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.
1970∼1990年代，政治心理學就已運用於國際關係研究，但2000年起的「情緒轉向」賦予「國際政治心理學」復興的意義與影響，包括學者之間不同觀點的辯論、議題研究的實務價值、國際心理學科際整合研究的發展趨勢與挑戰，以及此轉向對整體國關研究的影響等等，都展現「情緒轉向」正重新帶動國際政治心理學的新進展，遂成為觀察此新進展的關鍵櫥窗，藉由此觀察論析其發展的挑戰與回應。 第壹部分探討國關研究的「情緒轉向 」與政治心理學發展，藉以顯現國關學者應用政治心理學為研究途徑於相關領域及議..
From 1970s to 1990s, Political Psychology has applied to International Relations, but only since 2000, the “emotional turn” empowered International Political Psychology the meaning of revival and impacts. Including the debates between scholars with different perspectives (ontology, epistemology, methodology, and research methods), the practice values of issues study, interdisciplinary trends and challenges of International Political Psychology, and the impacts of “emotional turn”. All demonstrate the “emotional..
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.