本文選題：美國 + 霸權��； 參考：《四川外國語大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：從理論上講,霸權國對特定地區(qū)一體化實踐的政策立場主要有支持、反對和中立三種,反映在具體的行動上則表現(xiàn)出介入和不介入兩種方式。支持或反對的力度越強則介入越深,中立表現(xiàn)為不介入。至于霸權國具體采取何種政策立場則取決于霸權國與某個地區(qū)整體實力的對比、霸權國與地區(qū)一體化主導國的關系、以及霸權國是否存在被該地區(qū)邊緣化的風險等三大因素。其中,第三個因素是最直接的影響因子。也就是說,當霸權國感到自身被某個地區(qū)邊緣化的現(xiàn)實或潛在風險時,無論其是否具備國力優(yōu)勢,抑或與主導國的關系親疏,霸權國都將對該地區(qū)的一體化進程持反對立場。而在不存在上述風險的情況下,霸權國則可能采取支持或中立的立場。這又取決于霸權國國力優(yōu)勢或劣勢以及霸權國與地區(qū)主導國之間的關系狀態(tài)。美國對東亞一體化不同政策立場的表現(xiàn)反映出了美國與東亞國家霸權與反霸權的博弈,其根本原因在于護持美國在東亞地區(qū)的霸權利益。在以東亞經濟集團為構想的東亞一體化的前奏階段(1990—1996年),由于東亞經濟集團所具有的明顯排美性促使美國強烈反對東亞的內向型合作,美國通過加強對亞太經合組織的主導和控制的方式介入東亞一體化。在以“10+3”合作機制為軸心的東亞一體化的起步階段(1997—2008年),在開放的地區(qū)主義原則下承認美國在該地區(qū)的重要性,進而避免了美國被該地區(qū)邊緣化的風險,此外美國在東亞地區(qū)的國力優(yōu)勢使美國與地區(qū)主導國繼續(xù)保持著有利于美國的非對等關系,所以美國對這一時期的東亞一體化采取了比較模糊政策立場。在東亞一體化的深化階段(2009—至今),東亞國家將“東亞共同體”確立為地區(qū)合作的目標,該地區(qū)仍然奉行開放的地區(qū)主義原則,這一時期美國與東亞整體實力的對比有利于后者,美國與地區(qū)主導國關系朝著愈加對等的方向發(fā)展。但由于對東亞共同體概念的不同理解,美國對“10+3”、“10+6”、“10+8”模式下的東亞共同體采取了不同的政策立場�？偟膩碚f,美國對將美國排除在外的東亞共同體持反對立場,對將美國包括在內的東亞共同體則可能采取支持的立場。
[Abstract]:Theoretically speaking, hegemonic countries mainly support the policy position of the practice of regional integration, oppose and neutral, reflected in the concrete actions show two ways of intervention and non-intervention. The stronger the support or opposition, the more deeply involved, neutral performance is non-intervention. What kind of policy position the hegemonic state takes depends on the comparison between the hegemonic power and the regional overall strength, the relationship between the hegemonic state and the leading country of regional integration, and whether the hegemonic country has the risk of being marginalized by the region. The third factor is the most direct factor. That is to say, when hegemonic countries feel the reality or potential risk of being marginalized by a certain region, no matter whether they have the advantage of national strength or not, or whether they are close to the leading countries, the hegemonic countries will take a stand against the integration process of the region. In the absence of such risks, hegemonic powers may take a supportive or neutral stance. This depends on the strengths or weaknesses of hegemonic powers and the relationship between hegemonic and regional leading powers. The expression of different policy positions of the United States on East Asian integration reflects the game between the United States and the East Asian countries' hegemony and anti-hegemony power, and the fundamental reason is to protect the hegemonic interests of the United States in the East Asian region. In the prelude to East Asian integration conceived by the East Asian Economic Group (EEA), the United States strongly opposed the introverted cooperation in East Asia because of the obvious attraction of the East Asian Economic Group. The United States is involved in East Asian integration by strengthening its leadership and control over APEC. In the initial stage of East Asian integration, based on the "103" mechanism of cooperation, in 1997-2008, the importance of the United States in the region was recognized under the principle of open regionalism, thereby avoiding the risk of the marginalization of the United States in the region, In addition, the advantage of the United States in East Asia makes the United States and regional leading countries continue to maintain a non-reciprocal relationship in favor of the United States, so the United States has taken a rather vague policy position on East Asian integration in this period. In the deepening stage of East Asian integration, East Asian countries established "East Asian Community" as the goal of regional cooperation, and the region still adheres to the principle of open regionalism. In this period, the comparison of the overall strength between the United States and East Asia was beneficial to the latter, and the relationship between the United States and the leading countries in the region developed in the direction of more equality. However, due to the different understanding of the concept of East Asian Community, the United States has adopted different policy positions on the East Asian Community under the model of "103", "106" and "108". Overall, the United States is opposed to the East Asian Community, which excludes the United States, while the East Asian Community, which includes the United States, may take a supportive position.
【學位授予單位】：四川外國語大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D871.2;D831

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 盧凌宇;章遠;;理論如何影響政策?——基于國際關系學的分析[J];國際觀察;2016年01期

2 左希迎;;承諾難題與美國亞太聯(lián)盟轉型[J];當代亞太;2015年03期

3 孔繁穎;李巍;;美國的自由貿易區(qū)戰(zhàn)略與區(qū)域制度霸權[J];當代亞太;2015年02期

4 劉建江;李曼;袁冬梅;;美國干預東亞經濟一體化的動因與舉措——基于復合相互依賴視角[J];當代經濟研究;2014年11期

5 喻常森;;冷戰(zhàn)時期美國對東南亞區(qū)域合作的政策選擇——從東約(SEATO)到東盟(ASEAN)[J];東南亞研究;2014年05期

6 劉中偉;;東亞生產網絡、全球價值鏈整合與東亞區(qū)域合作的新走向[J];當代亞太;2014年04期

7 莫盛凱;;沒有地區(qū)主義的東亞合作[J];當代亞太;2014年02期

8 郭振家;;美國的介入和亞洲一體化——基于歐盟創(chuàng)立及發(fā)展歷程的反思[J];太平洋學報;2014年02期

9 趙雪;;東亞區(qū)域合作中的美國因素分析[J];世界經濟與政治論壇;2013年06期

10 王學玉;李陽;;東亞地區(qū)主義的停滯——以地區(qū)性國際社會缺失為視角的分析[J];國際觀察;2013年05期

，

本文編號：1789177