本文檢視在後冷戰時代石油美元機制對美國霸權之影響,並關注美國領導地位在 1991 年波灣、2003 年伊拉克與 2011 年利比亞等戰爭中的角色。在處理國際事務中,美國霸權逐漸採行單邊行動,因而產生合法性危機之質疑。因此自 1990 年以來,美國便宣稱願意承擔昂貴之經濟成本與犧牲其國家之利益,以便與他國建立聯盟共同對抗流氓國家之威脅。美國能以維繫穩定之國際經濟秩序,與贏得反恐作戰之合法性名義發動先制戰爭。為了理解這一看似非理性之行為,根基於 Pierre Bourdieu 關於象徵性資本之概念上,我們提出「炫耀性利他主義」以解釋美國與其盟國採取昂貴成本行動背後的原由。此外,我們更進一步指出傳遞此種「炫耀性利他主義」信息之目的,在於維繫「石油美元」此一能捍衛美元信用的系統。如此,透過作為全球儲備貨幣之美元,美國將能提升其霸權地位。
This paper explores the impact of petrodollar mechanism on the hegemony of the United States in the post-Cold War era. It particularly focuses on the two wars against Iraq respectively in 1991 and in 2003 and the Libyan war in 2011, all under the leadership of the U.S. The U.S. hegemony has been experiencing a legitimacy crisis caused by its increasing tendency towards unilateral actions in international affairs. In order to form alliances among Western nations to confront the rogue states, the U.S. government has demonstrated its willingness to bear economic losses and sacrifice its national interests ever since the 1990s. The United States was engaged in preemptive wars on terrorism to regain its legitimacy of maintaining a stable international economic order. The victories proved to be costly. To analyze such seemingly irrational behaviors, we propose the concept of “conspicuous altruism,” based on Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic capital, to find the rationale underlying the costly military actions taken by the U.S. and its allies. We further argue that the “conspicuous altruism” signals the U.S. intention to maintain the petrodollar system, which then secures the credibility of the dollars. The U.S. can reaffirm the Dollar’s status as a global reserve currency, thereby enhancing its hegemonic status.
現有國際關係研究對於霸權主導國際制度已有一定之發現,不過對崛起強權參與建構國際制度的行為傾向,則附屬於霸權的相關討論,而未獲得一定之重視。霸權論一般認為,崛起強權在未發生霸權戰爭前,只能被迫遵循霸權主導 下的國際制度,唯有在崛起強權取得霸權地位之後,方能展示是創建國際制度的領導能力。霸權論由相對物質權力層面探索的崛起強權描述,僅能凸顯霸權戰爭的爆發,未必能勾勒出崛起強權的全面行為,亦未能解釋霸權繼承者的條件。 發生霸權更迭之前,並非沒有發生崛起強權參與建構國際制度的案例,例如德意..
The exploration of the rising power has been subordinated to the arguments of hegemony and revisionist states. The Hegemonic Stability Theory and Power Transfer Theory have argued that the rising power has to follow international instructions set according to the hegemonic interests before the break out of hegemony war through which the rising power revolts the status quo hegemon. This approach might describe the reasons of hegemonic war; however, it might not be able to explain the overall behavior patterns of rising power in the construct..
傳統國際關係研究在討論霸權的相關課題時,多是探索霸權相對權力優勢的消長,認為失去權力優勢的霸權,將難逃新興國家的挑戰,霸權交替萌起於無可避免的霸權戰爭。國關學界依順國際政治是一種權力競爭的思路,多是以物質權力作為評量霸權的基準,相對忽視權威暨治理正當性等因素在構成霸業的作用,進而忽略霸權領導的治理權威,霸權如何維繫霸業的討論,更限縮在有限的強制宰制,忽視正當性對強化霸權統御的作用。 本文試圖檢驗權威在霸權治理過程中所扮演的角色與作用,以..
IR studies on hegemony have paid much attention on the relative decline and uprising of powers, which has constituted the perspective that the factors of uneven-growth will cause the downfall of hegemony and the rising power will replace the old one after the former poses great challenges to the declining hegemon and wins the hegemonic war. Though the term of hegemony has deeply implied the characters of leadership, IR generally defines the hegemony as an international order within which one state constitute her dominance wit..
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.