The study of Foreign Policy Decision Making under The DPP Administration (2000—2008)

• Main Authors: Sheau-Yun Chao, 趙曉雲
• Other Authors: Ming-Hsien Wong
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/78833872406771396320

碩士 === 淡江大學 === 國際事務與戰略研究所碩士班 === 98 === 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.