Since the opening of economic reform in 1978, mainland China's national power as a whole has been greatly enhanced with more than two decades of economic development. Under the impact of such events as the First Persian Gulf War, the Kosovo War, global anti-terrorist attacks following the 9/11/01 Attacks on America, and the Second Persian Gulf War, mainland China has thus reconstructed its viewpoint of international as well as regional security. This thesis aims to inspect, from the perspective of international regime, China's policy towards UN peacekeeping operations and apply the rationale of Neo-liberal Institutionalism ( which is based on international regime theory ) to explaining and analyzing the evolution of China's peacekeeping policy. China's policy has made a drastic impact on current international relations, involving peace and stability not just of Asian-Pacific but of cross-Strait relations. Due to the two-handed strategy adopted in dealing with ongoing cross-Strait issues, China has always shown reluctance to renounce the use of military force on Taiwan up to the present. As a result, cross-Strait security is now being threatened from enormous military stress. Hopefully, both sides of the Taiwan Strait can resolve existing political conflicts by taking peaceful means. However, in the face of such threats from China's abrupt rise as well as having its veto exercised by force in the UN Security Council and then proceeding to play a zero-sum game in which pure competitions in foreign affairs are doomed to become intensified, I'm deeply convinced that, through peacekeeping operations as well as coordination and cooperation between regional/international organizations ( as they are probed into in the thesis ), possible cross-Strait conflicts can be reduced to a great extent.

This thesis engages peace studies in a liberalist approach in International Relations. The three main schools of liberalism have their shortage. Democratic peace theory suggests the correlation between democracy and peace, but cannot proof there be a necessary causality between them. Neo-liberal institutionalism claims that international institutions help to assure peace. However, institutions cannot be fair to every country. Interdependent theory claims that closer interdependence could bring peace. Nevertheless, the more interdependent countries are, the more conflicts there are. This thesis applies spontaneous order theory in international peace studies , which stresses the importance of freedom and law-making for keeping the best and free status of human being.

none

This thesis attempts to provide a critical perspective on international efforts to prevent the financing of terrorism. The thesis argues that the fight against the financing of terrorism is a vital component of counter terrorism strategies and underlines the significance of international organizations in combating terrorist financing. The thesis examines the fund raising and movement activities of terrorist groups. Moreover, it analyzes the efforts of international organizations to combat terrorist financing and discusses the adequacy of these efforts. By arguing that international community&rsquo / s efforts are not adequate, the thesis makes some recommendations. Finally, the thesis tests to what extent neo-liberal institutionalist approach, which mainly concentrates on cooperation and regime formation regarding the global problems faced by the states, can explain the international fight against the financing of terrorism.

南中國海內有零星島群，其中以南沙群島為最，乃是世上最多國家涉及主權爭端的海域，其背後有當年殖民主義所遺留下來的歷史因素、現代海洋法公約所造成的曖昧不清的劃界以及主權權利劃分的問題，以及海洋資源的爭奪與政治上戰略地位的考量。上述因素相互關連並交織成南沙群島的主權爭議，中華民國、中華人民共和國、越南、菲律賓、馬來西亞與汶萊六方各執一詞，從法理、歷史甚至是國土安全等論點來宣示主權，不過各爭端國在論點上各有利弊，所以南沙群島的主權劃歸至今仍無解。但是即便各方在主權議題上互不相讓，然而就南沙群島主權爭議而言，這些理性的行為者在幾番考量下仍願意共同合作。就目前的情況來看，先行暫時擱置主權，再進行共同開發似乎是唯一可行的方法，特別是合作的目標物為海上石油與油氣資源，因為能源資源乃是具有高度價值的不可再生性資源，而據相關單位估計，目前全球已開發的石油資源即將面臨耗竭狀態，因此潛在的石油存量才更加吸引各國的目光。 / 依照各方的合作意願與態度，本論文將以新自由制度主義中理性選擇下的合作精神與建制概念分析南海共同開發的可適用性與限制性。先論述共同開發的意涵，再闡述新自由制度主義與共同開發的關連性。接者為了配合南海的共同開發，筆者先介紹學者針對南海合作的觀點，再針對一九九零年馬來西亞與泰國暹邏灣大陸架資源共同開發案、二零零二年中國與越南北部灣劃界與漁業協定、二零零五年中、菲、越三國南海聯合海洋地震工作協議與二零零八年中國與菲律賓所發表的有關共同捕魚區的合作建議等四項案例作分析，從實際合作中探討未來針對南沙群島水域的共同開發可行性，並從新自由制度主義探討合作的展望與限制。 / Of all the islands in the South China sea, the island groups of the Spratlys is one of the most keenly disputed territories in Southeast Asia, where overlapping claims for sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction are hotly debated. There are a lot of reasons giving rise to the debate. First some scholars view the problem over the Spratlys as part of the historical legacies left behind by the former Western colonial powers. Second, other scholars place greater emphasis on ambiguous legal aspects of territorial jurisdiction. Third still other scholars emphasize political and geo-strategic considerations to explain the complex situation. Lastly nowadays a lot of studies focus on the possibilities of the discovery of major gas and oil field. Those perspectives above can explain why there is no concrete agreement among the six parties including the Republic of China, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. Although the issue of sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction is too complicate to deal with now, those rational actors still may cooperate and jointly explore and exploit. At present the only possible way to joint development is to first put sovereignty aside and then collaborate. / In this thesis, the objective is to analyze the feasibility and limitation of joint development from Neo-liberal Institutionalism which is mainly about cooperation and regime. First I explain what joint development is and then analyze the linkage between Neo-liberal Institutionalism and joint development. And the next part focuses on the Spratly islands and I analyze four cases including the agreement between Malaysia and Thailand on the constitution and other matters relating to the establishment of the joint authority, the agreement between China and Vietnam on Beibu gulf, the joint authority agreement on joint seismic survey of the South China Sea among the oil companies of China, Vietnam and the Philippines, and the recommendation of common fishing zone. I analyze and predict whether the joint development is feasible in the future through the analysis of practical cooperation.

冷戰結束後的第一個十年，國際關係當中的最主要特徵就是族群衝突的出現，不過卻顯然缺乏適當的理論可以解釋此一現象，更遑論其解決。雖然族群衝突並非嶄新現象，但是其發生頻率在整個90年代當中卻是最高，也因此衝擊到整個國際安全議程的設定，國際安全機構甚至主動介入其中，為族群衝突的解決找到了可能的方案。傳統國際關係當中的主流理論並無法適當地解釋這一現象，其他研究者所嘗試建構的族群衝突理論也多半將重心集中在分析衝突的起源，對於族群衝突的解決同樣無法提供有力的解釋。 有關族群衝突的起因或過程，已經存在許多的解釋，但是對於族群衝突解決的研究卻缺乏系統性的研究。本文主張，國際安全機構乃是可以用來解決族群衝突的一項良好的制度性工具。原因一方面在於國際安全機構本身就是國際社會成員為追求共同利益、降低交易成本所建構出來的制度產物，在其中必然涵蓋了解決衝突的規範和程序，特別是當族群衝突的發生已經影響到國際社會的共同利益，國際安全機構勢將依據制度啟動衝突解決。另一方面，族群衝突過程當中的暴力程度和缺乏互信狀態，也使得衝突各造難以自行尋找出可行的解決方案。根據衝突解決研究途徑來看，由擁有強制力量的國際安全機構出面改變衝突的結構，將因此為族群衝突的解決創造機會。換言之，以制度主義理論為經，解釋國際安全機構的動機；以衝突解決架構為緯，分析國際安全機構在解決族群衝突過程中的角色和功能，將能夠充分解釋國際安全機構介入並干預族群衝突這一現象。本文也將以發生在非洲和東歐的幾次重大族群衝突案例來進一步驗證此一論點。 / The main feature of international relations in the first decade after the Cold War is the burgeoning of ethnic conflicts. IR theorists soon find themselves uncomfortable while trying to explain the phenomenon, not even close to the ‘resolution’. Ethnic conflicts are apparently not new to this globe, but they happened everywhere and thereby dominated international security agenda-setting, especially in the 1990s. In the meantime, international security institutions actively intervened in those conflicts and settled some of them. This could not be explained by the traditional IR theories either. Those ethnic conflict theories focus most of the origins, are also incapable of offering good analysis. There is still in lack of systematic research about the resolution of ethnic conflicts. The thesis claim international security institutions are well-designed and institutionalized to settle ethnic conflicts for two reasons. Firstly, international security institutions are the product of international cooperation for common good and transaction-cost cutting. Conflict regulating mechanisms are always embedded in these institutions. These mechanisms will be automatically activated while regional (or international) security is seriously endangered. Secondly, bloody violence and antagonism makes the conflicting parties hard to find feasible solutions to end these conflicts. According to the conflict resolution approach, the ethnic conflicts could be settled when international security institutions taking initiative to change the structure of conflict. By taking both institutionalism theory and conflict resolution approach as an analytical scheme, the thesis will not only explain the motives for international security institutions’ intervention, but also analyze the roles that international security institutions can play during the conflict process. Four case studies followed will be further explored to testify this hypothesis.

論文摘要 本文主要之研究在於檢驗東協區域論壇是否具有影響亞太區域安全之效能。首先藉由國際關係理論對於「安全」的闡述，筆者運用新現實主義與新自由制度主義的安全觀與對國際建制的看法，來評析東協區域論壇（ASEAN Retional Forum, ARF）對亞太安全的影響力。隨著國際關係理論的檢視過程中得知，新現實主義與新自由制度主義皆認為東協區域論壇在穩定亞太區域和平與穩定的效用不大。 其次，透過Andreas Hasenclever、Peter Mayer與Volker Rittberger在 Theories of International Regimes文章中所提出關於國際建制（International Regimes）評定的指標，其以新自由制度主義的觀點就（1）建制的「效率」（Effectiveness）指標－建制達成目標與貫徹意志的能力、對成員的影響力，以及決議的拘束力等方面；兼以（2）建制的「彈性－堅實」（Resilience / Robustness）指標－東協區域論壇對於現實事件、衝突的解決能力與成效，藉由國際建制的角度來分析東協區域論壇在建制上的完備與否，來評價東協區域論壇是否合乎所謂區域性「安全」機制的標準。 經由國際建制指標的檢視結果得知，不論在「效率」指標或「彈性－堅實」指標，皆驗證出東協區域論壇是個不健全的國際建制，並非所謂的區域性安全機制，對亞太區域安全的影響力也有限。 再者，經由對於亞太地區的主要衝突點－朝鮮半島核武問題、台海危機以及南海主權爭議等事件的討論，檢視東協區域論壇對於事件的處理、事件所做出的決議以及針對事件所發表的聲明，來評析論壇是否具有解決亞太衝突事件之功能。研究發現，東協區域論壇僅能對於衝突事件做出宣示性質的聲明，不具拘束力的決議，無法要求成員國自制，也使得論壇無法做出有效的解決，更失去了處理亞太區域安全事務的能力。 最終，歸結出東協區域論壇的缺失，以及無法有效發揮其安全建制的原因，筆者認為東協區域論壇最主要的缺失在於「制度化程度太低」以及「決議拘束力不足」，因而導致論壇缺乏安全建制的功能、議題無法被普遍討論、對衝突事件缺乏解決能力以及信心建立措施無法順利推展等問題。透過上述之討論，找出提升東協區域論壇解決事件效能之辦法，俾使其發揮安全建制之功能。 關鍵字詞：東協區域論壇、新現實主義、新自由制度主義、國際建制

本論文針對冷戰結束以來的十六年間，美國政府對中共角色與關係之定位，欲探討的問題具體言之是「為什麼美國政府再一九八九年以來，對中共的關係定位會在『戰略夥伴』與『戰略對手』間發生擺盪」。本論文首先指出，理性主義雖是解釋國際關係時較慣用的工具，然而不論新現實主義、新自由制度主義均無法對此研究主題提供一套有系統的解釋；本論文繼而發現，建構主義雖承繼部分理性主義的決策模式概念，卻能對上述關係定位變動做出系統性的詮釋。 本論文共計六章：第一章通盤概述研究的動機、目的、方法，並闡明整個主題架構及限制條件。第二章勾勒出老布希、柯林頓、小布希政府對中共關係定位的變化，完成本論文的「描述分析」，作為整體論述之背景。第三章依循理性主義觀點，發現新現實主義無法解釋何以美國在「確保相對收益」的考量下會與中共採取合作；再者，按照新自由制度主義「開創絕對收益」的邏輯，卻與美國視中共為戰略對手，並陷入人權、貿易、台灣議題等爭議的情況不相符。第四章介紹建構主義的主要論點，並針對何以選定溫特的主流建構主義提出解釋，再逐一檢視建構主義的本體論、認識論、方法論、世界觀。第五章依循國際權力架構、理念等兩大參考點，驗證建構主義之解釋力。發現「亞太扇型戰略」、「多層次統一戰線」、「新保守主義」、「攻勢現實主義」等理念，是美國政府為美、「中」關係定位的重要因素。從世界觀的角度切入，如果是霍布斯的文化架構，中共會被美國視為「戰略對手」；如果是康德的文化架構，中共會被美國視為「戰略夥伴」；如果是洛克的文化架構，美國會在接觸中保持戒慎。第六章為結論，認為儘管建構主義提供一個較寬闊的解析平台，但建構主義與理性主義並非必然相斥，尋求兩個典範之整合，乃成為本研究針對後續研究所提出的建議事項之一。 / This thesis addresses an issue regarding the US Government’s identification of the Chinese role as well as the bilateral relations between the two states during the past sixteen years ever since the end of the Cold War. It deals specifically with the following question: why the US administrations since 1989 have shuttled their identification of China between a strategic partner and strategic competitor? It firstly argues that rationalism, as conventionally an explanatory tool in IR, proves insufficient to provide a set of consistent answer. Unsatisfied, this thesis continues its argument that the question brought forth at the beginning can be effectively resolved, or interpreted, by constructivism, despite the constructivist rationale may not necessarily render rational choice model utterly invalid in this case. Structurally speaking, Chapter One gives a brief with respect to the whole thematic structure inclusive of purpose of the study mentioned above and research limitations. Chapter Two demonstrates an effort of descriptive study as a set of background information by sketching out different phases of identification about relations with China that have been harbored by successive US administrations from President Bush Sr., Clinton to Bush Jr.. Chapter Three can be seen as an account of this thesis’ trying effort to explore the question per se from the rationalist perspective. The findings in Chapter Three are as follows: Neo-realism fails to explain why the US, premised upon concern of relative gains, would have cooperation with China. Neo-liberal institutionalism, following the logic of maximization of absolute gains, is inconsistent with an answer to the question of why the US would not given in on the issues of human rights and trade deficits. The above findings are suggestive. They open up the need for this thesis to observe the Sino-US diplomatic interactions from a social perspective in IR, i.e., constructivism. Chapter Four ushers in main points of constructivism. Two arguments are therefore in order. First, it gives a justification for the choice of the mainstream of constructivism in IR advanced by Alexander Wendt. Second, to suit the purpose of this research, it funnels the ontological, epistemological, methodological arguments, world views raised by the constructivist school and thrashes out two reference points—world power structure and ideation—for further observations. Chapter Five brings up the main body of the argument. It argues that a series of ideas such as A Fan-mode Strategic Concept in Asia Pacific, Multi-layer United Front, Neo-conservatism and Defensive Realism have been influential on the US identification of the relations with China. They in turn strike an image of Sino-US bilateral relations reflective of three kinds of culture distinguished by constructivists. In Hobbes’ terms, China can be seen as a strategic competitor. In Kant’s, China is a strategic partner. In Locke’s, the US is engaged but remains sceptical. Chapter Six is the concluding part. It goes beyond the phenomena and moves into the theoretical realm by arguing that, although constructivism offers a broader analytic platform, rationalism and constructivism need not be exclusive. That much room for integration of the two paradigms becomes one of the recommendations for further researches.