本文關(guān)鍵詞：戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)的權(quán)威研究　出處：《南開大學(xué)》2014年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 關(guān)系型權(quán)威 結(jié)構(gòu)壓力 利益內(nèi)化 美國(guó)—亞太國(guó)家關(guān)系

【摘要】：與傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際關(guān)系理論認(rèn)為在國(guó)際無(wú)政府狀態(tài)下,國(guó)家之上沒(méi)有其他任何權(quán)威不同,本文從國(guó)際關(guān)系現(xiàn)實(shí)出發(fā),認(rèn)為在國(guó)際關(guān)系中存在一種關(guān)系型權(quán)威,二戰(zhàn)之后美國(guó)在世界各個(gè)地區(qū)(包括亞太地區(qū))擁有此類權(quán)威。本文提出的核心問(wèn)題是：第二次世界大戰(zhàn)之后,美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)是否擁有權(quán)威及擁有怎樣的權(quán)威? 為論述這一問(wèn)題,本文在既有研究的基礎(chǔ)上,將關(guān)鍵概念“權(quán)威”定義為建立在主導(dǎo)者和從屬者雙方認(rèn)可基礎(chǔ)上的一項(xiàng)服從與被服從的關(guān)系。在國(guó)際關(guān)系中,主導(dǎo)國(guó)要求跟從國(guó)接受自己的命令,跟從國(guó)承認(rèn)自己有遵從主導(dǎo)國(guó)意志的義務(wù)。當(dāng)雙方對(duì)支配——服從關(guān)系沒(méi)有直接而長(zhǎng)期的抵制(即承認(rèn)其正當(dāng)性)時(shí),權(quán)威關(guān)系成立——關(guān)系型權(quán)威形成。 在國(guó)際關(guān)系中,權(quán)威關(guān)系的構(gòu)成基礎(chǔ)是跟從國(guó)的集體接受,而權(quán)威關(guān)系的建立則是主導(dǎo)國(guó)和跟從國(guó)在既有的結(jié)構(gòu)壓力下進(jìn)行利益交換的結(jié)果。權(quán)威關(guān)系-旦形成,就具有了自我維持的內(nèi)在機(jī)制。在具體的因果解釋中,結(jié)構(gòu)壓力和利益內(nèi)化度是影響國(guó)家之間建立權(quán)威關(guān)系的主要因素。結(jié)構(gòu)壓力影響著權(quán)威建立的傾向(可能性),而利益內(nèi)化度決定著權(quán)威程度的高低。在這兩個(gè)因素的作用下,國(guó)家之間的權(quán)威關(guān)系呈現(xiàn)出強(qiáng)制型、依附型、合作型、協(xié)調(diào)型、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)型等不同形態(tài)。 戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)擁有不同程度的權(quán)威。既有的理論分析主要分為四種路徑：其一,美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)的權(quán)威是美國(guó)追求區(qū)域外霸權(quán)的組成部分；其二,亞太國(guó)家“邀請(qǐng)”美國(guó)入駐地區(qū),保持地區(qū)穩(wěn)定；其三,美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)的權(quán)威存在是美國(guó)與亞太國(guó)家之間建立在理性計(jì)算基礎(chǔ)上的合作；其四,美國(guó)要在世界范圍內(nèi)推廣自己的價(jià)值觀,建立美國(guó)的“朝貢體系”。四種路徑雖然都對(duì)美國(guó)的權(quán)威存在進(jìn)行了不同角度的論述,但都未對(duì)權(quán)威程度進(jìn)行衡量。本文從政治表態(tài),軍事關(guān)系及經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系三個(gè)維度對(duì)美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)的權(quán)威進(jìn)行操作化的指標(biāo)衡量。在政治維度上,主要考察的指標(biāo)有：(1)雙方對(duì)彼此關(guān)系的公開定位；(2)國(guó)家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人拜訪的位序和次數(shù)；(3)亞太國(guó)家與美國(guó)在聯(lián)合國(guó)投票的一致性。在經(jīng)濟(jì)維度上,主要的指標(biāo)有：(1)亞太經(jīng)濟(jì)體與美國(guó)貿(mào)易額占本國(guó)貿(mào)易總額的比重；(2)美國(guó)的投資占亞太經(jīng)濟(jì)體外國(guó)投資的比重；(3)特殊經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系。在軍事維度上,考察的指標(biāo)有：(1)允許美國(guó)在自己的領(lǐng)土范圍內(nèi)駐軍或擁有軍事基地；(2)亞太國(guó)家參與并支持美國(guó)主導(dǎo)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)；(3)情報(bào)共享伙伴和聯(lián)合軍事演習(xí)的機(jī)會(huì)。 通過(guò)描述性統(tǒng)計(jì),論文發(fā)現(xiàn),在冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期兩極結(jié)構(gòu)下,美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)的權(quán)威主要集中在與其傳統(tǒng)盟友的關(guān)系上,雙方對(duì)彼此關(guān)系的公開定位帶有強(qiáng)烈的意識(shí)形態(tài)和“勢(shì)力范圍”色彩；日韓等國(guó)家領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人一般在就任初期將首次出訪地定為華盛頓,在聯(lián)合國(guó)投票上更是緊跟美國(guó)立場(chǎng)。日本、韓國(guó)、澳大利亞、菲律賓和泰國(guó)與美國(guó)之間簽訂有正式的軍事條約,允許其在本國(guó)范圍內(nèi)駐軍或擁有軍事基地,積極參與美國(guó)主導(dǎo)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng),接受美國(guó)的軍事援助；在經(jīng)濟(jì)上高度依賴和美國(guó)的貿(mào)易與投資。冷戰(zhàn)之后,在二十世紀(jì)九十年代的單極結(jié)構(gòu)下,美國(guó)與亞太盟國(guó)之間的權(quán)威關(guān)系稍有削弱,雙方對(duì)利益的判斷出現(xiàn)分歧。進(jìn)入二十一世紀(jì)以來(lái),隨著中國(guó)的崛起,美國(guó)在加強(qiáng)與其傳統(tǒng)盟友之間的權(quán)威關(guān)系的同時(shí),與亞太新興國(guó)家及其他國(guó)家積極開拓伙伴關(guān)系,增加領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人互訪頻率,與東南亞、南亞國(guó)家加強(qiáng)軍事聯(lián)系,與新加坡、韓國(guó)和澳大利亞簽訂自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定,積極推進(jìn)跨太平洋伙伴關(guān)系的建設(shè)。美國(guó)與地區(qū)內(nèi)國(guó)家的權(quán)威關(guān)系在“亞太再平衡”戰(zhàn)略下呈現(xiàn)出多面并進(jìn)、網(wǎng)絡(luò)化發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)。 在衡量了美國(guó)在亞太地區(qū)享有權(quán)威的范圍和程度之后,論文還采用過(guò)程追蹤法,分別對(duì)美韓、美日這兩對(duì)權(quán)威關(guān)系進(jìn)行了縱向的歷時(shí)研究。論文發(fā)現(xiàn),即使美國(guó)作為主導(dǎo)國(guó),在與跟從國(guó)的實(shí)力差距上擁有絕對(duì)的優(yōu)勢(shì),在權(quán)威關(guān)系發(fā)展的過(guò)程中也不一定掌握主動(dòng)權(quán),利益內(nèi)化度起著重要的作用——在跟從國(guó)掌握利益收益點(diǎn)的情況下,利用主導(dǎo)國(guó)對(duì)該部分利益的敏感度,與其討價(jià)還價(jià),獲得在權(quán)威關(guān)系中的主動(dòng)權(quán)。 現(xiàn)代大國(guó)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng),已不僅僅局限于自身實(shí)力的比較,還包括國(guó)際權(quán)威的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。雖然美國(guó)和中國(guó)在亞洲的利益并沒(méi)有相互排斥,然而,在利益交匯的地方,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)卻無(wú)可避免。中國(guó)要獲取區(qū)域內(nèi)其他國(guó)家的支持或“服從”,就必須為這些國(guó)家提供不可替代的需求和利益,建立某種權(quán)威關(guān)系,使其追隨自己的意愿或偏好行事。因此,如何創(chuàng)造并提供區(qū)域內(nèi)國(guó)家渴求的利益需求,獲取這些國(guó)家的“服從”,成為本文下一步研究的方向。
[Abstract]:With the traditional theory of international relations in international anarchy, state without any other authority, this article from the reality of international relations, that there is a relationship between the type of authority in international relations after the Second World War, the United States in all regions of the world (including the Asia Pacific region) have such authority. The core problem is put forward in this paper: after the Second World War, the United States in the Asia Pacific region have the authority and have what authority?
To discuss this problem, this paper on the basis of existing research, the key concept of "authority" is defined for the establishment of the dominant and subordinate both recognized a obedience and obeyed relationship basis. In international relations, leading the country to accept their own country requirements follow orders, follow the country admit the leading country will comply with obligations. When the two sides of the control of no direct and long-term relationship to boycott (i.e. admit its legitimacy), authority relations established: the relationship between the authority.
In international relations, constitute the basis of authority relation is to follow the country's collective acceptance, and establish the authority of relationship is the leading country in exchange of interests and follow the results of the existing structure under pressure. After the authority relationship has formed, internal mechanism of self maintenance. In the specific causal explanation. The structure of pressure and benefit internalization are the main factors to establish authority influence relations between countries. The structure of pressure affects the tendency of authority to establish the (possibility) and interest in, determines the degree of authority level. In these two factors, authority relations between countries showing a mandatory, attachment, cooperation type, coordination, competition in different forms.
The United States have different degrees of authority in the Asia Pacific region. The existing theoretical analysis is mainly divided into four paths: first, the United States in the Asia Pacific region authority is part of American hegemony pursuing outside the region; second, the Asia Pacific countries invite the U.S. settled areas, to maintain stable; thirdly, the authority of the United States in the Asia Pacific region there is established on the basis of cooperation between the United States and Asia Pacific countries in the rational; fourth, the United States to promote in the world within the scope of their own values, the establishment of the "tributary system". Although all four paths for America's authority of different perspective, but not to the degree of authority measure. This paper from the political position, measure the operationalization of the authority of the United States in the Asia Pacific region and the three dimensions of military relations and economic relations index. In the political dimension, mainly on the finger marked : (1) the two sides open positioning on the relationship; (2) the rank and the number of national leaders to visit; (3) the Asia Pacific countries and the United States the consistency of votes in the United Nations. In the economic dimension, the main indicators are: (1) the Asia Pacific economy and American trade accounted for total domestic trade the proportion of; (2) the United States investment accounted for the proportion of foreign investment in Asia Pacific economies; (3) special economic relations. In the military dimension, the indicators are: (1) the garrison or have military bases in their territory to allow the United States; (2) the Asia Pacific countries to participate in and support the US led war; (3) information sharing partners and joint military exercise opportunities.
Through descriptive statistics, the paper found that in the polar structure of the cold war, the relationship between the authority of the United States in the Asia Pacific region mainly concentrated in its traditional allies, the two sides open positioning the relationship with strong ideology and "spheres of influence" color; countries such as Japan and South Korea leaders in general as early as will first visit to Washington in the United Nations, the vote is followed by the position of the United States. Japan, South Korea, Australia, has formally signed a military treaty between Philippines and Thailand and the United States, allowing it to within the country or have a garrison military base, and actively participate in the US led war, accept American military assistance; highly dependent on the economic and the United States the trade and investment. After the cold war, in 1990s under the authority of monopole structure, relations between the United States and the Asia Pacific allies have slightly weakened, for the benefit of both sides There are differences between the interests. Since the beginning of twenty-first Century, with the rise in Chinese, strengthen its traditional allies authority relations in the United States at the same time, and actively develop partnerships with the Asia Pacific emerging countries and other countries, increase the exchange of visits between the leaders of frequency, and Southeast Asia, South Asian countries to strengthen military ties with Singapore, South Korea and Australia signed a free trade agreement and actively promote the construction of the trans Pacific Partnership. The authority of the relationship between the United States and countries in the Asia Pacific rebalancing strategy presents a multi-faceted and into the development trend of the network.
In the United States in the Asia Pacific region to measure the scope and extent of authority, this paper adopts process tracing method, respectively, on the two of South Korea, Japan conducted a longitudinal study of authority relations. The paper found that even if the United States as the leading country in the country, and follow the strength difference has the absolute advantage in the process of distance. The relationship between the development of authority does not necessarily take the initiative and interest internalization degree plays an important role in the country -- follow master benefit points, the sensitivity, the dominant part of the interests of the country and gain the initiative in the bargain, authority relations.
The modern country competition, comparison is not limited to their own strength, also includes the authority of international competition. Although the United States and China interests in Asia are not mutually exclusive, however, in the interests of the intersection of the place, the competition is inevitable. China to get other countries within the region's support or "obedience" is must provide irreplaceable needs and interests of those countries, establish a relationship between the authority, follow your desire or preference act. Therefore, how to create and provide for the interests and needs of countries in the region, these countries get "obedience" to become the research direction of this article.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：南開大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D871.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曹云華;金融危機(jī)以來(lái)東盟—日本關(guān)系的變化[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2003年11期

2 娜琳;;論蒙古國(guó)與美國(guó)的雙邊關(guān)系[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2007年02期

3 孫學(xué)峰;黃宇興;;中國(guó)崛起與東亞地區(qū)秩序演變[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2011年01期

4 陳奕平;菲美安全合作及其對(duì)中國(guó)安全環(huán)境的影響分析[J];東南亞研究;2004年06期

5 陳瑩;;冷戰(zhàn)后中美日在東南亞的軟實(shí)力角力——以對(duì)東盟援助為例[J];東南亞研究;2012年01期

6 韋宗友;集體行動(dòng)的難題與制衡霸權(quán)[J];國(guó)際觀察;2003年04期

7 戴穎;;冷戰(zhàn)后中美在聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)投票行為及影響因素研究(1991-2006年)[J];國(guó)際論壇;2008年02期

8 秦亞青;;現(xiàn)實(shí)主義理論的發(fā)展及其批判[J];國(guó)際政治科學(xué);2005年02期

9 高婉妮;;國(guó)際政治的等級(jí)狀態(tài)?——評(píng)《國(guó)際關(guān)系中的等級(jí)制》[J];國(guó)際政治科學(xué);2010年01期

10 花勇;;國(guó)際等級(jí)體系的生成、功能和維持[J];國(guó)際政治科學(xué);2011年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：1360843