蒙古位於亞洲內陸,夾處於中、俄兩大強國之間的戰略位置,使其曾長期被兩大強鄰視為領土的邊疆(frontier)。隨著 1991 年蘇聯瓦解,使近代蒙古第一次擁有完整主權。此後,蒙古的對外政策定調為「不結盟、等距離、全方位」,在「第三鄰國」戰略操作及地理條件基礎下,以平衡為原則,執行外交策略。誠然,蒙古如何在兩大強鄰之間求取平衡的生存之道,建構出獨立與靈活的外交及經貿空間,是蒙古確保國家安全的一大課題,也是本文的研究目的。
Mongolia, with its strategic location between China and Russia in the inner Asia, is seen by its powerful neighbors for hundreds of years as a frontier. In 1991, modern Mongolia obtained complete sovereignty for the first time after the disruption of USSR, Hereafter, its foreign policy was principled upon “independence, non-alignment, multi-pillars”. Under the “third neighbor” strategy, Mongolia uses the opportunities endowed from its geography to balance neighboring threats, ensure its national security, and create independent and flexible spaces in foreign affairs, economy, and trade. How Mongolia dealt with their prime issues is the focus of this article.
學界一般認為,冷戰結束後,隨著中國的快速崛起,包括越南在內的東亞小國對中國所採取的外交策略偏向「避險」或「接納」。文獻指出除了加強與中國的關係外,越南亦主動與各大國交好,並強調其要走著一個獨立、自主、多元且多方化的外交政策路線,此被視為越南對中國的「避險」策略。然而,本文認為有關越南對中國政策的分析較為單向,即大部分僅著重在越中關係本身的推拉力,而忽略了美國在其中的主動角色。 因此,無法說明越南對中政策近期的動態變化。本文的論點是,基於安全與國家利益的考量,..
The conventional wisdom assumes that East Asian countries have been adopting “hedging” or “accommodating” strategy toward China since the end of the Cold War. By putting forward an “independent, diversified and multidirectional foreign policy,” Vietnam has attempted to strengthen relations with a number of major powers, including China. As a result, Hanoi is regarded as a typical “hedger” towards Beijing. This paper, on the contrary, argues that the relating analyses on Vietnam&..
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.