期刊內容 Issue content

回列表
既有強權對崛起強權的政策選擇分析:以美國對「日本崛起」與「中國崛起」之回應為例
An Analysis of Dominant Powers’ Policy Options toward Rising Powers: Examples of the U.S. Reactions to the Rise of Japan and China
陳亮智(Liang-chih Evans Chen)劉兆隆(Chao-lung Liu)
下載檔案
58卷1期(2019/03/01)

本文認為，「既有強權美國 vs. 崛起強權日本」(1931~1941)與「既有強權美國 vs. 崛起強權中國」(1993~2018)的比較，能為現今的美中關係提供許多建設性的思考。本文從既有強權的角度觀察其如何回應崛起強權;以Randall Schweller的歸納為基礎而建立一個相對完整的政策選擇全貌。作者發現:面對1931~1941年崛起的日本，美國先採「中立、綏靖」，後改採「制衡」，最終採「戰爭」。面對1993~2018年崛起的中國，美國以「交往」為基調而佐以「戰略夥伴關係」，然因中國崛起與美國重返亞洲，其逐漸轉成「既交往又制衡」，是典型的「混合策略」。如此，成就兩個不同的大國互動結果。

 

This paper argues that the comparative study of the two cases - the US dominant power vs. the Japan rising power (1931-1941) and the US dominant power vs. the China rising power (1993-2018) can provide ample constructive thinking on the contemporary US-China relations. This paper focuses on how a dominant power reacts to a rising power. An analytical framework of dominant powers’ policy options toward rising powers, based on Randall Schweller’s theories, is developed and applied to this study. This paper has found that fac- ing a rising Japan from 1931 to 1941, the US first opted for neutrality and ap- peasement, but later changed to balancing, which eventually led to war. In con- trast, facing a rising China from 1993 to 2018, the US opted for engagement in principle and supplemented it with strategic partnership. However, in the case of rising China, due to the return of the US to Asia, the US gradually shifted its policy to engagement while balancing - this type of shift is a typical mixed strategy. As such, two different kinds of interactions between great powers have resulted in different consequences.

 

美日關係美中關係制衡交往 U.S.-Japan Relations U.S.-China Relations Balancing Engagement

相關期刊

美中貿易戰後的國際結構：政治兩極化會造成貿易關係兩極化嗎?
International Structure of the Post US-China Trade War: Political Bipolarization Leads to Bipolarization in International Trade?
林偉修 (Wei-hsiu Lin)
63卷1期(2024/03/01)

美中貿易戰宣告了兩國在國際政治的競爭局勢正式展開，2019年後的疫情更形加劇了兩國彼此的競爭關係。然而，美中對立下新冷戰的政治兩極化一定會造成國際貿易關係的兩極化嗎？世界各國真的會各自歸隊，在美國與中國之間擇一而處，形成兩極對立的局勢嗎？還是口頭上與行為上有差異，仍然依照國家自身的利益分別和美國和中國進行實質上的往來。本文即探討這個問題，比較疫情前後，國際貿易局勢的變化到底是趨向兩極化還是非兩極化。本文認為，新冷戰的局勢下，美中對立造成的政治兩極化無法避免，但政治兩極化不等於貿易關係兩極..

The U.S.-China trade war indicates a confrontation between the U.S. and China, and the pandemic problem since 2019 deteriorates the confrontation. However, will political polarization due to the new cold war between the U.S. and China lead to economic polarization? Do countries in the whole world choose their own sides between the U.S. and China, establishing two blocs and competing? Or countries in the whole world behave inconsistently in terms of verbal promises and practical actions. National interest is still their benchmark to have sub..

研究中國外交還需要國際關係理論嗎？
Do We Still Need International Relations Theory to Study Chinese Foreign Policy?
張廖年仲 (Nien-chung Chang-Liao)
63卷2期(2024/06/01)

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..

top