武裝衝突期間軍隊保護人類文化資產的角色，國際人道法、國際人權法與國際刑法訂有相關的義務及規範，但此義務或法律規範具體的落實則是有賴於國際組織與強國(主要是美國)在不同的戰爭或武裝衝突期間的實際經驗。即使美國在2003年伊拉克戰爭前已經規劃保護當地文化資產的措施，軍隊及其盟軍仍遭致批評未能保護文化資產。後續2004年在科索沃戰爭期間未能保護東正教(Eastern Orthodox)修道院及防止種族屠殺之間的兩難、2005年在伊拉克薩馬拉(Samarra)歷史1..

This research tries to explore the evolution of international laws regarding the cultural property protection (CPP) during the event of armed conflict with armed forces having obligations to protect cultural property from Law of War, International Humanitarian Law, Law of International Human Rights and International Criminal Law. However, the international practices were based on the interactions of international politics and international laws have been played by great powers (particularly United States) in wars or armed con..

本文目的在於透過回顧以維和行動為客體的研究，呈現相關研究在國際組織研究及新自由主義架構下的貢獻與不足之處。第一，代理難題仍是相關研究最常用以檢視這類議題的架構，源於分工不明與利益衝突的代理難題是最常出現的現象，同時也是這類研究偏好的議題。第二，資訊失衡造成的代理難題雖可能對維和行動的效力產生最大的負面影響，但卻較少被研究。第三，相關研究與實踐侵蝕了典則理論的主張如下:其一，非民主國家在重複賽局的架構下並未改變其對維和行動的觀點，這樣的現象挑戰了典則理論對聲譽..

By reviewing the studies about peacekeeping operations, this essay focuses on the contributions and contradictions of those studies and the neo- liberalism arguments about international organization studies. Firstly, the principal-agent problems (PA problems) are not only the most common phenomena in the practice of the peacekeeping operations but also are the wide-adapted framework in those studies, particularly on those PA problems that originated from the vague division of labor and from the severe conflict of interests. S..

權力與國家利益是國際政治研究的主要探討因素，也是國際關係學界戰後研究的起點，本文認為「權力」決定「國家利益」，進而限制「國家行為」的觀點 ，在國際人權規範下未必依舊是當代國際政治與國家行為的鐵律。從冷戰後國際社會的維持和平行動來看，有相當程度國家武力干預並非出於國家利益的動機，亦非與地緣戰略有關，而只是為了去維持國際社會的價值，一種強調人權價值、避免種族淨化的發生。這種國際社會的價值 (人性尊嚴、法治、民主) ，某種程度存有所謂規範制約權力的成分，強調權力的使用來自合法性，而這規範的形塑..

Power and national interest constitute an important research topic in the study of international politics, and can be seen as the starting point for the study of international relations in the post-war period. A number of scholars have asserted that “power” determines “national interest." Such a view, however, can result in an excessively restricted understanding of “national behavior," since the relationship between contemporary international politics and national behavior is not necessarily an ironclad on..