透過您的圖書館登入
IP:3.22.171.136
  • 期刊

論析2022年美國的北約戰略:離岸平衡的觀點

On the US NATO Strategy in 2022: A Perspective on Offshore Balancing

摘要


美國為北約最主要領導者,2022年北約發展十年一次的新戰略,美國的戰略聚焦在「對抗俄羅斯」及「反制中國」等兩項:視俄羅斯為直接且最顯著的威脅;中國則歸類為系統性的挑戰。美國的戰略是以攻勢現實主義離岸平衡的理則,藉北約為「代理人」,採取軍事手段制裁俄羅斯,防止其對歐洲大陸的威脅。為應對中國在全球的挑戰,美國意圖建構全球防範性系統,以遏制中國的崛起。然而,美國國力正在下降,離岸平衡策略的運用不能單從軍事層面思考「代理人」可產生的效能,還須考慮地緣政治及其「代理人」的意圖,較為適當。

關鍵字

北約 離岸平衡 大國競爭 美國 中國

並列摘要


The United States is the most important leader within NATO. NATO develops a new strategy every 10 years. The United States' strategy focuses on two main things: Russia and China. It regards Russia as the direct and most obvious threat, while China is classified as a challenge to the system. The United States' strategy is based on the principle of offensive realism and offshore balancing, using NATO as a proxy to take military measures to sanction Russia in response to the threat it poses to the European continent. In response to China's global challenges, the United States intends to build a global preventive system to contain its rise. However, the United States' national strength is ostensibly declining, and the use of offshore balancing strategies cannot only consider the effectiveness of proxies from the military level, but should also consider geopolitics and the intentions of proxies.

參考文獻


Mearsheimer, John, 2021/11-12. “The Inevitable Rivalry: America, China, and the Tragedy of Great-Power Politics,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 100, No. 6, pp. 48-59.
Schweller, Randall L., 2004/Fall. “Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing,” International Security, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 159-201.
Tow William T., 2019/2. “Minilateral Security’s Relevance to US Strategy in the Indo-Pacific: Challenges and Prospects,” The Pacific Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 232-244.
Walt, Stephen M., 2019/5-6. “The End of Hubris: And the New Age of American Restraint,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 26-35.
Zheng, Denghua, 2018/5. “The Concept of ‘Community of Common Destiny ’ in China ’s Diplomacy : Meaning, Motives and Implications,” Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 196-207.

延伸閱讀