國際制度合作的有效性：權力、知識與理念分配？－以表決制度與國際貨幣基金之改革為例

The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Distribution of Power, Knowledge, and Ideas? A Case Study of IMF and Voting System

蔡育岱(Yu-Tai Tsai)

《政治學報》 57期 (2014/06) Pp. 53-76

https://doi.org/10.6229/CPSR.2014.57.03

摘要

本文重新審視國際合作的看法與國際制度的功能。現實主義認為，制度基本上是反映權力的分配，渠是基於強權間自我利益的計算，呈現較悲觀的國家行為分析模式。而自由制度主義則直接挑戰此一命題，主張制度可以改變國家偏好，進而形塑國家的行為，有能力使更多的國家擺脫衝突。相較之下，建構主義對制度的核心論述，是強調構成性與規則性規範將改變制度和國際體系，進而徹底改變無政府狀態為假設下的自助、自利的思維模式，使國家根據他們自己的身份認同界定利益。緣此，本研究透過國際組織之表決制度，分析合作的限制與制度有效性，其中一為表決權的分配，另為表決方式的操作，藉以解釋國際關係中合作的現象，究竟是何種理論較具有解釋力？最後將以近期國際貨幣基金表決制度與對中國份額之改革策略進行分析，說明其與理論之間的關連性。

關鍵字

國際制度 ； 國際關係理論 ； 表決制度 ； 國際貨幣基金

並列摘要

This paper re-examines an analysis of the prospects for international cooperation and of the capabilities of international institutions. Realists, liberal institutionalists, and Constructivists particularly disagree about whether institutions markedly affect the prospects for international stability. Realists insist that institutions are fundamentally a function of the distribution of power in the world. Their analysis is based on the self-interested calculations of the great powers, and presents a pessimistic analysis on state behavior. Liberal institutionalists directly challenge the proposition of Realism, arguing instead that institutions can alter state preferences and then change state behavior. Institutions have the capability to move states away from conflict. On the contrary, the central aim of Constructivists is to alter the constitutive and regulative norms of the international system so that states stop thinking and acting according to anarchy. States would not think in terms of self-help or self-interest, but would instead define their interests in terms of the international society. Besides, states may pursue a conditional cooperation in the face of international anarchy. Hence, this paper is to evaluate the limitation of cooperation and the effectiveness of international institutions by analyzing the voting system: voting rights and voting methods. The task involves answering questions: Which is the most causal logic that explains the effectiveness of international institutions? Are these different theories that explain how China works in ＂Quota＂ Reform of IMF and its Voting System? Does the evidence support these theories?

並列關鍵字

international institutions ； international relations theories ； voting system ； IMF

參考文獻

吳萬寶()。

林文程(2000)。我國參與國際組織的困境與對策。新世紀智庫論壇。10，19-44。

乾隆來(2010)。向「IMF學長」看齊 成功度過破產危機？。今週刊。698，42-51。

梁西(1996)。國際組織法。臺北:志一。

許琇媛編(2004)。歐盟憲法條約草案之架構與重點。淡江大學歐盟文獻中心通訊。3，1-15。