本文以葉爾欽時期的派系政治為分析中心，認為派系是延續了過去的政治菁英文化傳統，不但在新的俄羅斯民主制度下繼續存活下來，還進一步成為主導整個俄羅斯發展的重要行動者。本文的研究發現主要有三方面：第一項發現是派系政治是分析葉爾欽時期政治的一個具有解釋力的模式。第二項發現是建構一個分析葉爾欽派系互動規則與架構，在此架構中建立一個評估派系政治穩定程度的指標，運用這個指標來分析俄羅斯派系政治的發展與演進。第三項發現是派系政治的穩定程度與俄羅斯的政經發展具有密切的關係存在，亦即俄羅斯的派系互動愈不穩定，俄羅斯的政治也隨之愈不穩定、人事互動愈頻繁，政策產出更加不確定，尤其是經濟政策隨著派系勢力的上上下下而來回擺盪變動。

ABSTRACT UNEASY COEXISTENCE: &ldquo / ISLAMISM VS. REPUBLICANISM&rdquo / DEBATE IN THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN Arikan, Pinar M. Sc., Department of International Relations Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Meliha AltuniSik December 2006, 170 pages The objective of this thesis is to analyze the Islamist and republican features of the political regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It aims to identify the relationship between Islamism and republicanism in terms of institutional and practical means throughout the period since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. It seeks an answer to the question of how the Islamist and republican orientations that built up the political regime and the system of governance in the Islamic Republic of Iran have affected the domestic political and ideological developments. For this aim, firstly, the history of ulama-state relations as well as the history of constitutional tradition in Iran is discussed. Then, the impact of Islamism and republicanism in the process of establishment of the new regime in Iran is examined. Afterwards, the emergence of Islamism and republicanism as indigenous ideological currents and the political groups that appealed to these two orientations are analyzed with special emphasis to the role of Khomeini in this process. In the remaining part, the institutional and practical implications of the coexistence of Islamist and republican orientations are scrutinized during the presidencies of Rafsanjani and Khatami respectively. Finally, this thesis is concluded with an overall assessment of Islamism vs. republicanism debate with reference to the 2005 presidential elections.

This thesis examines the nature of mass factionalism and rebellious alignment during the Chinese Cultural Revolution from 1966 to 1968. This period in Chinese history presents an internecine mass conflict that boasts the largest political upheavals of the 20th century. The most puzzling question of the explosion of this intense rebellious rivalry lies in the mechanisms and processes of insurgents’ political choices: Why did people join and affiliate with different insurgent groups? What decision did people make and what were their reasons? In conventional social structural analyses of contentious politics, mass actors’ decisions are affected by functionally differentiated interests inherent in their pre-existing social positions. This model defines mass rebellion and factional alignment as a form of interest group politics, attributing political choices to participants’ pre-existing sociopolitical status quo and thus pits different social groups against one another. As a result, similar occupational and status groups in the previous hierarchical structure would make similar political choices that lead them to form well-defined competing factions. In contrast to this static structural interpretation, I propose a contextual process model to analyze processes of political division and factional contention within political movements. With a case study of Guangzhou, I argue that rebellious alignment was rooted in their political interactions in a rapidly evolving phase of the conflict, rather than rising from the tensions that existed between different socio-economic layers of society. During the times of radical instability such as the Chinese Cultural Revolution, political ambiguity and contingency were the defining characteristics. In such unstable political environment, the basic elements of the movement changed so many times: each phase of the rebel movement projected itself by means of different actors, agendas, targets, and so on. Consequently, individual rebels observed their embedded local political environment, interpreted it, and subsequently chose a course of action in a dynamic process. In this regard, mass actors from identical social strata in the previous hierarchical structure would make different political choices and tactically choose their factional camp.

Ziel der Dissertation ist es, eine umfassende Analyse der kambodschanisch-thailändischen diplomatischen Beziehungen von 1950 bis 2014 zu liefern. Die Arbeit geht über einen rein historischen Bericht hinaus, da sie darauf abzielt, die Wechselhaftigkeit der kambodschanisch-thailändischen Beziehungen zu erklären. Als Grundlage dient hierzu ein Ansatz sozialen Konflikts, der Staaten nicht als homogene Akteure ansieht, sondern vielmehr als eine Konfiguration konfligierender Kräfte, die ihre außenpolitischen Ziele im Einklang mit ihrer eigenen Ideologie, ihren Interessen und ihren Strategien verfolgen. Daher postuliert die Arbeit, dass die kambodschanisch-thailändischen Beziehungen nicht als Produkt einheitlicher Staaten angesehen werden sollten, die entweder miteinander kooperieren oder sich voneinander abschotten, sondern als Matrix sich überlappender Beziehungen zwischen gesellschaftlichen und politischen Gruppen beider Staaten, die konkurrierende Ideologien und/oder Interessen zur Förderung ihrer innenpolitischen Machtposition beherbergen. Das Projekt bringt zwei mit einer verknüpfte Argumente hervor. Erstens, kambodschanisch-thailändische Beziehungen sind wahrscheinlich dann kooperativ angelegt, wenn es sich bei beiden Machthabern um zivil-demokratisch gewählte Regierungen mit ähnlichen Ideologien, ökonomischen Interessen und Sicherheitsbedenken handelt. Umgekehrt verschlechtern sich die Beziehungen, wenn diese Faktoren nicht reziprok sind. Dies ist besonders dann der Fall, wenn eine der beiden Regierungen mehr mit der Opposition der anderen gemein hat. Zweitens, auch wenn antagonistische Nationalismen auf beiden Seiten bestehen, handelt es sich keinesfalls um eine Determinante, die die Außenpolitik beider Seiten festlegt. Die Arbeit argumentiert, dass Nationalismen nur dann aufgerufen werden, wenn zumindest eine der beiden Regierungen ihre Legitimität in der Heimat stärken muss und die andere Regierung nicht dieselbe Ideologie und strategischen Interessen teilt. / This dissertation aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of Cambodia-Thailand diplomatic relations over the past six decades, specifically from 1950 to 2014. In addition to empirical discussion, it seeks to explain why Cambodian-Thai relationships have fluctuated and what primary factors caused the shifts during the period discussed. In doing so, it employs the “social conflict” analysis, which views states not as unitary actors, but within which is comprised of different societal forces competing with one another and pursues foreign policies in accordance with their own ideology, interest, and strategy. As such, it is postulated that Cambodia-Thailand diplomatic relations should not be seen simply as relations between two unitary states cooperating with or securitizing against one another, but rather as a matrix of intertwining relationships between various social and political groups in both states harboring competing ideologies and/or interests to advance their power positions at home. Two inter-related arguments are therefore put forward in this research. Firstly, Cambodian-Thai relations are likely to be cooperative when both governments in power are civilian-democratically elected regimes and share similar ideologies, mutual economic interests, as well as security outlooks. Conversely, relations between them tend to deteriorate when these factors are not reciprocal. This is particularly true when one government has more in common with the dissidents of the government of the other side. Secondly, though antagonistic nationalism does exist between Cambodia and Thailand, it is not a determinant of the two nations’ foreign relations. This research argues that nationalism and historical animosity are invoked only if at least the government on one side needs to bolster its own legitimacy at home, and the government on the other side does not share a similar ideology or strategic interests with its own – the second aspect being the more important factor here.