| 摘要: | 本論文主要是運用理論來解析兩大研究主題：一為綜合艾里森 (Graham T. Allison) 、哲利考 (Philip D. Zelikow)、施耐德 (Richard C. Snyder)、狄辛 (Paul Diesing) 、郝斯悌 (Ole R. Holsti) 、許志嘉等諸位教授，所主張的外交決策模式，可分為五種：理性、有限理性、組織行為、政府政治及領導者外交決策模式，以作為本論文的假設性指標。檢證結果為五種外交決策模式是皆可互相輔助來解釋民進黨執政時期的外交決策。若以個別單獨解釋民進黨政府的外交決策會顯得過於偏向某層面的探討，而忽略其他的機關運作或是影響因素。因此，唯有共同以互補的形式探討，才比較能全面性的了解整個民進黨政府的外交決策。在五種外交決策模式中，以理性模式中的影響因素與外界觀點是在民進黨執政時期最難做到與達成的目標，因此需要藉由其他模式輔助探討，才能較具完整性。
另一為透過伊斯頓 (David Easton) 的系統論，以及施耐德在外交決策模型中，強調的輸入影響決策部分，作為本論文的分析架構，透過其了解民進黨執政八年 (2000—2008年) 的外交政策制定過程與過去與現今的差異性，主要的研究發現有五項：
一、我國外交決策機制異動不大。
二、外交承認與實質關係成反比。
三、扁政府的迴響反饋回馬團隊的外交政策。
四、攻勢外交與活路外交迴響的異同。
五、外交政策難以理想化。
The purpose of this thesis is to use some theories to explain two research themes. One is to integrate these professors’ foreign policy decision-making model with a hypothesis of index, such as Graham T. Allison, Philip D. Zelikow, Richard C. Snyder, Paul Diesing, Ole R. Holsti, and Chih-Chia Hsu. Those can be divided into five models: rational, bounded rationality, organizational behavior, bureaucratic politics and the idiosyncratic foreign policy decision-making model. The results of the five foreign policy decision-making models support one other to explain the DPP Administration’s foreign policy decision-making. If we only use a model to explain the DPP Administration’s foreign policy decision-making, it would trend to a one-sided aspect and forget other influence factors. Therefore, the five foreign policy decision-making models support each other to explain this theory. The rational model needs other models assist, and to explain the DPP Administration’s foreign policy decision-making is more complete.
The other one is through David Easton’s systems theory, and Richard C. Snyder’s foreign policy decision-making model, to stress the impact of the decision-making part of the input, as the analytical framework of this paper to the understanding of the DPP Administration’s foreign policy-making process (2000-2008), and the difference between Ma’s administration and the DPP administration. Five major findings are as the following: 1. Taiwan’s diplomatic decision-making mechanism is difficult to adjust. 2. Diplomatic recognition and pragmatical relations is inversely proportional relationship. 3. The outcome of the DPP administration’s opinions of all circles impact Ma Administration’s foreign policy. 4. They are similarities and dissimilarities between offensive diplomacy and diplomacy truce. 5. The foreign policy is difficult to idealistic. |
