現有國際關係研究對於霸權主導國際制度已有一定之發現,不過對崛起強權參與建構國際制度的行為傾向,則附屬於霸權的相關討論,而未獲得一定之重視。霸權論一般認為,崛起強權在未發生霸權戰爭前,只能被迫遵循霸權主導 下的國際制度,唯有在崛起強權取得霸權地位之後,方能展示是創建國際制度的領導能力。霸權論由相對物質權力層面探索的崛起強權描述,僅能凸顯霸權戰爭的爆發,未必能勾勒出崛起強權的全面行為,亦未能解釋霸權繼承者的條件。
發生霸權更迭之前,並非沒有發生崛起強權參與建構國際制度的案例,例如德意志帝國在 1878 年主持柏林公會,解決東歐巴爾幹問題,更於 1885 年的柏林會議中達成列強瓜分非洲的行為準則;美國在 1922 年主導華盛頓會議,成功地就列強的海軍軍備管制與列強在亞太努力範圍問題,達成協議。
探索崛起強權參與國際制度建構過程的歷史實踐後發現,國際制度是崛起強權與霸權之間的權力競合場域,霸權並不擁有主導國際制度創建過程的專利,面臨其他競爭者的壓力,崛起強權亦能透過策略結盟,成就是創建國際制度的主 導性地位。
The exploration of the rising power has been subordinated to the arguments of hegemony and revisionist states. The Hegemonic Stability Theory and Power Transfer Theory have argued that the rising power has to follow international instructions set according to the hegemonic interests before the break out of hegemony war through which the rising power revolts the status quo hegemon. This approach might describe the reasons of hegemonic war; however, it might not be able to explain the overall behavior patterns of rising power in the construction of international institutions.
It is evident that before the hegemonic transition, there are cases that the rising power has participated actively in the construction of international institutions. For example, the 1878 Berlin Congress, the 1885 Berlin Conference on the West-African Question, and the 1922 Washington Conference.
This article argues that the international institutions are the arenas of power competition among the hegemon and the rising power. Relative to the hegemonic war, the domination of the international institutions construction is a more suitable beacon to clarify the final winner of the hegemonic status competition in which rising powers participate.
2011 年 5 月 2 日美國特種部隊攻擊賓拉登(Osama bin Laden)之住處並且結束長達十年對於頭號國際恐怖分子的追擊,在此之後,各國對於此事件的反應呈現出不同的面貌。本文將以實證方法研究美國與各國的外交關係、各國對賓拉登事件的反應、主要媒體評論之間的互動關連,整理出支持與不支持美國的總表。本研究亦將思考:在採取爭議性的方法達成其國家利益的同時,美國霸權是否可以在未來持盈保泰?本研究所採取的新聞分析方法,是否能夠提供外交政策研究更多的可能性? ..
As the U.S. special forces thundered into Bin Laden’s compound and terminated the decade long chase of the most wanted terrorist on May 2, 2011, the global reaction to this incident presented diverse versions for interpretation. This empirical study answers the questions: can the U.S. identify those who support or oppose its foreign policy by their reactions to the Bin Laden incident? By probing into the governmental archives and major media in selected countries, this research answers two more important questions: has ..
韓國財閥如現代、三星、LG,目前已是全球知名企業。他們的崛起與韓國政府的強烈支持有重大關係:政府支持財閥,分擔其投資分險、給予寡、獨占市場控制;財閥則回報政府以提供就業機會、賺取外匯、促進經濟成長。然而在此光明表象下,韓國政府與財閥間也有為人詬病的陰暗關係:政府官員收受財閥政治獻金及其他種種 「政治規費」,財閥則被回報以財經措施上的優惠。而隨著政治民主化,政府遭受國民逐漸上升的監督,要求政府和財閥的透明關係,並控制富可敵國的財閥。然而財閥則因經濟自由化而日益壯大,不再受制於政府的管控。韓..
Korean conglomerates, or chaebols in Korean, such as Samsung, Hyundai, LG, are now familiar and global enterprises. However, the rising of chaebols was supported and often pushed by Korean government. For instance, government and chaebols shared investment risks and their aims to keep national market oligarchic or monopolistic, etc. Chaebols returned by creating employment opportunities, earning foreign exchanges, and driving economic development. But underneath the shining surface lies a dark and notorious side: for economic, financial, an..
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.