本文主要研究問題是:中國大陸對於衝突預防的原則性立場與態度為何?在身為當事國與第三方行為者兩種不同身分時，其在實踐上有何不同?本文藉由南蘇丹危機與南海衝突兩個案例分析中國大陸在衝突預防實踐上，面對事關自身主權與國家利益以及與自身主權無關之衝突事件時，在衝突預防作為上有何差異?其宣示與實際作為有何落差?此外，為何中 國大陸在南海議題上，會由堅持雙邊對話，轉變為也同意透過多邊機制，作為處理南海主權爭議途徑的立場與作為?在這樣的雙邊與多邊機制下，呈現出怎樣的「中國..

The main research questions of the paper are as follow: first of all, what are China’s position, attitude, and actions in conflict prevention, second question is what is the difference between China’s action and statement on the issue of the South China Sea dispute and the South Sudan Crisis when China is one of the parties who faces sovereignty and national interest, and as a third- party in the practice of conflict prevention. Third question is why China is willing to change her position from insisting bilateral..

美國為因應後冷戰時期國際安全環境與威脅的改變，至 1996 年止已執行多次全面性的兵力結構檢討。然而，國會認為國防部僅考量維持現有規模與預算，而非依外在安全環境與威脅的改變來調整所需兵力結構。因此，國會為因應二十一世紀的威脅及確保美國國家安全利益，通過「1996 年軍力結構總檢法案」，要求國防部配合總統任期執行「四年期國防總檢」及將評估重點予以法制化。鑑於國內學術界對美國「四年期國防總檢」的論述均以報告內容為重點，故本文將從理性決策與戰略規劃面向，來評析美國..

In response to the changes of international security environment and threat in the post-Cold War era, the United States had conducted various comprehensive assessment of its force structure in 1990-1996 periods. However, the Congress pointed out the Department of Defense intended to realign the force structure just from the view of keeping forces size and defense budget and not from the changes of security environment and threat. In order to meet the threats and protect the U.S. national security interests in the twenty-first..