutura normativa constitucional do tema atômico na atual Carta de 1988 para então lançar-se a uma análise crítica do atual quadro institucional, posto que é anterior à Constituição, mas que teria sido pela mesma recepcionado. Após esta análise crítica, tenta-se, no mesmo ambiente, reconstruir uma tessitura mínima para um ramo jurídico da energia nuclear, analisando, juntamente, a natureza das atividades do chamado ciclo nuclear. Enfim, cotejando todos estes dados, procura-se demonstrar que o atual marco legal é, ao menos, desatualizado e não atende a um projeto maior de desenvolvimento e controle das atividades nucleares no Brasil. Insta ainda salientar que, devido à própria natureza de uma tese de doutoramento, fez-se um recorte temático na questão nuclear, propositadamente não se aprofundando na temática referente à responsabilidade civil por dano nuclear, uma vez que já é tema tratado com bastante propriedade por variados escritos e autores. / From a historical comparative analysis of the nuclear issue treatment in Brazil, we sought to understand the constitutional constraints of the normative structure of atomic matter in the current Federal Constitution of 1988 and then embark on a critical analysis of the current institutional framework put - that is earlier the Constitution, but that would have been approved by it. Following this review, attempts to, in the same environment, rebuilding the fabric of a legal minimum for one class of nuclear energy, and examine, to-gether, the nature of the activities of so-called nuclear cycle. Finally, comparing all these data, we seek to demonstrate that the current legal framework is, at least, outdated and does not attend to a broader project of developing and controlling nuclear activities in Brazil. It must also be remembered that due to the nature of a doctorate, became a thematic focus on the nuclear issue, purposely not delving into themes related to civil liability for nuclear damage since it is already subject dealt with enough property for various writings and authors.

This thesis adopts a Wendtian constructivist perspective in order to explore how Iran defined its interests in the context of the nuclear issue during the Ahmadinejad presidency. Against realist-type approaches which often attributed a nuclear weapons rationale to Iran and framed its programme as a threat to international security, it argues that Iran’s nuclear policy must be interpreted within the context of its identity and the latter’s causal and constitutive effects on its interests and behaviours. The Wendtian perspective, together with a mixed methods approach combining document analysis and interviews, sheds light on how Iran understood its interests and why the regime perceived opportunities/threats and permissible/unacceptable options in the way it did. This thesis demonstrates that Iran’s nuclear programme was interpreted within a structure of meaning that emphasised its legality and legitimacy. Additionally, it shows that the Ahmadinejad administration’s resistance strategies cannot be understood outside the context of the perceived humiliating failure of the Khatami administration’s confidence-building approach. Not only had Iran’s reputation and independence been jeopardised, but its failure to secure recognition of its nuclear rights also confirmed that the issue was a Western-led manufactured crisis that aimed to undermine the IRI, prevent the development of the Iranian nation and transform the IAEA’s mandate. Iran thus engaged in strategies of self-assertion to challenge the perceived illegal and illegitimate policies of its negotiation partners, the UNSC and the IAEA. Furthermore, this thesis contends that the Ahmadinejad administration sought to transform the diplomatic focus on its nuclear programme into multifaceted geopolitical opportunities. On the one hand, Iran attempted to situate the issue within the wider context of global debates around access to peaceful nuclear energy and the sustainability of the non-proliferation regime. Its denunciations of the Western NWSs’ discriminatory practices echoed with other states’ concerns. On the other hand, Iran’s proposals to the EU-3/P5+1 included repeated offers of cooperation on a range of dilemmas of common interests and aversion. As such, Iran pursued dual-track strategies towards its main nuclear opponents, combining enforcement costs with inducements. Finally, the belief that the US lay at the core of the nuclear issue prompted important debates and developments within Iran about the question of their bilateral relations. While these challenged conventional wisdoms about the principlists’ preferences, Iran’s discursive and ever-increasing strategic dependence on the US continued to explain its Janus-faced strategies towards the superpower.

This thesis assesses the role of Turkey in the diplomatic process towards resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue within the context of its improving bilateral relations with Iran and analyzes the motives behind increasing Turkish involvement in this issue. Firstly, this thesis will present a historical overview of Iran

本文題為俄羅斯與中國對伊朗核問題立場之比較研究。本文藉由「外交決策」理論，以及「政治系統論」和「層次分析法」，研究從俄羅斯的外交決策模式、國內外因素，探究俄羅斯對伊朗核問題之立場，以及，從中國的外交決策模式、國內外因素，探究中國對伊朗核問題之立場。最後，再比較俄羅斯與中國的外交決策模式、國內外因素，以及兩國的政策產出－伊朗核問題之立場，進行比較分析俄中對伊朗核問題立場和政策的異同之處為本文之研究目的。 在國際處理伊朗核問題的進程中，俄羅斯、中國對於伊朗核問題的立場可謂大致相同，他們皆主張「以外交手段進行和平談判」的立場。然而，不同的是俄中在決策過程中的背後動機與各自盤算的國家利益。俄羅斯採取「平衡政策」(balancing policy)，以伊朗為談判籌碼，換取美國釋出更多利多；而中國則是採取「拖延與削弱策略」(delay-and-weaken strategy)，以維護在伊朗的各項利益。 / This paper is a comparative study about the positon of Russia and China on the Iranian nuclear issue. We use the approach of “foreign policy decision making”, “political system theory” and “analytic hierarchy process” to study the formation of Russian and China’s foreign policy decision making, the factors that affect the policy decision making process, the stand of Russia and China toward the Iran’s nuclear issue, and finally, we compare the defference of those two countries. On the issue of Iran’s nuclear, Russia and China take approximately the same attitude.Both of them advocate that every one should take peace negotiations instead of sanctions. The differences between Russian and China’s foreign policy decision making is that Russia trys to use the balancing policy, and takes advantage of Iran’s nuclear issue, making the U.S. to release more benefits for Russia,while China takes the delay-and-weaken strategy, making effort to protect their benefits in Iran.

自從習近平在「莊園會晤」時向歐巴馬提出，中美共同建立新型大國關係，中共在亞太地區已經是掩蓋不住大國崛起的態勢。此時的平壤早已察覺到大國的壓力，面對中美關係日趨緊密，北韓為維持政權延續以及從中獲取利益，盡其所能提高在中美大國競爭時的籌碼，尤其是在東北亞各國政權更替時，施展戰略邊緣政策。 美國藉由北韓核試爆議題，成功部署軍事規劃、高舉國際輿論的大旗，迫使中共不得不對北韓施以必要措施。對於北韓不斷的舉行核試爆與導彈試射，中共在維護其重要國家利益與面對美國再平衡戰略的考量下，轉而借力使力，運用北韓核議題的持續發酵，得以延長應對美國及國際壓力。 因此，整個東北亞的關係結構，就是有關各國在中共與美國之間，取得對自己最大利益的位置。 / Xi Jinping proposed to Obama in the "Ennenberg Estate” summit in California during June 2013, Beijing has aftermath tried every effort to establish a “New Type of Great Power Relations” with Washington. China rise has been an obvious trend in the Asia-Pacific region. In this critical moment, Pyongyang has been aware of the pressure of big powers, in the face of China and the United States increasingly conciliatory relationship. In order to stabilize the North Korean regime and continue to take advantage of power politics in this area, North Korea tries to facilitate its bargaining gravity within the Sino-American interaction when they seek to use Pyongyang to counterbalance against each other. Particularly North Korea tends to exert its caliber of brinkmanship policy while it notices that the East Asian area is in the process of regime reshuffles. . Against the backdrop of North Korea's threat of continuing nuclear tests, Washington successfully accomplished military deployment and dominate direction of world public opinion in forcing China to impose the necessary measures on North Korea. For North Korea's ongoing nuclear test and missile test, China intends to manipulate its advantage based on its national interest. In the meantime, China implements this policy to counterweight the US “Rebalancing” strategy. Beijing goes to use the issue of North Korean nuclear development to further exert its strategy in responding to the pressures from both the United States and international community. Therefore, the international structure in the Northeast Asia, therefore, is that the concerning countries are seeking for their maximize advantage in the Sino-U.S. strategic engagement.