透過您的圖書館登入
IP:13.58.197.26
  • 期刊

新古典現實主義與外交政策分析的再連結

The Re-linkage between Neoclassical Realism and Foreign Policy Analysis

摘要


本文主張新古典現實主義不宜再度檢視國內層次的眾多因素與變項,而應從實然的角度來思考國家如何評估威脅、國家如何選擇外交政策的類型。本文說明新古典現實主義並非為解決異例(anomaly)誕生,而是將非體系與理念因素納入體系理論的邏輯之中,也就是將國內層次因素解讀為決策者對壓力的反應類型,亦即決策者會評估並判斷應採取何種類型之外交政策。而根據決策者對國際壓力的知覺(perception),以及對於國內政治的評估(calculation),本文整理出國家具有制衡、扈從、避險,以及適應等四種外交政策類型。基於類型而非特定內容的研究方式,可使新古典現實主義無需面對複雜無序的國內因素,並專注於介於體系與單位之間的非結構與理念因素,進而避免陷入理論發展的退化過程。

並列摘要


This article criticizes the inappropriateness of neoclassical realism in evaluating factors and variables at the domestic level. Instead, the manner of which states assess threats and choose types of foreign policy should be based on empirical methods. The authors explain that neoclassical realism is not a result of solving anomaly but that it combines non-structural and ideational factors into the logic of the system theory. Factors at the domestic level are supposed to be systematically categorized and simplified by types of reactions among decision makers under various pressures. Based on the perception of decision makers toward external pressure and domestic politics calculation, the article concludes that there are four categories of foreign policy among states: balancing, bandwagoning, accommodating, and hedging. Focusing on the types rather than specific content as an intervening variable, the theoretical development of neoclassical realism will continue to be a progressive research approach, while avoids becoming degenerative.

參考文獻


Palmer, Glenn、Morgan, T. Clifton、梁書寧譯(2006)。外交政策理論分析。台北:韋伯文化國際。
莫大華(2009)。國際關係建構主義理論內部的知識差異與方法論多元。問題與研究。48(3),63-95。
鄭端耀(2005)。國際關係新古典現實主義理論。問題與研究。44(1),115-140。
廖舜右(2006)。Thomas Kuhn與Imre Lakatos有關國際關係理論的爭論。政治科學論叢。29,31-48。
Buzan, Barry(1991).People, State and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in Post-Gold War Era.Hertfordshire:Simon & Schuster International Group.

被引用紀錄


陳冠安(2017)。全球與區域層次辯證下的攻勢現實主義:多極、兩極與單極案例的分析〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700644

延伸閱讀