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..

學界一般認為，冷戰結束後，隨著中國的快速崛起，包括越南在內的東亞小國對中國所採取的外交策略偏向「避險」或「接納」。文獻指出除了加強與中國的關係外，越南亦主動與各大國交好，並強調其要走著一個獨立、自主、多元且多方化的外交政策路線，此被視為越南對中國的「避險」策略。然而，本文認為有關越南對中國政策的分析較為單向，即大部分僅著重在越中關係本身的推拉力，而忽略了美國在其中的主動角色。 因此，無法說明越南對中政策近期的動態變化。本文的論點是，基於安全與國家利益的考量，..

The conventional wisdom assumes that East Asian countries have been adopting “hedging” or “accommodating” strategy toward China since the end of the Cold War. By putting forward an “independent, diversified and multidirectional foreign policy,” Vietnam has attempted to strengthen relations with a number of major powers, including China. As a result, Hanoi is regarded as a typical “hedger” towards Beijing. This paper, on the contrary, argues that the relating analyses on Vietnam&..