搜尋結果 Search Result

搜尋結果 : 和"中國崛起"有關的資料, 共有5筆
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
即將出版
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..

中國的多邊外交: 台灣學術社群研究之比較分析
China’s Multilateral Diplomacy: Researches of the Taiwanese academic society in comparative aspects
冷則剛(Tse-Kang Leng)賴潤瑤(Christina Lai)
62卷1期(2023/03/01)

本文的主要目的在瞭解台灣學者如何研究中國的多邊外交,研究成果展現了哪些特色,以及與國際學術界研究此一議題的連結。有關台灣學者研究成果收錄的範疇,則主要以2012年之後的著作為主。本文首先就中國官方及學術界,以及國際學術社群,針對中國多邊外交概念及理論架構的研究,以及政策與執行層面的分析,作一整理爬梳。接下來則探討台灣學者對中國多邊外交的總體性研究,作出了何種貢獻,其與國際關係中多邊外交分析傳統的關聯性如何。此外,本文也針對中國多邊外交的個案,探討台灣學者研究成果與國際學術界研究取向之異同..

The purposes of this study are to understand the approaches adopted by the Taiwanese scholars to research on China’s multilateral diplomacy, major characteristics of research results, and the linkages with the international academic society. The scope of analysis is limited to research publications after 2012. This paper first explores major theoretical concepts adopted by international and mainland Chinese academics on China’s multilateral diplomacy, followed by the analysis of research outputs on policy implementation and prac..

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)
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..

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..

全球「自」理:在思想史脈絡中實踐負責任的大國角色
Global Governance through Self Governance: Placing the Responsible Major State in the Chinese History of Political Thoughts
石之瑜(Chih-Yu Shih)邵軒磊(Hsuan-Lei Shao)
51卷2期(2012/06/01)

當代中國政治領導人及公共知識分子努力營造中國是一個「負責任的大國」形象。雖然他們審慎地觀察外界如何期待中國,但是他們卻又未必願意滿足外界對於所謂「負責任」的定義。在全球化時代,外界總是關心中國是否能夠參與解決、減緩或預防各種全球治理問題。不過,不論是古典的或當代的中國政治思想,往往強調反躬自省,因此中國政府在體現對自身的世界責任時,幾乎無例外的都以中國能妥善處理與全球治理相關的內部問題為目標,以確保中國自己不成為全球問題為職志。相較於歐美發達國家勇於標舉全球..

Both the political leaders and intellectuals in China want to present the image of her being a responsible country in the world. Their understandings of responsibility are not directed at an external audience, although they closely watch what the latter expects of China. In the global age, the expectation is always about China’s contribution to conflict resolutions, and alleviation and prevention of global problems, whatever it may be. The Chinese political thoughts, classic as well as modern, are so grounded in their c..

top