战后美国在亚太地区的权威研究

发布时间：2017-12-31 18:02

本文关键词：战后美国在亚太地区的权威研究　出处：《南开大学》2014年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：与传统国际关系理论认为在国际无政府状态下,国家之上没有其他任何权威不同,本文从国际关系现实出发,认为在国际关系中存在一种关系型权威,二战之后美国在世界各个地区(包括亚太地区)拥有此类权威。本文提出的核心问题是：第二次世界大战之后,美国在亚太地区是否拥有权威及拥有怎样的权威? 为论述这一问题,本文在既有研究的基础上,将关键概念“权威”定义为建立在主导者和从属者双方认可基础上的一项服从与被服从的关系。在国际关系中,主导国要求跟从国接受自己的命令,跟从国承认自己有遵从主导国意志的义务。当双方对支配——服从关系没有直接而长期的抵制(即承认其正当性)时,权威关系成立——关系型权威形成。在国际关系中,权威关系的构成基础是跟从国的集体接受,而权威关系的建立则是主导国和跟从国在既有的结构压力下进行利益交换的结果。权威关系-旦形成,就具有了自我维持的内在机制。在具体的因果解释中,结构压力和利益内化度是影响国家之间建立权威关系的主要因素。结构压力影响着权威建立的倾向(可能性),而利益内化度决定着权威程度的高低。在这两个因素的作用下,国家之间的权威关系呈现出强制型、依附型、合作型、协调型、竞争型等不同形态。战后美国在亚太地区拥有不同程度的权威。既有的理论分析主要分为四种路径：其一,美国在亚太地区的权威是美国追求区域外霸权的组成部分；其二,亚太国家“邀请”美国入驻地区,保持地区稳定；其三,美国在亚太地区的权威存在是美国与亚太国家之间建立在理性计算基础上的合作；其四,美国要在世界范围内推广自己的价值观,建立美国的“朝贡体系”。四种路径虽然都对美国的权威存在进行了不同角度的论述,但都未对权威程度进行衡量。本文从政治表态,军事关系及经济关系三个维度对美国在亚太地区的权威进行操作化的指标衡量。在政治维度上,主要考察的指标有：(1)双方对彼此关系的公开定位；(2)国家领导人拜访的位序和次数；(3)亚太国家与美国在联合国投票的一致性。在经济维度上,主要的指标有：(1)亚太经济体与美国贸易额占本国贸易总额的比重；(2)美国的投资占亚太经济体外国投资的比重；(3)特殊经济关系。在军事维度上,考察的指标有：(1)允许美国在自己的领土范围内驻军或拥有军事基地；(2)亚太国家参与并支持美国主导的战争；(3)情报共享伙伴和联合军事演习的机会。通过描述性统计,论文发现,在冷战时期两极结构下,美国在亚太地区的权威主要集中在与其传统盟友的关系上,双方对彼此关系的公开定位带有强烈的意识形态和“势力范围”色彩；日韩等国家领导人一般在就任初期将首次出访地定为华盛顿,在联合国投票上更是紧跟美国立场。日本、韩国、澳大利亚、菲律宾和泰国与美国之间签订有正式的军事条约,允许其在本国范围内驻军或拥有军事基地,积极参与美国主导的战争,接受美国的军事援助；在经济上高度依赖和美国的贸易与投资。冷战之后,在二十世纪九十年代的单极结构下,美国与亚太盟国之间的权威关系稍有削弱,双方对利益的判断出现分歧。进入二十一世纪以来,随着中国的崛起,美国在加强与其传统盟友之间的权威关系的同时,与亚太新兴国家及其他国家积极开拓伙伴关系,增加领导人互访频率,与东南亚、南亚国家加强军事联系,与新加坡、韩国和澳大利亚签订自由贸易协定,积极推进跨太平洋伙伴关系的建设。美国与地区内国家的权威关系在“亚太再平衡”战略下呈现出多面并进、网络化发展的趋势。在衡量了美国在亚太地区享有权威的范围和程度之后,论文还采用过程追踪法,分别对美韩、美日这两对权威关系进行了纵向的历时研究。论文发现,即使美国作为主导国,在与跟从国的实力差距上拥有绝对的优势,在权威关系发展的过程中也不一定掌握主动权,利益内化度起着重要的作用——在跟从国掌握利益收益点的情况下,利用主导国对该部分利益的敏感度,与其讨价还价,获得在权威关系中的主动权。现代大国的竞争,已不仅仅局限于自身实力的比较,还包括国际权威的竞争。虽然美国和中国在亚洲的利益并没有相互排斥,然而,在利益交汇的地方,竞争却无可避免。中国要获取区域内其他国家的支持或“服从”,就必须为这些国家提供不可替代的需求和利益,建立某种权威关系,使其追随自己的意愿或偏好行事。因此,如何创造并提供区域内国家渴求的利益需求,获取这些国家的“服从”,成为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.

【学位授予单位】：南开大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D871.2

【参考文献】