1978年12月15日美國單方面宣布將於1979年1月1日與中華民國斷交，轉而與中華人民共和國建交。美國與中華民國間規範兩國同盟軍事合作關係的「中美共同防禦條約」也將於1979年12月31日正式終止，屆時兩國間將無任何條款來規範彼此的關係。自美國宣布斷交訊息後，美方便積極地制定一個能規範台灣間關係的依據，透過國會的努力，「台灣關係法」正式在1979年4月10日由卡特總統簽署，成為美國正式的法律。「台灣關係法」直自今日一直是台美兩方關係互動最重要的根據。

　　本論文透過艾里遜與哲利考教授所提出的決策三模式：理性行為模式、組織行為模式以及政府政治模式來分析「台灣關係法」通過之決策過程。試圖分別從理性觀點、政府組織間運作的模式以及政府官員間互相妥協或討價還價三個層次，來探討「台灣關係法」通過的過程。

　　第三章透過理性行為模式，本論文發現，美國政府對台灣的態度轉變是基於國際環境局勢的需要，然而基於理性思考後，美國政府不能放棄台灣，因此透過綜合議案 (後由國會改為「台灣關係法」)的提出，繼續維持台美斷交後的關係。第四章透過組織行為模式發現，美國國會在推動「台灣關係法」的過程中，透過憲法賦予的權利，依照立法行動中的標準作業程序，使「台灣關係法」於1979年4月10日正式成為法律，作為規範台美雙方斷交後關係的依據。第五章透過政府政治模式分析國會、國務院、國安會等對於「台灣關係法」簽署的態度發現雖然三個機構都很重要，但由於國會參眾議員屬於立法部門，因此是「台灣關係法」最重要的推手。

　　本論文目的是透過 艾里遜與哲利考教授的決策模式，用三個不同觀點探討「台灣關係法」通過與簽署的過程。最終發現，基於美國是以現實主義為圭臬的國家，美國在做任何決定時都會以達成自身利益最大化作為主要考量。另外因國會與國會參眾議員本就屬於立法部門，因此在「台灣關係法」通過與簽署的過程中便扮演了最重要的角色。因此，本論文主旨就是，美國聯邦政府，作為一個整體，決定善用「台灣關係法」的立法讓自己國家利益最大化；國會作為聯邦政府最主要的立法部門，在「台灣關係法」的立法過程中扮演最重要推手；國會參眾議員在「台灣關係法」的立法過程中扮演比國務院與國安會官員更重要的角色。

The main purpose of this thesis is to use Allison and Zelikow’s three models to analyze how different factors affected the legislation of the TRA. On December 15, 1978, the U.S. government unilaterally announced to break formal diplomatic relations with the ROC, and switched to make formal diplomatic relations with the PRC in January 1, 1979. At that time, however, “Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty” would be terminated by December 31, 1979. At that time, there was no formal law to define or regulate the relations between Taiwan and the U.S. After the U.S. government announced to break the diplomatic ties with the ROC, the U.S. tried hard to construct a new law to maintain the relationship between Taiwan and the United States. After striving for some time, the U.S. Congress legislated the “Taiwan Relations Act (TRA),” and President Jimmy Carter signed it into a federal law on April 10, 1979. Thus, the TRA then became a foundation regulating the relationship between Taiwan and the U.S. after 1979. 

　　By applying Graham Allison and Zelikow’s three decision-making models, namely, Rational Actor Model (RAM), Organization Behavior Model (OBM), and Government Politics Model (GPM), this study will analyze the legislation of the TRA from the perspective of rationalism, operation of the organization and the competition between important governmental units.

　　By applying RAM in Chapter Three, this study finds that the changing position of the U.S. was the result of the international situation at that time. On the one hand, the U.S. needed the PRC to break the deadlock in its relations with the Soviet Union. But, on the other hand, the U.S. couldn’t let Taiwan go. As a result, the U.S. government proposed a legislation to maintain its relationship with Taiwan. By applying OBM in Chapter Four, this research finds that the Congress had successfully used its power authorized by the Constitution to legislate the TRA, and by following the SOPs of legislation, the TRA was signed into public law on April 4, 1979. In Chapter Five, this research analyzes the attitude of the U.S. Congress, DOS and NSC toward the legislation of TRA, and finds that the U.S. Congress was the key character in the legislation of TRA, although both the DOS and the NSC were important in the legislation of TRA, the U.S. Congress was the most important legislative brunch according to the U.S. Constitution. As a result, the Senators and the representatives of the House played more important roles than DOS and NSC officials in the decision-making process of the legislation of TRA.

　　The United States, as a country showing respect to realism, would make the decision which could maximize its national interest in the legislation of the TRA. Since the U.S. Congress is the primary legislative brunch; therefore, it was the key character in the legislation of the TRA. So were its Senators and representatives of the House. Therefore, the main theme of this thesis is that the U.S. federal government, as a whole, decided to make good use of the legislation of the TRA to maximize its national interest; the U.S. Congress, as the primary legislative brunch of the federal government, played the most important role among related governmental agencies in the process of the legislation of the TRA; the Senators and the representatives of the House played more important roles than DOS and NSC officials in the decision-making process of the legislation of TRA.

第一章	緒論 1
　　第一節　研究背景 1
　　第二節　研究目的與主旨 2
　　第三節　相關文獻探討 3
　　第四節　研究方法與研究限制 8
　　第五節　章節安排 12
　　第六節　小結 13
第二章	理論與假設 14
　　第一節　理性行為模式 15
　　第二節　組織行為模式 18
　　第三節　政府政治模式 20
　　第四節　小結 23
第三章	運用理性行為模式探討台美斷交後台灣關係法簽訂的決策過程 25
　　第一節　早期的台美關係背景(1949-1969) 26
　　第二節　台美斷交前美國政府的態度轉變 27
　　第三節　台灣關係法的簽署過程 32
　　第四節　小結37
第四章	運用組織行為模式探討台美斷交後台灣關係法簽訂的決策過程 42
　　第一節　國會對台灣關係法制定的影響 43
　　第二節　國務院對台灣關係法制定的影響 54
　　第三節　國安會對台灣關係法制定的影響 56
　　第四節　小結 58
第五章	運用政府政治模式探討台美斷交後台灣關係法簽訂的決策過程 62
　　第一節　國會在制定「台灣關係法」過程中的角色 64
　　第二節　國務院在制定「台灣關係法」過程中的角色 69
　　第三節　國家安全委員會在制定「台灣關係法」過程中的角色 71
　　第四節　卡特總統與官員的互動關係 73
　　第五節　小結 76
第六章	結論 80
參考書目 87
附錄一　「台灣關係法」全文 93
附錄二　「中美共同防禦條約」全文 110
附錄三　「綜合法案」全文 112

表目錄
表2-1 決策模式思維下「台灣關係法」的簽訂 24
表4-1 立法程序 The Legislative Process 45

壹、中文部分

　　一、書籍（依作者姓氏筆畫順序）

中央通訊社，台灣關係法20年（台北：中央通訊社，1995 年）。
外交部，外交報告書：外交關係與外交行政（台北：外交部，1992年）。
伍書典，中美斷交與臺灣關係法案（台北：名山出版社，1981 年）。
李大維，台灣關係法立法過程（台北：洞察出版社，1988年），41。
沈劍虹，使美八年紀要-沈劍虹回憶錄（台北：聯經出版公司，1982）。
邵玉銘，從門戶開方到中美斷交（台北：淡江大學出版部，1983）。
林碧炤、林正義主編，美中台關係總體檢-台灣關係法30年（台北：巨流圖書公司，2009）。
胡為真，美國對華「一個中國」政策之演變（台北：臺灣商務，2001年）。
胡祖慶，臺灣關係法：過去與未來十年（台北：五南出版社，1991年）。
陳一新，斷交後的中美關係（台北：五南，1995 年）。
陳治世，美國政府與政治（台北：臺灣商務印書館，1986年）。
裘兆琳主編，美國外交與危機處理（台北：中央研究院歐美研究所，1993年）。
葉至誠，社會科學概論（台北：揚智文化，2000 年）。
黃剛，中華民國／台灣與美國間關係運作之建制(一九七九－一九九九)（台北：政大國研中心，2000年）。
費浩偉，台灣關係法二十年（台北：前衛出版社，1999 年）。
詹中原，危機管理：理論架構（臺北：聯經出版公司，2009年）。
趙明義，當代國家安全法治探討（臺北：黎明文化，2005年）。
蘇格，美國對華政策與台灣問題（北京：世界知識出版社，1998年）。

　　二、學術期刊（依作者姓名筆劃排序）

林郁方，「台灣關係法對我國安全承諾之探討」，美歐月刊，第9卷第5期（1994 年5月），頁63-75。
紀舜傑，「「台灣關係法」－台灣、日本、與美國安全之連結」，台灣國際研究季刊，第2卷第1期（2006年春季號），頁225-240。

　　三、學位論文

林麗香，「解放軍的政治影響力—解放軍參與外交與外交政策之研究」，國立中山 大學大陸研究所博士論文（1996年）。

　　四、網路資料

「美國務院最新解密文件：背棄台灣 美原擬3周前告知」，中時電子報， http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20130822000285-260102
「中華人民共和國和美利堅合眾國聯合公報 - 1972」，美國在台協會， http://www.ait.org.tw/zh/us-joint-communique-1972.html
「台灣關係法」，美國在台協會， http://www.ait.org.tw/zh/taiwan-relations-act.html
「美國政體的結構與運作」美國在台協會， http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/PUBS/AmGov/federal.htm

貳、英文部分

　　I. Governmental Publication and Official Documents

------. 1979. Senate committee on Foreign Relations. S. 245 Submitted to the senate by the Carter administration on January 29, 1979. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 96th cong., 1st Sess. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. 
------. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1950, Vol. 6, East Asia and the Pacific. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976.
------. Foreign Relations of the United States, Carter Administration. Vol. I, Foundations of Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,  1977-1980.
------. Foreign Relations of the United States, Carter Administration. Vol. XIII, China.  Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977-1980.

　　II. Books

Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston Little: Brown & Company.
Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis 2nd edition. New York: Longman. 
Arnold, Paul United States. Department of State. 2004. About America: How the United States is Governed. Virginia: Braddock Communications.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1983. Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser 1977-1981. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.
Carter, Jimmy. 1995. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. Fayetteville: University of  Arkansas Press.
Chiu, Hungdah. 1991. “The Taiwan Relations Act and Sino-American Relations,” in Jaw-ling Joanne Chang, ed., R.O.C.-U.S.A. Relations, 1979-1989. Taipei: Institute of American culture, Academia Sinica.
Cohen, Warren. 1971. America’s Response to China: An Interpretative History of Sino-American Relations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Crabb, Cevil V., Jr., Cecil and Mulcahy, Kevin. 1986. Presidents and Foreign Policy  Making: From FDR To Reagan. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press.
George, Alexander. 1980. Presidential Decisionmaking In Foreign Policy: The Effective Use Of Information And Advice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. 
Haperin, Morton and Kanter, Arold. 1973. “Introduction The Bureaucratic Perspective:  A Preliminary Framework,” in their edited book, Readings in American Foreign Policy: A Bureaucratic Perspective. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Henkin, Louis.1972. Foreign Affairs and the Constitution. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.,.
Jacoby, Neil. 1967 U.S. aid to Taiwan A study of Foreign Aid, Self-Help, and Development. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.
Kissinger, Henry. 1979. White House Years. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Lasater, Marin. 1984. The Taiwan Issue in Sino-American Strategic Relations. Colorado: Westview Press.
Morgenthau, Hans. 1978. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,5th  
ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Neustadt, Richard. 1990. Presidential and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of  Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan, 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Nixon, Richard. 1990. The Real War. New York: Touchstone. 
Reagan, Ronald. 1990. An American Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Roy, Denny. 2002. Taiwan: A Political History. New York: Cornell University Press.
Snyder, Glenn and Diesing, Paul. 1977. Conflict among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Stein, Arthur. 1990. Why Nations Cooperate. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Vance, Cyrus. 1983. Hard Choice: critical Years in America’s Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wang, Yu San 1990. "Foundation of the Republic of china's Foreign Policy," in Yu Sa Wang (ed.) Foreign Policy of the Republic of China on Taiwan: An Unorthodox Approach. New York: Praeger.
Wolff, Lester and Simon, David. 1982. Legislative History of the Taiwan Relations Act:  An Analytic Compilation With Documents On Subsequent Developments. New York: American Association for Chinese Studies.
Wolff, Lester and Simon, David. 1998. A Legislative History of the Taiwan Relations Act   with Supplement: An Analytic Compilation with Documents on Subsequent developments. New York: Touro College.

　　III. Articles

Hayes, Denis M. 2010. “Explaining Jimmy Carter's Decision-Making Process Regarding China, Taiwan and the Taiwan Relations Act(1979) Utilizing Graham Allison's Three Models”, The Chinese Military Academy Journal, 58, (April), 77-91.
Lijphart, Arend 1971. “Comparative politics and Comparative Method,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, (September), 682-693.
Nixon, Richard. 1967. “Asia After Viet Nam, “ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 46, No.1 (October ), 111-125.

　　IV. Newspapers

Broder ,David and Peterson, Bill. 1978.“Credibility of U.S. Hurt, Critics say.” Washington Post, December 16.
Chen, Lung-chu. 2004. “Taiwan Relations Act Serves Global Peace.” Taipei Times, April 16.
Dole, Robert. 1979. “Many Details Unresolved in China Plunge.” Kansas City Star, January 14, 
Goshko, John. 1979. “President Warns Hill on Taiwan,” Washington Post, January 27.

　　V. Online Databases

------. Taiwan Relations Act, according to American Institute in Taiwan. http://www.ait.org.tw/en/taiwan-relations-act.html
------. China Mutual Defense (1954), according to American Institute in Taiwan. https://www.ait.org.tw/en/sino-us-mutual-defense-treaty-1954.html
------. U.N. Resolution 2758 - Oct. 25 1971, according to American Institute in Taiwan. http://www.ait.org.tw/en/un-res-2758-voted-to-admit-communist -china.html
------. Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (the 1982 Communique), according to American Institute in Taiwan. http://www.ait.org.tw/en/us-joint-communique-1982.html
------. The Constitution of the United States of America, according to Judicial Yuan of ROC. http://www.judicial.gov.tw/db/db04/db04-03.asp