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

The Dialectics of Regional and Global Levels in Offensive Realism: An Anaylsis of Multipolar, Bipolar and Unipolar Cases

陳冠安(Kuan-An Chen)

指導教授 ： 張登及

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/政治學研究所/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201700644

摘要

本文認為結構現實主義長期以來被批評為靜態、缺乏變化和脫離現實的原因即在於其堅守單一國際體系和恆定無政府狀態的假定。攻勢現實主義雖然有創見地採用全球－區域體系和承認區域霸權存在，為現實主義開闢出一條新的理路，不過由於其在本體論、體系結構理論的問題，以及對區域層次的忽視，就造成其創見之處也同時是其缺失之處，在論述上退回國際層次，未能比擬當初Waltz的成就。
　　由於攻勢現實主義的根本問題在於未探討體系結構的變化，因此本文即借鏡Wendt社會建構論的觀點，以Buzan和Little(2000)的互動能力作為其在本體論和體系結構論的物質建構基礎，成為動態理論。在層次理論，本文給予區域層次理論主體的地位，改善攻勢現實主義對其的忽視，建立實質的全球－區域層次。並進一步據此探討全球與區域層次的辯證關係，提出全球層次五大運作邏輯，認為由於全球體系恆定無政府狀態，使得全球極數國必然追求提升位置，而會在全球層次競逐全球權力的同時，與其他全球極數國在區域展開競逐，藉由干預某一區域體系的極數或結構，或是藉此增減全球極數國，達致其提升全球位置之目標。
　　由於攻勢現實主義本身對全球層次運作有完整的探討，因此本文的案例驗證將著焦在全球層次對區域層次的干預，以戰間期至二戰、冷戰和後冷戰，分別探討全球多極、兩極和單極，全球極數國對干預區域的依據。也就是說，探討全球極性對全球極數干預區域層次的影響。在完成理論修正和案例驗證後，本文最後將據此展望當前和可見未來的國際情勢，認為由於全球與區域辯證關係，美國為保其全球單極位置，必將持續對東亞、斯拉夫和歐洲等有可能轉為單強層級的區域進行干預。

關鍵字

結構現實主義 ； 攻勢現實主義 ； 物質建構論 ； 全球層次 ； 區域層次 ； 單極 ； 霸權

並列摘要

This paper argues that structural realism has long been criticized as static, lacking change and being divorced from reality because of its assumption of a single international system and constant anarchy. Offensive realism, despite the creative use of the global-regional system and the acceptance of regional hegemony, opens up a new path for realism, However, due to its ontology, system-structure theory’s problem, and underrate the regional level, Offensive realism’s creation also is its missing, bring it back to international level, can not compare to Waltz’s achievements.
As the fundamental problem of offensive realism is that it doesn’t discuss possibility of system or structure change. This article will refer to the view of Wendt's social constructivism, base on Buzan and Little's(2000) interactive ability, to bulid Offensive realism’s material construction foundation on its ontology, system and structure, become to a dynamic theory. At the level of theory, this paper gives regional level a theoretical status, to improve the overration of offensive realism. Thereby establishing a substantive global-regional level. Further, explores the global and regional levels of the dialectical relationship, and advance the five operational logic of global level, which base on assumption of global system’s constant anarchy, making global powers will inevitably seek to improve its positions, by competing with the other global powers in the gobal and regions; by intervening in regional polarity or regional structure; by manipulating the global power’s numbers.
　　Offensive realism has discuss global level’s operation complete. Therefore, our cases will focus on global level intervene regional level, especially, global powers intervene region’s basis. This paper will validate the World War II, the Cold War and the Post-Cold War, respectively, to explore how diffierent global powers intervene regions in the global multipolar, bipolar and unipolar. Which means, how global polarity effects global powers intervene regional level.
After the completion of theoretical amendments and case validation, this paper concludes with present and foreseeable future international affairs, and argues that because of the global and regional dialectical relationship, the United States will continue to maintain its global unipolar position, by intervene in East Asia, Slav, Europe and other regions where might become unipolar-hierarchic system.

並列關鍵字

structural realism ； offensive realism ； material constuctivism ； global level ； regional level ； unipolar ； hegemon

參考文獻

明居正，2013，《大美霸權的浮現：後冷戰時期大國政治的邏輯》，台北：五南出版

許田波(Hui, Victoria Tim-Bor)著，徐進譯，2009，《戰爭與國家形成：春秋戰國與近代早期歐洲之比較》(War and state Formation in ancient China and early modern Europe)，北京：北京大學。

巨克毅，2008，〈當前美國的東亞戰略分析〉，《全球政治評論》，21：19-44。

巨克毅、李玫憲，2011，〈當前美國對歐洲戰略思維之分析〉，《全球政治評論》，33：35-72。

吳玉山，2007，〈顏色革命的許諾與侷限〉，《臺灣民主季刊》，4(2)：67-112。