The specific strategies employed by a hegemon in dealing with rising powers are a crucial aspect of understanding the power competition between the United States and China. International relations paradigms have been influenced by the notion of the inevitable decline of hegemonic power, often disregarding the fact that a hegemon is a product of international-level efforts in science and technological innovation. This article aims to delineate the significance of technological innovation in maintaining global dominance for a hegemon with the leadership long cycles theory. It presents an analytical framework to examine how a hegemon addresses the challenge posed by rising powers aiming to catch up in technological innovation. The analysis delves into the varied aspects of the United States' responses to threats posed by technological advancements from the Soviet Union and Japan during the Cold War. It identifies measures adopted by the United States, such as export controls, self-strengthening, self-reinforcement, containment, and absorption, particularly in critical emerging high-tech sectors, in an effort to impede China's progress in technological innovation. The article concludes that the efficacy of export-control measures in stalling China's technological advancements is not substantial. Looking ahead, the ability of the United States to control crucial nodes in the technological innovation network, rally support from its allies, and drive domestic technological innovations will pose a significant challenge to its sustained hegemony.
近 400 年來的歐洲,是主權國家平等的「西發里亞體系」,以權力平衡維繫國際秩序;近 600 年以來的東亞,則是中國為天朝而四方小國臣服的「朝貢體系」,是上下層級的國際秩序。為何會有「朝貢體系」?它為何能運作?從現實主義式的觀點來看,「朝貢體系」只是一個包裝過的權力政治,骨子裡仍是物質上的利害與效益計算,中國霸權之下區域國家抵抗無望,不得不臣服。但是,從建構主義式的觀點來看,之所以會有「朝貢體系」的國際秩序,並不只是因為中國的強大,也是因為區域國家認同中國的..
For nearly four centuries, Europe had the so-called Westphalian System of sovereign states, in which balance of power was the basis of international order. In contrast, for nearly six centuries, East Asia had the so-called “tribute system,” a hierarchical order where China was the supreme leader. Why? From a realist perspective, the tribute system was just a wrapper over power politics based on material calculations of interest and benefit: East Asian countries had no choice but submission to China’s hegemon..
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..
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 construct..
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.