非傳統安全指的是除了戰爭外其他會威脅到國家安全的議題,在全球化的局勢下這些議題的重要性與日俱增,然而文獻上少有對這個國際關係的第三大次領域系統性的整理,本文討論非傳統安全的三大重要主題—能源安全、環境議題、恐怖主義,以及其他議題如糧食安全、移民與難民議題、跨國犯罪、以及傳染病,除了回顧相關文獻並探討其趨勢外,本文認為非傳統安全的議題仍不斷在擴充中,並點出全球化下科技在這些議題中扮演的重要角色。
Non-traditional security (NTS) issues refer to any issues other than wars that will threaten national security. The importance of NTS issues has been increasing as globalization has accelerated. The literature, however, lacks a systematic review of NTS research, which is arguably the third largest subfield in international relations. This paper focuses on three major NTS issues—energy security, environmental issues, and terrorism, and also briefly discusses other NTS issues, including food security, migration and refugees, transnational crime, and pandemics. In addition to reviewing the relevant literature on each issue and pointing out the potential areas for future research, this paper argues that the scope of NTS issues keeps expanding and that technology plays a key role in these issue areas in the era of globalization.
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..
本文利用追蹤資料向量自我迴歸模型,檢證 2003~2012 年中美外援非洲的動機與成效。結果顯示,大國外援有相同之處:兩者外援目的,都不是基於國際道義考量,但大國外援也存在差異的地方:中國外援以現實利益為主,目的為確保其企業海外投資安全。美國外援則不局限在經濟利益而已,更加側重非傳統安全領域;換言之,美援強調的是綜合利益。中美兩國外援模式差異,肇因於彼此政府對自身所處國際體系地位的認知不同。
In this paper, we used the panel data vector autoregression model (PVAR) to test motivation and effectiveness of the U.S. and China’s foreign aid (FA) in Africa. Empirical results show similarities in the great power’s foreign aid: the purpose of both great power’s FA is not based on international moral considerations. However there are also major differences between these two great power’s FA. Chinese FA is based on real interests and mainly aims to ensure safety of its outward foreign dire..
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.