橫亙百餘年之久的俄屬遠東黃禍論已是某種或然性規律,不僅未因世局變遷而消弭,今日更成為俄羅斯與中國之間的兩難困境與潛在負面變數。本文擬由身分政治角度切入,解構促使黃禍論於冷戰後復萌之無形雙重觀念結構-俄中關係與俄國內部互動。除藉以揭示黃禍論的深層蘊含外,亦對其進行中長期預測,希冀藉由建構主義就黃禍論的釋疑,推導「跨層次/情境習得轉化」論點,讓國際政治與國內政治雙向互動的研究不再僅是某種未落實的隱喻,從而為建構主義中層理論增添新的實徵案例,並作為層次分析學理的補充。
本文認為,俄中兩國間的身分與認知需獲得調和,而俄國內部的疏離以及遠東區當地俄人與中國人間的隔閡亦須趨同,黃禍論方有減輕、緩和,乃至於消弭的可能。然而,兩國當前所期望的共有文化-「世代友好,永不為敵」尚未徹底到位,俄國內部促成黃禍論復萌的離心傾向亦仍俟時而動。各造屬性若未能調和,黃禍論仍將持續與其所依附之雙重觀念結構交錯地建構,其成因亦可能經由社會化而代代相傳。但遠東區俄人與中國人互動多年後,其若干特質與行為卻逐漸與中國人趨同,此或許能補足俄國內部所欠缺之自下而上的建構作用。此外,世代交替亦為俄羅斯再起的希望,俄中兩國的差距若能弭平,黃禍論自亦有望緩和、消弭。
Yellow Peril in the Russian Far East, spanning more than one hundred years, has already become a probabilistic law. It does not fade with time, and has already been the dilemma and the potential negative variable between Russia and China. The thesis attempts to analyze Yellow Peril from a perspective of identity politics, and to deconstruct Russo-Chinese relationships and Russia’s domestic interaction, because the dual intangible idea structures awakened contemporary Yellow Peril after the Cold War. Such an approach not only reveals the essence of Yellow Peril, but also forecasts its mid- to long-term development. Besides, it attempts to deduce the argument: “learning and transferring across level and mood” by explaining Yellow Peril through Constructivism, so as to make the research on interaction of international relations and domestic politics not merely an unrealized metaphor, adding a new example for the middle range theory of Constructivism and providing a supplement to the level-of-analysis.
The thesis contends that the identities and cognitions between Russia and China must be coordinated. Moreover, Russia’s domestic alienation and the gap between the Russian and the Chinese in the Russian Far East should be narrowed, and then Yellow Peril may just be mitigated or eliminated. However, the currently shared culture: “To be friends forever and never be enemies,” expected by both Russia and China, is not realized thoroughly, and the domestic centrifugal tendency that led to Yellow Peril still exists in Russia. If the properties of each side cannot be coordinated, Yellow Peril will construct and intertwine with the dual idea structures, and the causes of Yellow Peril may also persist from generation to generation through socialization. Nevertheless, after these two peoples interacted for several years, some characteristics and behaviors of the Russians in the Russian Far East have turned out to be more and more similar to those of the Chinese, and this may compensate for the lack of bottom-up construction in Russia. Moreover, alternation of generations may also be the hope of Russia’s resurgence. If the gap between China and Russia can be narrowed, Yellow Peril may also be mitigated and eliminated.
在國際關係理論中,以主權國家為前提,以理性選擇為途徑,這種採用國家是單一理性行為體的假設,在解釋國際合作與否時,已經面臨到一些挑戰,換言之,非國家行為體亦扮演重要角色。另外,由新現實主義和新自由主義共同假定的制度結構,在日趨複雜的現實世界中,也不能完全理解真實國際社會合作發生的原因。因此,本文嘗試引用認知理論,藉共同認知變項的提出,並結合共同利益變項,透過整合制度結構和認知轉化的過程,導出一種國際合作框架。在驗證部份,本文採用賽局理論和列舉實際案例,說明制度..
In international relations, some theories explain international cooperation almost solely based on sovereign states and a presumed approach of rational choice. However, these hypotheses assume a state-actor, as a rational unit, will meet some unforeseen challenges, thus we need a non-state actor as another variable. Furthermore, an institutional structure of neo- realism’s and neo-liberalism’s hypothesis do not fully illustrate how international cooperation occurs in the real world. So we adopt both the cognitive ..
國際關係學者瓦特(Stephen M. Walt)曾提出以「威脅平衡」概念為主的聯盟理論,挑戰了現實主義內部關於「權力平衡」的論點,後來又有學者提出「利益平衡」與「推卸責任」的論述加以反駁。經由本文的探討與重新檢視,這些學者爭論的焦點在於「制衡」與「扈從」概念上的界定。由於學界對於「扈從」在理論解釋與個案運用上的解讀不同,其實際上涵蓋了積極扈從(順從)與消極扈從(屈從)兩種相反的概念,吾人若僅從「制衡」與「扈從」兩種分類便欲判斷何者在國際關係中較為盛行,則易..
Stephen M. Walt proposed his theory of alliances, focusing mainly on the concept of balance-of-threat. His statement challenged the prevailing concept of balance-of-power theory of traditional realism, thereby receiving criticizisms of “balance-of-interest” and “buck-passing.” This article re- examines the debates, and finds out that the major controversy is in fact how to circumscribe “balancing” and “bandwagoning”. When using the concept of “bandwagoning”, scholars..
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.