近廿年來中俄關係已從友好的、建設性的成為戰略性的夥伴關係,進入中俄前所未有之友好高峰期。實際上,中俄戰略協作夥伴關係是中俄的權力分布共識與利益匯集於因應美國霸權的威脅,由於美國對外戰略牽動中、俄關係的發展,中俄雙邊互動也影響著大國權力平衡關係。中俄戰略協作夥伴關係的本質除了有關平衡美國霸權外,既有的雙邊共識與追求利益張力似正影響著雙邊關係的發展。隨著美國單極的鬆動與中國的崛起,中俄關係逐漸偏離傳統權力平衡的意涵,轉為更為複雜的「制度性平衡」。因此,本文結合新現實主義、新自由主義、建構主義等三大學派不同面向的建制觀──權力、利益、認知的分析折衷主義和制度性平衡,去觀察二十年來的中俄關係,更能窺知中俄戰略協作夥伴關係發展的全貌。中俄雙邊反覆多變的關係變遷,中俄戰略夥伴關係本質的變化,以及中俄雙邊將如何建構未來關係,都是本文所欲探討的課題。
In the last two decades, China-Russia relations have turned from “friendly” and “constructive,” to “strategic partnership” and reached an unprecedented peak. Indeed, the nature of the China-Russia strategic partnership is based on the consensus of power distribution in East Asia, while facing threats from the United States hegemony and bilateral economic interdependence. The diplomatic strategy of the United States not only affects the development and bilateral interaction of China-Russia relations, but also influences the balance of power among great powers of East Asia. The bilateral consensus to counterbalance U.S. hegemony and tension in pursuing state interests have deepened the China-Russia strategic partnership. With the wavering U.S. unipolar system and the rise of China as a world power, the relationship between China and Russia has gradually deviated from the traditional “balance of power” to “institutional balancing.” This paper analyzes the development of China-Russia relations in the past twenty years from an integrated model of “analytical eclecticism” and “institutional balancing” in terms of power, interest, and identity. Utilizing the perspectives of the three schools: neorealism, neo-liberal institutionalism, and social constructivism, the purpose is to understand the motives, trends and future developments of the China-Russia strategic partnership.
近年來國際關係理論面臨可能終結的危機,國際關係理論的三大典範:現實主義、自由主義與建構主義的發展呈現停滯的狀態,理論與政策應用之間的鴻溝也逐漸加深,以中程理論為導向的經驗研究逐漸取代了傳統國際關係理論強調通則化與系統性的分析架構。儘管國際關係理論仍有其重要性,但不論現實主義、自由主義與建構主義皆沒有預測到中國的崛起對國際政治所造成的變化,美國學界也開始反思過去對華交往政策的國際關係理論基礎。就臺灣的研究者而言,隨著從事中國大陸研究的限制增加,研究中國外交是否還能像過去那樣地依賴國際關係理..
In recent years, international relations theory has faced a potential crisis of obsolescence. The development of the three major paradigms—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—has stagnated, and the gap between theory and policy implications has widened. Empirical research guided by middle-range theories are replacing traditional international relations theory that emphasize generalization and systematic frameworks. Although international relations theory remains important, neither realism, liberalism, nor constructivism have..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.