亚洲与欧洲国家的比较研究：为什么亚洲没有建立安全共同体？
发布时间：2019-03-08 17:24
【摘要】：虽然在亚洲也有其他形式的安全合作，但是亚洲还没有像欧洲那样建立安个共同体。本文期望回答是什么原因导致亚洲还不能建立安全共同体，并希望提炼出可以很好地解释能否建立安全共同体原因的要素。首先，我们会回顾一些关于安全问题的重要理论。然后，本文将会选出对于建立地区安全共同体至关重要的国家并依据他们各自国家家的官方国防文件来分析每个国家是如何看待安全的。对于亚洲，我们选择日本，印度和中国，因为他们是这个地区重要的国家，没有他们的协调一致，很难在该地区建立安个共同体。对于欧洲，我们选择德国和英国作为对比的案例分析，因为他们同样是欧洲地区重要的国家行为体。具体来说，德国是欧洲大陆重要的国家。英国小仅是有核武器的国家，而且在其他地区和国际安全事务中常以积极姿态出现的国家行为体。特此说明的是，法国也在欧洲安全乃至国际安全事务中扮演重要角色。但是考虑到它与英国有很多相同之处，如掌握核技术而且会在地区和国际安全事务中有积极的作用；加之本文完成的时间有限，在此我们就不将法国包含在讨论分析之列。 那些将传统安全视为安个重点的国家，往往会陷入安全困境。因为从传统安全的角度，安全变成了与其竞争对手国家之间的“零和博弈”。而在此种情况下，相对很难建立安全共同体，因为安全困境往往会阻碍安全事务上的合作。相反地，那些将非传统安全或是人类安全作为优光安全关切的国家，它们基本上是在“正和博弈”的情况里。因为对于每个国家，，很难让它们独自解决非传统安全的问题。因此，这种情况需要合作，因而也有不小的可能建立一个安全共同体。因此各地区国家的“安全本质”这个因素，即是处在“正和博弈”还是“零和博弈”的状态，对于能否建立安全共同体很重要。由此，我们提炼出两个分析要素，第一个是各个国家的“安全本质”，即它们是“正和博弈”还是“零和博弈”；第二个是地区内部国家行为体的合作可能性 本文所使用的方法是结合定性和定量来分析亚洲没有安个共同体的原因。具体说来，定性分析是以各个国家的官方国防文件为分析样本，通过分析各个国家自己如何看待它们的安全威胁和由此视什么为各自的优先安全关切，从两个要素-1）“安全本质”，即“正和博弈”还是“零和博弈”；2）地区内部国家行为体的合作可能性，来分析是否满足条件建立安全共同体。在定量分析中，主要是通过比较所分析国家的军费开支水平（其占国内生产总值（GDP）的比重），和政府开发援助（ODA）的水平（其占国民总收入的比重），来发现每个国家的安全关切的重点。这也是对第一个要素-“安全本质”的另一个角度的证明。如果军费开支水平相对或是显著高于政府的开发援助（象征“对外援助”），则说明该国家更偏重传统安全，其“安全本质”是“零和博弈”；反之亦然。 总的来说，欧洲国家的“安全本质”是“正和博弈”，而且他们都很看重公民社会，即“国家间政治价值取向的相容度“较高。这两个要素在欧洲同时存在，所以他们能够建立地区的安全共同体。但是亚洲国家间的“安全本质”是“零和博弈”；由于历史因等素导致地区内部各国家间的合作可能性低，即第二个指标较低。具体说来，由于后殖民时代，印度和中国是明确不结盟的国家；而日本在美国日同盟下，奉行与美国结盟的政策，这就使得亚洲地区国家行为体的合作可能性低。因而使得这两个要素在亚洲都不存在，也因此说明了为什么亚洲目前为止没有建立安全共同体。
[Abstract]:In Asia, there are other forms of security cooperation, but Asia does not have a community like Europe. The purpose of this paper is to answer what has led to the fact that it is not possible for Asia to establish a security community, and that it is hoped that the elements of the reasons for the establishment of a security community can be well explained. First of all, we will recall a number of important theories on security. The article will then elect a country that is critical to the establishment of a regional security community and to analyse how each country is looking at security based on the official defence documents of their respective national family. For Asia, we have chosen Japan, India and China, because they are important countries in the region, without their coordination, and it is difficult to establish an economic community in the region. For Europe, we chose Germany and the United Kingdom as a comparative case study, as they are also important national actors in the European region. In particular, Germany is an important country in the European continent. The United Kingdom is only a nuclear-weapon State and, in other regional and international security matters, is often a State actor with a positive attitude. It is to be noted that France also plays an important role in European security and in international security matters. But taking into account that it has a lot in common with the United Kingdom, such as the mastery of nuclear technology and the positive role in regional and international security matters, and the limited time here, we will not include France in the discussion. Those who regard traditional security as an important place tend to be trapped in security Context. Because from a traditional security perspective, security has become a "zero and game" . In such cases, it is relatively difficult to establish a security community, as the security dilemma is often an obstacle to security matters on the contrary, countries that are concerned about non-traditional security or human security as a source of high-light security, are basically in "positive and game" In every country, it's hard to ask them to solve non-traditional security on their own. The problem is, therefore, that this situation requires cooperation and, therefore, it is also possible to establish a security common The "safety essence" of the regional countries, that is, in the "positive and game" or in the "zero and game", is very heavy for the establishment of a security community To. As a result, we have two analytical elements, the first of which is the "safety essence" of the individual countries, that is, the "positive and game" or the "zero and game" ; the second is the cooperation of the national actors in the region The method used in this article is to analyze the no-one community in Asia by combining the qualitative and quantitative methods. For the reason, in particular, the qualitative analysis is based on the official national defense documents of each country as an analysis sample, by analyzing how the individual countries view their security threats and, therefore, their respective priority security concerns, from two elements-1) to the game ", namely," zero and game "or" unk> "zero and game" ;2) The possibility of the cooperation of the national actors in the region to analyze whether the conditions are met or not Community. In the quantitative analysis, the security concerns of each country are found mainly by comparing the level of military expenditures of the analyzed countries, which account for the specific gravity of gross domestic product (GDP), and the level of government development assistance (ODA), which is the proportion of gross national income That's the point. It's another angle to the first element-"safety essence". It is proved that if the level of military expenditure is relatively or significantly higher than the development assistance of the Government (the symbolic "external assistance"), it will be explained that the country is more traditional and safe, and its "safety essence" is the "zero and game"; and In general, the "safety essence" of the European countries is the "positive and game", and they all value the civil society, the "The Compatibility of the Orientation of the Inter-State Poly Value" is high. The two elements exist in Europe at the same time, so they can set up a region The security community. But the zero and game between Asian countries is" safe "; the possibility of cooperation among the countries of the region is low, that is, the second, due to the fact that the historical factor leads to a low level of cooperation among the countries in the region In particular, as a result of the post-colonial era, India and China are clear-aligned countries, while Japan, under the American-American alliance, pursued a policy of alliance with the United States, which made the region's national actors The possibility is low, so that both elements do not exist in Asia, and thus why Asia has not so far been established
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D80
本文编号：2437036
[Abstract]:In Asia, there are other forms of security cooperation, but Asia does not have a community like Europe. The purpose of this paper is to answer what has led to the fact that it is not possible for Asia to establish a security community, and that it is hoped that the elements of the reasons for the establishment of a security community can be well explained. First of all, we will recall a number of important theories on security. The article will then elect a country that is critical to the establishment of a regional security community and to analyse how each country is looking at security based on the official defence documents of their respective national family. For Asia, we have chosen Japan, India and China, because they are important countries in the region, without their coordination, and it is difficult to establish an economic community in the region. For Europe, we chose Germany and the United Kingdom as a comparative case study, as they are also important national actors in the European region. In particular, Germany is an important country in the European continent. The United Kingdom is only a nuclear-weapon State and, in other regional and international security matters, is often a State actor with a positive attitude. It is to be noted that France also plays an important role in European security and in international security matters. But taking into account that it has a lot in common with the United Kingdom, such as the mastery of nuclear technology and the positive role in regional and international security matters, and the limited time here, we will not include France in the discussion. Those who regard traditional security as an important place tend to be trapped in security Context. Because from a traditional security perspective, security has become a "zero and game" . In such cases, it is relatively difficult to establish a security community, as the security dilemma is often an obstacle to security matters on the contrary, countries that are concerned about non-traditional security or human security as a source of high-light security, are basically in "positive and game" In every country, it's hard to ask them to solve non-traditional security on their own. The problem is, therefore, that this situation requires cooperation and, therefore, it is also possible to establish a security common The "safety essence" of the regional countries, that is, in the "positive and game" or in the "zero and game", is very heavy for the establishment of a security community To. As a result, we have two analytical elements, the first of which is the "safety essence" of the individual countries, that is, the "positive and game" or the "zero and game" ; the second is the cooperation of the national actors in the region The method used in this article is to analyze the no-one community in Asia by combining the qualitative and quantitative methods. For the reason, in particular, the qualitative analysis is based on the official national defense documents of each country as an analysis sample, by analyzing how the individual countries view their security threats and, therefore, their respective priority security concerns, from two elements-1) to the game ", namely," zero and game "or" unk> "zero and game" ;2) The possibility of the cooperation of the national actors in the region to analyze whether the conditions are met or not Community. In the quantitative analysis, the security concerns of each country are found mainly by comparing the level of military expenditures of the analyzed countries, which account for the specific gravity of gross domestic product (GDP), and the level of government development assistance (ODA), which is the proportion of gross national income That's the point. It's another angle to the first element-"safety essence". It is proved that if the level of military expenditure is relatively or significantly higher than the development assistance of the Government (the symbolic "external assistance"), it will be explained that the country is more traditional and safe, and its "safety essence" is the "zero and game"; and In general, the "safety essence" of the European countries is the "positive and game", and they all value the civil society, the "The Compatibility of the Orientation of the Inter-State Poly Value" is high. The two elements exist in Europe at the same time, so they can set up a region The security community. But the zero and game between Asian countries is" safe "; the possibility of cooperation among the countries of the region is low, that is, the second, due to the fact that the historical factor leads to a low level of cooperation among the countries in the region In particular, as a result of the post-colonial era, India and China are clear-aligned countries, while Japan, under the American-American alliance, pursued a policy of alliance with the United States, which made the region's national actors The possibility is low, so that both elements do not exist in Asia, and thus why Asia has not so far been established
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D80
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 仇发华;;东亚共同体的主导与中日韩的自身定位[J];当代韩国;2010年04期
2 "国际政治与经济综合研究"课题组;刘强;王维;董庆安;黎峰;;东亚共同体构建的现实基础与理性思维——基于欧洲一体化建设的启示[J];世界经济与政治论坛;2010年03期
3 刘江永;;通向东亚共同体之路:合作与创新——新形势下的综合性战略思考[J];外交评论(外交学院学报);2010年02期
4 王逸舟;;“东亚共同体”概念辨识[J];现代国际关系;2010年S1期
本文编号：2437036
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/waijiao/2437036.html
