游智偉(Chih-Wei Yu)
政治學報；69期 (06/01/2020) P1-29
關鍵字：中國 , 和平共處五原則, 維和行動 , 聯合國安全理事會, China, the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence , Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations Security Council
中文摘要
在堅持和平共處五原則的條件下，中國如何選擇性地增加對維和任務的貢獻人力？本文透過內容分析法檢驗聯合國安全理事會（簡稱安理會）自1978年迄今針對維和任務的決議案以區分安理會對個別任務的不同授權，同時根據聯合國維和人力的貢獻資料呈現中國自1978年以來維和人力的貢獻變化。本文發現：在2003年以前，包括人道救援與促進地主國人權的任務授權為中國貢獻維和人力的充要條件，但在2003年後，這兩個任務授權轉為調節變數，必須搭配其他任務授權（包括協助地主國恢復執政能力、調停停火或部隊撤退、監測停火），中國方願意貢獻維和人力，這個現象反應著和平共處五原則仍有相當程度的影響力。
英文摘要：
How has China selectively increased its personnel contribution to peacemaking operations under the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence? To answer this question, the present study employed content analysis to examine the United Nations Security Council's resolutions for peacekeeping operations since 1978 to distinguish the mandate of different missions. According to data of personnel contributions by the United Nations member states to peacekeeping, this study revealed changes in China's personnel contribution since 1978. Research findings: mission mandate for humanitarian aid and improving human rights in host countries has been the necessity and sufficiency of the Beijing government's personnel contribution to peacekeeping until 2003. However, as of 2003, the two types of missions have become a moderator; specifically, other types of mission mandate (e.g., recovering governance capacity in host countries, mediating a ceasefire, withdrawing troops, and monitoring a ceasefire) must exist for the Beijing government to contribute personnel to peacekeeping. This phenomenon reflected the influence of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence on China's behavior in the global system.
全文下載：連結
黃凱苹(Kai-Ping Huang)
政治學報；69期 (06/01/2020) P65-97
關鍵字：China, Soft Power, Southeast Asia, the U.S., Values, 中國 , 東南亞 , 美國, 軟實力 , 價值
中文摘要
本文旨在探討中國與美國發展模式所代表的價值，是否能吸引與其價值觀相似的東南亞民眾，進而增加其軟實力。本文假設，持有與美國或中國模式一致的價值觀的人更有可能選擇與這些價值相符的發展路徑，然研究發現這樣的連結對中國而言是有條件的。持有中國模式所代表的經濟優先價值的東南亞民眾，僅在本國的經濟狀況不佳時才會傾向選擇中國模式。身處國家經濟情勢佳的民眾，雖同樣持有經濟優先的價值，但仍會傾向選擇美國為學習對象。此外，具有民主價值觀的人更有可能選擇美國作為其國家的榜樣，而不管其國家的經濟狀況如何。研究結果認為，如果中國要成功地挑戰美國在該區域的軟實力，僅依靠經濟優先的價值是不夠的，因為該價值的吸引力與經濟波動密切相關。由於中國缺乏可以超越這些短期波動的道德或規範性價值觀，在挑戰美國軟實力於該地區和世界各地的主導地位時，將持續面臨一場苦戰。
英文摘要：
This article examines whether the attractiveness of values enhances the appeal of a power in the eyes of ordinary people in Southeast Asia. Hypothesizing that people who hold values consistent with either the U.S. or China model will be more likely to choose a development path that is compatible with these values, this article finds that this connection is conditional in the case of China. Specifically, citizens who prioritize economic freedom are more likely to choose the China model only when economic conditions in their own country are poor. For those living under good economic conditions, even though they prioritize economic freedom, they are still more likely to choose the U.S. model. In addition, people with democratic values are more likely to choose the U.S. model regardless of their country's economic conditions. The findings suggest that if it is to successfully challenge the dominance of U.S. soft power in the region, China cannot rely on promoting economic freedom alone since the attractiveness of this value is closely associated with economic ups and downs. Since China lacks moral or normative values that can transcend these short-term fluctuations, it will continue to face an uphill battle when challenging the dominance of U.S. soft power in the region and around the world.
全文下載：連結
韓保中(Bao-Chung Han)
政治學報；69期 (06/01/2020) P99-129
關鍵字：形式民主, 國家民主, 進步民主, 新國家主義, Formal Democracy, National Democracy, New Nationalism, Progressive Democracy
中文摘要
十九世紀末美國工業化與商業化快速發展，大企業托拉斯與政黨派閥結合，造成壟斷經濟、分贓政治、社會衝突與道德低落，人民希冀強大及積極國家處理相關問題。賀柏．克羅利是二十世紀初美國新自由主義思想家，1909年出版《美國生活的應許》提出新國家主義，主張「漢瀰爾頓式手段達成傑佛遜式目標」，1914年出版《進步的民主》成為美國進步主義代表。克羅利指出美國經歷形式民主、國家民主及進步民主階段，早期民主以人民直接參政為核心理念，制憲會議後走向形式法律民主，變成法律統治、精英壟斷、黨派支配及追求地方利益。十九世紀末起主張以國家民主建立強大與積極國家，讓人民能公平行使自由，認同對象從地方及黨派轉向國家。進步民主是二十世紀人民主權及參與民主的發展方向，包括培養公民素養及教育、形塑個人與社會良善關係、重建人民主權與直接參與途徑、建構新的政府關係與角色、發展工業民主與社會教育等。形式民主、國家民主及進步民主，代表美國民主的過去式、現在式與未來式，進步民主契合現今許多民主價值，體現二十世紀初美國新自由主義與進步主義的精神。
英文摘要：
At the end of the 19th century, industrialization and commercialization advanced rapidly in the United States. However, the emergence of large corporate trusts and party factions created economic monopolies, spoils politics, social conflicts, and declining morality. People looked to a strong and active state. Herbert Croly was a new liberal thinker at the beginning of the 20th century. His 1909 book The Promise of American Life proposed a new nationalism centered on the idea of applying ＂Hamiltonian means＂ to achieve ＂Jeffersonian ends＂, Croly's subsequent 1914 book Progressive Democracy made him the leading scholar of American progressivism. Croly identified three distinct stages in the development of American democracy -formal democracy, national democracy, and progressive democracy. Primitive democracy was based on the direct participation of the people in politics. After the Constitutional Convention, popular democracy evolved into formal legal democracy-legal rule monopolized by elites pursuing local interests and dominated by parties, pursuing local interests. Faced with the disorder afflicting American society at the end of the 19th century, Croly advocated establishing a strong and active state through national democracy. This state would allow the people to freely exercise their freedom and rights, shifting their identity from their locality and political parties to the state. Progressive as the manifestation of popular sovereignty and democratic participation in the 20th century included developing civic literacy and education, shaping the good relations between individuals and society, rebuilding popular sovereignty and direct participation, constructing new relations between government and citizens, and developing industrial democracy and social education. Formal democracy, national democracy, and progressive democracy can be viewed as the past, present, and future forms of American democracy. Progressive democracy is also consistent with many contemporary democratic values and reflects the spirit and direction of American new liberalism and progressivism in the early 20th century.
全文下載：連結
薛健吾(Chien-Wu Alex Hsueh)
政治學報；69期 (06/01/2020) P31-63
關鍵字：中國崛起, 守勢現實主義, 攻勢現實主義 , 無政府狀態, 新古典現實主義 , Anarchy , China Rising , Defensive Realism , Neoclassical Realism , Offensive Realism
中文摘要
中國的快速崛起是否將對東亞區域安全以及中美關係帶來負面的影響，是當代國際關係研究中最重要的問題之一。當代的三大現實主義外交政策理論—攻勢現實主義、新古典現實主義和守勢現實主義，普遍對於中國的崛起是否會帶來衝突的發生抱持著較為悲觀的看法，但是對於這個衝突到底是如何產生的因果機制，卻有著不同的預測。本文考察在歷史上極為接近現實主義「無政府狀態」假定的東周時代所發生的兩場大戰—春秋末年的「齊吳之戰」與戰國末年的「秦滅六國之戰」，並且發現，在一個非常接近現實主義「無政府狀態」假定的環境之下，各國的「擴張理由」和「聯盟政策」，最符合「新古典現實主義」的預測。本文的發現對於以現實主義的外交政策理論來理解中國崛起對國際衝突的影響具有重要的啟示意義。
英文摘要：
How the rise of China may affect regional security in East Asia and the Sino-U.S. relationship is one of the most important questions in contemporary international relations studies. All the three main contemporary realism foreign policy theories-offensive realism, neoclassical realism, and defensive realism-hold pessimistic attitudes towards the impact of China's rise, but differ in the mechanisms they infer to explain how China's rise will lead to international conflict. In this article, I investigate two systemic wars that occurred in the Spring and Autumn Period (the war between Qi and Wu) and the Warring States Period (the war between Qin and the other six warring states) with historical backgrounds that are similar to the realism's ＂anarchy＂ assumption when compared with all the other historical periods in China. I find that it is neoclassical realism, not offensive realism or defensive realism, which has the most explanatory power in a world of ideal-type anarchy. This finding has important theoretical implications when we try to predict the influence of China's rise on international conflict with the applications of realism theories.
全文下載：連結