國際關係主流理論研究的是多邊關係，但是多邊關係得以運作，其前提在於，當多邊關係受限時，可仰賴雙邊關係加以維繫或超越，使多邊關係免於遭到直接挑戰。本文主張將雙邊關係做為國際關係研究途徑加以探究，並以戰後英國因實力變化而選擇轉向雙邊為個案。出於避免一夕崩壞及維護利益的設想，孱弱的大英帝國在戰後選擇向雙邊主義靠攏，美中兩國成為優先考量。即便這兩組雙邊關係間存在矛盾，卻是英國勉強藉由兩組雙邊關係維繫既有多邊框架，再行逐步調整，進而在戰後世界站穩腳跟的機制。
Mainstream IR theories are typically multilateral. However, for any multilateral frame or value to last, bilateral relations must be able to resolve conceivable limitations. Thus, bilateral relations should be intrinsic to IR theorization. We use the United Kingdom in the aftermath of WWII as our case. The UK managed bilateral relations with the United States and China as ways to overcome its decline after the war. The bilateral relations transcend the multilateral frame and value. Accordingly, the UK’s two bilateral relations are inconsistent, but together are conducive to maintaining UK’s nominal status which has been challenged under its extant multilateral frame.
做為國際關係學門當中安全研究重要項目之一的「歐洲安全」，在經由冷戰時期與後冷戰時期的理論辯證與政策實踐進程，已成為相關領域的重要範例。本文將有系統的以區域安全、國際關係、全球體系三個不同層次面向理論當中各自所屬的理性主義與非理性主義做為理論架構，檢驗歐洲安全分別在冷戰與後冷戰時期的發展，以了解各理論的解釋效度與適用性。由本研究對於歐洲安全的交叉檢驗可以發現，冷戰時期以權力為安全關係核心，形成了長期區域集團對抗的國際雙極體系，因此，上述三個層次的理論當中的理性..
The dynamic development of European security in both theoretical debate and policy practice has made its research a momentous model in the field of security studies. This article aims at exploring various theoretical structures of European security by systematically examining both rationalism and non-rationalism in regional security, international relations theories, and global systems. Core issues of focus are allocated at three levels. The article applies a theoretical basis to the volatile evolution of European security du..
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.