國際經濟制度權力分配所形成的結構，是展現權力或實現利益的一種形式。二次世界大戰結束後，美國透過主導創設國際貨幣基金（IMF）、世界銀行（WB）構成國際經濟制度，確保在全球經濟治理的優勢地位。中國改革開放以來，隨著經濟快速發展與綜合國力大幅提升，日益展現出革新與完善現有國際經濟制度的強烈企圖心，尤其亞洲基礎設施投資銀行（Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, AIIB, 簡稱亞投行）從提出倡議到正式成立僅歷時兩年，並獲得亞太區域內、外之主要國家支持，反映出中國具備主導建構區域性或全球性多邊金融機構的政經實力。本論文將從結構現實主義的權力、利益、霸權等視角，探討美國在二戰後主導創設國際經濟制度之戰略目的、中國深化參與現行國際經濟制度之戰略意圖、美中兩國在國際經濟制度權力消長情形，以及中國創建亞投行對於美中關係未來發展的可能影響與戰略意涵，從中推論在美國掌控總體主導優勢的國際經濟制度下，中國試圖運用亞投行在國際經濟制度的權力結構組建平行架構，爭取與其政經實力相符的國際地位和影響力等相對利益，藉以形塑安全環境、擴大國際事務話語權和提升其大國地位，並在國際經濟制度結構下，與美國保持競合兼具的權力平衡的均勢格局，進而實現「兩個百年」的戰略發展目標。 / The distribution of power formed in the international economic institutional structure may reflect influence of power and fulfillment of the national interests. After World War II, the United States has secured its dominant position of global economic governance by establishing the international economic institution consisting of International Monetary Fund and World Bank. In contrast, since the implementation of “Reform and Opening-up” policy, China has been rapidly developing its comprehensive national power and gradually shown a strong desire to reform the existing international economic institution. The purposes of this thesis are to explore the Sino-US strategic struggles in current international economic institution and evaluate the potential impacts on the Sino-US relations caused by Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank from the perspective of structural realism. Based on the conducted analyses, this thesis concludes that China aims to pursue the gains corresponding to its growing influence and have a bigger say in the international economic institution. Moreover, China also devotes to maintaining the status quo in balance of power with the United States while establishing a parallel structure to the existing international economic institution so as to accomplish its Two Centenary Goals of strategic development.

本文之目的在於探討冷戰後時期「中俄戰略協作夥伴關係」（Sino-Russian Partnership of Strategic Coordination）對戰略三角政治互動的意涵及其對台海安全的可能影響與衝擊。本文將以「系統理論研究途徑」（System Theory Approach）作為中心分析概念架構（central organizing concept）進行研究分析。 冷戰結束後，隨著蘇聯解體，冷戰時期的兩極格局已不復存在，大國之間的關係實行了相對的調整。在新的國際格局中，中國與俄羅斯兩國基於遏制「北約東擴」和防止「美日安保」條約的圍堵（Containment），雙方除了極力倡導多極化國際體系外，並進一步建立「戰略協作夥伴關係」，冀由強化雙邊的多層面關係，來共同對抗「美國霸權」局面。 中俄戰略協作夥伴關係之建立為新世紀中、俄兩國關係的發展奠定了良好基礎。10年來，中俄關係發展相當順利。1992年-2001年，中俄關係的發展，連續上了四個台階，這就是:（一）92年「互視為友好國家關係」;（二）94年「建設性夥伴關係」;（三）96年「戰略協作夥伴關係」。在此以後，中俄戰略協作夥伴關係在實踐中不斷得到充實和發展。（四）2001年7月中俄雙方簽署了一份歷史性文件「中俄睦鄰友好合作條約」（China-Russia Good-neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation Treaty），標誌雙方關係又進入一個新的發展階段。 在冷戰時期，中國、蘇聯與美國的戰略三角關係是影響國際政治變動的主要因素。蘇聯解體後，中俄關係發生重大變化，兩國已建立一個面向二十一世紀的戰略協作夥伴關係。作為冷戰後時期的世上唯一超強，美國非常關注中俄軍事合作面向之擴大。對美國而言，中國與俄羅斯為其全球戰略部署兩個最重要的國家，它們的重要性是因為它們的幅員、經濟潛力和軍事力量。其中最值得注意的是，中俄雙方在軍事和技術層面的合作，包括俄羅斯對中國的軍售。美國擔心中俄發展戰略協作夥伴關係，會導致中國軍力的增強，以及亞太區域「權力平衡」（Balance of Power）之改變。 本文認為，中俄戰略協作夥伴關係，就短程而言: 中俄「戰略匯合」（the Strategic Convergence between China and Russia）將使中俄在「政治」、「經濟」、「軍事」、「外交戰略」等合作面向獲得若干程度的「實質利益」（substantial interests）。同時中俄戰略協作夥伴關係之條約化將對美國在亞太區域戰略地位造成影響，從而衝擊到台海均勢與安全。然而，就長程而言: 未來中俄戰略協作夥伴關係發展，顯然仍有其「地緣政治」、「歷史上陰影」因素之侷限。 關鍵字: 中國、俄羅斯、系統理論分析途徑、現實主義、 國家利益、戰略三角互動、中俄戰略協作夥伴關係 / The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of the“Sino-Russian Partnership of Strategic Coordination” in the Post Cold War Era, on the strategic triangle politics and its implication for the security and balance of power across the Taiwan Straits. In this thesis, the “System Theory Approach” will be the central organizing concept, applied to the analysis. After the Cold War, the bi-polar system has been broken since the collapse of the USSR. Relations among great powers were adjusted accordingly. PRC and Russia initiated multi-polar system and become“Partnership of Strategic Coordination ” to resist the “American hegemony” It has laid a solid foundation for the development of Sino-Russian relations in the new century. In the past ten years, Sino-Russian relations witnessed a smooth progress. From 1992-2001, the relations progressed from“Friendly neighbors” to “Constructive partnership” to“Partnership of strategic coordination”. Since then,“China-Russia Good-neighborhood, Friendship and Cooperation Treaty”signed by the PRC and the Russia Federation in July 2001, marked a new era in the development of bilateral relations. The Sino-Soviet-US triangular relations were the most dominant factor which affected the change of international politics in the Cold War period. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Sino-Russian relations have developed to a certain degree that the two countries have established a strategic partnership aimed at the 21st century. As the sole world super power, the United States is wary of Expanded Sino-Russian military cooperation. For the US, China and Russia are the two most important countries in the world. Their importance is derived from their size, their economic potential, and their military power. The US is much concerned about the development of Sino-Russian Strategic relations which may lead to a buildup of China’s military power and a change of Asia-pacific “Balance of Power”. It is believed in this study that,“Sino-Russian Partnership of Strategic Coordination,” in the short term: “The Strategic Convergence between China and Russia,” China and Russia will gain to some degree the substantial interests from the bilateral cooperation, such as “Political” ,“Economic ”,“Military”,“Foreign Policy Strategy.”At the same time, the stipulation of the mechanism of Chinese-Russo partnership in the treaty will create impact on the US strategic position in the Taiwan Straits and security of Taiwan. Nevertheless, in the long term: In the future, the development of” Chinese-Russo strategic partnership” still has its limits in the terms of “Geopolitical” and “ Historical Shadow” conditions. Key word: China, Russia, System Theory Approach, Realism, National Interest, Strategic Triangle Interaction, Sino-Russian Partnership of Strategic Coordination

本論文針對冷戰結束以來的十六年間，美國政府對中共角色與關係之定位，欲探討的問題具體言之是「為什麼美國政府再一九八九年以來，對中共的關係定位會在『戰略夥伴』與『戰略對手』間發生擺盪」。本論文首先指出，理性主義雖是解釋國際關係時較慣用的工具，然而不論新現實主義、新自由制度主義均無法對此研究主題提供一套有系統的解釋；本論文繼而發現，建構主義雖承繼部分理性主義的決策模式概念，卻能對上述關係定位變動做出系統性的詮釋。 本論文共計六章：第一章通盤概述研究的動機、目的、方法，並闡明整個主題架構及限制條件。第二章勾勒出老布希、柯林頓、小布希政府對中共關係定位的變化，完成本論文的「描述分析」，作為整體論述之背景。第三章依循理性主義觀點，發現新現實主義無法解釋何以美國在「確保相對收益」的考量下會與中共採取合作；再者，按照新自由制度主義「開創絕對收益」的邏輯，卻與美國視中共為戰略對手，並陷入人權、貿易、台灣議題等爭議的情況不相符。第四章介紹建構主義的主要論點，並針對何以選定溫特的主流建構主義提出解釋，再逐一檢視建構主義的本體論、認識論、方法論、世界觀。第五章依循國際權力架構、理念等兩大參考點，驗證建構主義之解釋力。發現「亞太扇型戰略」、「多層次統一戰線」、「新保守主義」、「攻勢現實主義」等理念，是美國政府為美、「中」關係定位的重要因素。從世界觀的角度切入，如果是霍布斯的文化架構，中共會被美國視為「戰略對手」；如果是康德的文化架構，中共會被美國視為「戰略夥伴」；如果是洛克的文化架構，美國會在接觸中保持戒慎。第六章為結論，認為儘管建構主義提供一個較寬闊的解析平台，但建構主義與理性主義並非必然相斥，尋求兩個典範之整合，乃成為本研究針對後續研究所提出的建議事項之一。 / This thesis addresses an issue regarding the US Government’s identification of the Chinese role as well as the bilateral relations between the two states during the past sixteen years ever since the end of the Cold War. It deals specifically with the following question: why the US administrations since 1989 have shuttled their identification of China between a strategic partner and strategic competitor? It firstly argues that rationalism, as conventionally an explanatory tool in IR, proves insufficient to provide a set of consistent answer. Unsatisfied, this thesis continues its argument that the question brought forth at the beginning can be effectively resolved, or interpreted, by constructivism, despite the constructivist rationale may not necessarily render rational choice model utterly invalid in this case. Structurally speaking, Chapter One gives a brief with respect to the whole thematic structure inclusive of purpose of the study mentioned above and research limitations. Chapter Two demonstrates an effort of descriptive study as a set of background information by sketching out different phases of identification about relations with China that have been harbored by successive US administrations from President Bush Sr., Clinton to Bush Jr.. Chapter Three can be seen as an account of this thesis’ trying effort to explore the question per se from the rationalist perspective. The findings in Chapter Three are as follows: Neo-realism fails to explain why the US, premised upon concern of relative gains, would have cooperation with China. Neo-liberal institutionalism, following the logic of maximization of absolute gains, is inconsistent with an answer to the question of why the US would not given in on the issues of human rights and trade deficits. The above findings are suggestive. They open up the need for this thesis to observe the Sino-US diplomatic interactions from a social perspective in IR, i.e., constructivism. Chapter Four ushers in main points of constructivism. Two arguments are therefore in order. First, it gives a justification for the choice of the mainstream of constructivism in IR advanced by Alexander Wendt. Second, to suit the purpose of this research, it funnels the ontological, epistemological, methodological arguments, world views raised by the constructivist school and thrashes out two reference points—world power structure and ideation—for further observations. Chapter Five brings up the main body of the argument. It argues that a series of ideas such as A Fan-mode Strategic Concept in Asia Pacific, Multi-layer United Front, Neo-conservatism and Defensive Realism have been influential on the US identification of the relations with China. They in turn strike an image of Sino-US bilateral relations reflective of three kinds of culture distinguished by constructivists. In Hobbes’ terms, China can be seen as a strategic competitor. In Kant’s, China is a strategic partner. In Locke’s, the US is engaged but remains sceptical. Chapter Six is the concluding part. It goes beyond the phenomena and moves into the theoretical realm by arguing that, although constructivism offers a broader analytic platform, rationalism and constructivism need not be exclusive. That much room for integration of the two paradigms becomes one of the recommendations for further researches.

2002年7月31日，中共在「東協區域論壇」外長會議中，提出了「中方關於新安全觀的立場文件」，全面有系統地闡述了中共在新世紀下的安全觀念和政策主張，中共自1996年就提出應共同培育一種新型的安全觀念，中共領導人更多次在國際場合呼籲建立新安全觀，強調以對話協商增進了解和信任，通過協調合作促進和平與安全。 近年來，中共積極參與雙邊國際協定、多邊國際組織，強調「和平發展」重於一切，其中「東協區域論壇」與「上海合作組織」更被中共視為是新安全觀的具體成功實踐。新安全觀顯然已經成為中共順應經濟全球化與倡導世界多極化的主要工具，勢將成為中共對外政策的主調。因此，本文除探究中共新安全觀的背景與理念，更透過中共安全觀的改變、國際建制的參與，以掌握中共可能採行的國家安全政策與所面臨的挑戰。最終，並省思「新安全觀」為兩岸關係帶來的啟示。

本論文旨在探討俄羅斯外交政策之動機與推動因素，文中以新古典現實主義做為研究架構，並結合了體系層次因素（自變項）及個體層次的中介變項（如：領導人形象和戰略文化）。本論文所探討之時間軸橫跨1991至2014年，重點著重於以下兩研究案例：2008年南奧塞提亞戰爭及2014年克里米亞危機。針對此兩研究案例，作者使用「過程追蹤」和「歷史敘事」的研究方法，以驗證體系與個體層次因素對於俄羅斯外交政策的影響。 分析結果印證了新古典現實主義的主要假設：俄羅斯在相對物質權力提升的情況下，會同樣地擴大外交政策行動上的野心與版圖。雖然由第一個研究案例可得知，所謂的體系修正因素（如：地理位置、限制/允許因素、和體系明確性）對於俄羅斯介入喬治亞的決策有著重要的影響。而第二個假設提到，「總統普丁選擇設計、校正、調整策略上的選擇，反映文化上可接受的偏好，以維持國內的政治支持度」這個說法也已經被印證。本研究分析顯示，體系因素和個體層次中介變項對於2008年介入喬治亞及2014年併吞克里米亞的決策皆有影響。整體而言，當分析一個國家的外交政策時，新古典現實主義確實是個強而有力的架構，但作者也深知仍有進一步研究的必要。 / This thesis aims at contributing to the debate on the motives and drivers of Russian foreign policy. It uses neoclassical realism as an enhanced research framework which combines systemic stimuli (independent variable) and unit-level intervening variables such as leader images and strategic culture. The work investigates the period from 1991 to 2014 with focus on two case studies, namely the Russo-Georgian war in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation in 2014. This two case studies use process-tracing method and historiography to test the effect of systemic and unit level factors on the Russian foreign policy. The analysis has confirmed the main neoclassical realist expectation that an increase in the relative material power of the Russian Federation will lead to a corresponding expansion in the ambition and scope of Russian foreign policy activity. Although, especially the first case study showed, that the so called systemic modifiers, such as geography, restrictiveness/permissiveness and systemic clarity had significant effect on the decision to intervene in Georgia. The second hypothesis stating that, “President Putin chooses to frame, adjust, and modify strategic choices to reflect culturally acceptable preferences to maintain domestic political support” was also confirmed. The analysis has shown that both systemic stimuli and unit level intervening variables influenced the final decision to intervene in Georgia in 2008, and to annex Crimea in 2014. Overall, neoclassical realism proved to be enhanced and a useful framework for analyzing foreign policy of a state. But the author is fully aware that a further research is needed.

國際關係也是社會關係的一環，對國際關係的研究必須植基於國家涉入的歷史、社會、文化等層面進行探求，否則很難對國際關係有著全貌的了解。在美國學界的實證主義長期宰制下，研究國際社會的英國學派長期受到忽視，隱沒於線性發展的歷史中。 為了發掘英國學派受到忽視的地位，本論文擬從下三點著手。首先，回溯英國學派的歷史起源、代表學者、名稱問題；再者，耙梳、整理英國學派的學術內涵，包括現實主義、理性主義及革命主義三個傳統，以及國際體系、國際社會及世界社會三個本體；第三、在美國實證主義的長期獨霸下，注重詮釋方法研究國際社會的英國學派是無法得到關注的。因此，這部分將從社會科學兩大陣營－實證主義及詮釋學著手，並進而帶入受實證主義籠罩的主流國際關係研究。本論文認為以實證主義研究具社會性的國際關係有其侷限，而多元、開放、重社會性的英國學派才能提供更完整的國際關係圖像。 本論文認為抱持多元開放、重視整體性、社會性、規範性的英國學派更能面對接踵而來的環境議題、全球化相關問題及人道干涉等全球性議題，如果正視國際關係也是社會關係的一部分，英國學派是能成為較適當的國際關係理論。 / Social relations encompasses international relations so that the inquiry for international relations must embark on the historical, social, cultural context that states involved in. Otherwise we can’t envisage a comprehensive image of international relations. Under the dominance of positivism led by American international relations, English School, whose intellectual focus is International Society, has been neglected for a long period of time and immerged in the linear history. For the sake of exploring English School, the thesis sets out three schemes. First, it retrospects the history, leading figures and label of English School. Second, it elucidates the arguments of English School, including the three ontologies- International System, International Society and World Society as well as three traditions, namely Realism, Rationalism and Revolutionism. Third, beginning with the discuss of Positivism and Interpretivism, the author argues Positivism has its limitation in societal international relations. Consequently, it is English School, which tilts toward an open and diverse inclination, that can tell a better story. The author concludes that English School that stresses on holism, society and social norms can take on the upcoming global issues, such as environmental issue, globalization and humanitarian intervention. If we square up to the fact that international relations is a part of social relations, English School can be a more adequate international relations theory.

二次世界大戰時，美國擊敗日本，使朝鮮半島脫離殖民統治，然而隨後的美蘇冷戰，使得朝鮮半島分裂成南北兩韓，而美國與南韓簽訂條約，成立美韓同盟(U.S.–South Korea Alliance)，成為繼日本之後，美國在亞洲的另一個戰略同盟。冷戰與後冷戰期間，美韓關係雖有波折，但不影響美韓同盟的強度。直到2000年美國小布希就任，其強硬的北韓政策與南韓金大中的陽光政策形成對比，成了美韓關係不協調的開端。而後連任的小布希延續其北韓政策，南韓繼任的盧武鉉將陽光政策擴大實施，推出和平繁榮政策，美韓兩國的北韓政策再度不同調，兩國關係持續跌宕起伏至2008年。本研究試圖以攻勢現實主義分析美國此時期的北韓政策；以新自由制度主義檢視南韓的交往政策，透過理論交鋒研究兩國利益的差異，並檢視外部因素如中國、日本、俄羅斯的影響，進而解釋此時期美韓關係不協調的原因。 / In 1945, the U.S. defeated Japan. The Korean peninsula was liberated from Japanese colonization at the end of World War II. However, the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union left two Koreas separated by the Demilitarized Zone from the Cold War to the present. In addition, based on the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, the U.S.–South Korea Alliance was established. During the Cold War and Post Cold War era, the U.S.-South Korea relations faced hard times, but the alliance remained strong. When George W. Bush became the president of the U.S. in the year 2000, his hardline policy toward North Korea collided with South Korea’s Sunshine Policy, which was made by the president Kim Dae-jung. These different policies toward the North caused tensions to the U.S.-South Korea relations. Then the re-elected Bush continued hardline policy against North Korea, but South Korea’s new president—Roh Moo-hyun—decided to inherit the sunshine policy and develop Peace and Prosperity Policy. Washington and Seoul still failed to reach a consensus on how to deal with Pyongyang. The U.S.-South Korea relations continued to fluctuate until 2008. This study tries to analyze the U.S. policy toward North Korea through offensive realism and examine South Korean engagement policy through neoliberal institutionalism from 2000 to 2008. Besides, this thesis also considers exogenous factors such as China, Japan, and Russia, trying to explain the inconstancy of the U.S.-South Korea relations.

代表國際合作的國際組織對於國家的行為有什麼影響？趨同或趨異？這個問題國關學界主要是新現實主義與新自由制度主義兩個主流理論在進行辯論；前者的研究顯示，國際組織或其它國際合作類型，只是主權國家（特別是強權國家）的工具，本身沒有獨立性，更遑論能制約國家行為或導引國家行為的協調一致。而後者從賽局理論推演出合作的可能與必要性，並認為制度（或建制）是有效維繫合作關係與調和各國行為，進而穩定國際秩序的方法。 然而，在世界貿易組織的架構下，國際貿易合作中食品衛生安全的相關衝突一直存在著。而在國際貨幣基金或世界銀行的架構下，糧食援助的合作似乎造成許多受援國境內的糧食危機未減反增。這樣的結果與新自由制度主義的論點不符，同時暗示著維繫國際合作的制度（或建制）可能具有不當性或偏重對特定法益的保護。另一方面，這樣的情況也無法透過新現實主義得到周延的解釋，因為合作中的權力爭奪並不是只單單發生在體系層次，並且最後影響或主導結果的行為者也非該理論向來強調的主權國家。 當前國際食品貿易的進/出口規範與具有結構調整性質的糧食援助機制究竟是過度保護了貿易自由，還是能為每一個個人可能遭遇的食品衛生風險或糧食危機提供必要之保障？這是本研究的首要顧念。透過個案研究與過程追蹤的方法，本文認為在無政府狀態2.0的環境下，國際食品貿易與糧食援助的制度（或建制）存在著法益失衡與不當性；是一種無法公允保障進口國消費者食品安全或受援國農民糧食主權的合作模式。這樣的結果在既有的國關理論得不到全面性的分析和解釋，因此文中提出「寧靜政治」的論述對之進行補充，說明擁有貿易出口利益的國家，其政府在國內層次如何因為寧靜政治現象而流失權力（退位），成為跨國公司的代理人，而非最高的主權享有者與治權行使者。同時，在體系層次，這些國家還為跨國公司爭取利益最大化，假國際合作之名攻佔食品進口國或糧食受援國的國內市場，釀成公共衛生或糧食主權上的危機。 研究結果顯示，跨國公司是造成國際制度（或建制）成為失衡天秤與喪失正當性的幕後原兇。也是在國際經貿這個議題領域中導致國家退位的關鍵行為者。從強調資本主義和貿易自由化的經濟學角度來看，這或許是市場機制正常的發揮，即使有人不樂見，也毋需過於擔心。然而，任何「自由」都不能是毫無限制地，也不該是無所節度的。全球經貿自由化與市場資本主義的發展若是繼續以目前的方式在運作與擴張，跨國公司累積的財富與權力就會在更多的議題領域超越或擊退主權國家，屆時除了食品衛生安全與糧食安全外，恐怕還會有更多攸關人類安全的法益在商品化的國際市場上漸漸淪為類奢侈財。 從理性選擇的角度來看，此種結果或許是國家在參與經貿合作前本能預見之事，但基於理性選擇，認為這是可以忍受的代價。然而，本文質疑國家（特別是小國）所付出的代價真能讓其在合作過程中換取到大於損失的利益。就像個案中台灣在進口美國牛肉的問題上，或墨西哥在糧食援助的計畫裡，這些國家並沒有在國際合作中得到預期的好處，反而失去了原本可以享有的衛生安全與糧食自主性。退一步言，假設這些國家真的從合作中得到大於損失之利益，那麼這些利益的分配在其國內層次上往往也不否符合公平與正義。毋寧，利益最後只是由特定少數的行為者所享有，但衛生安全風險或糧食基本權的不利益卻轉嫁由進口國或受援國的全體人民買單。

第二次世界大戰結束以後，以美國為首的西方國家為了嚇阻蘇聯的入侵，遂成立了北大西洋公約組織。這也標誌著冷戰時期美蘇兩強對峙的局面。冷戰結束以後，許多學者因而預言北約即將瓦解。但多年以來，北約卻依然存在，更歷經了三次東擴。本文寫作的目的，便欲透過重新檢視國際關係理論三大主要學派的觀點，對於後冷戰時期的北約存續提出解釋。 在現實主義學者陣營中，摩根索與華爾滋的「權力平衡」論點與北約發展的史實不符；施韋勒的「扈從利益」論點僅部分解釋了國家聯盟行為，對於「扈從」概念的界定又出現前後不一；米爾斯海默的「推卸責任」論點試圖同時涵蓋「制衡」與「不制衡」兩種選項，而純粹的「推卸責任」策略又必須依賴其他國家願意承擔，因此不易成功。瓦特的「威脅平衡」理論雖仍有不足之處，但較適合解釋本文的個案。筆者認為，後冷戰時期的北約便是面臨了大規模毀滅性武器擴散、俄羅斯存在與恐怖主義等威脅，才強化了盟國繼續合作的意願。 從新自由主義學者的觀點而言，國家若欲在無政府狀態的國際體系中維持合作關係，便需要以互惠為基礎而運作的國際制度。當國際制度能隨著成員的需求而調整時，就能獲得更多支持。由於美國的優勢國力受到北約的制度規範與集體決策機制削弱，又具有軟權力的勸服力量，遂吸引了中、東歐國家加入聯盟。此外，民主國家之間較不容易發生戰爭。這些因素都維繫了北約盟國在後冷戰時期的合作關係。 由於後冷戰時期的北約在訴求「內群體」偏袒的同時，卻未激化「外群體」歧視。建構主義學者認為，若隨著聯盟關係的發展，成員之間能培養出休戚與共的集體身份，將個別的國家安全問題視同為集體的安全議題時，彼此便超越了傳統軍事聯盟在攻擊與防禦上合作的功能，而達到安全共同體的境界。北約所具備的規範特性也進一步增強了其對盟國的型塑能力。 聯盟的本質在於合作。但關鍵是國家為何合作、如何促進合作，以及如何決定合作對象或競爭對手。事實上，後冷戰時期的北約並未放棄對付共同威脅的核心目標，卻也逐漸發展出安全管理的功能，不但參與了維和行動，也建立起和俄羅斯與烏克蘭的對話機制，更凝聚了盟國的信念而形成具有集體身份的安全共同體。 / In the aftermath of WWII, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), mainly led by the U.S., was formed to deter U.S.S.R.’s aggression. This organization signified the bipolar system of international relations. When the Cold War came to an end, many scholars once predicted NATO would collapse. However, the alliance still endures for decades and enlarges eastward three times. The purpose of the dissertation is to reappraise the perspectives from three major schools of International Relation theory and provide some explanation of NATO’s endurance in the post-Cold War era. In the camp of realists, the balance-of-power theory raised by Hans J. Morgenthau and Kenneth N. Waltz is inconsistent with the facts of NATO’s development. The bandwagon-for-profit theory proposed by Randall L. Schweller only gives partial explanation of international alliances and takes a contradictory position on the concept of bandwagon. The buck-passing theory maintained by John J. Mearsheimer tries to include both the options of balance and not-balance on the one hand, while depends heavily on other states’ willingness to take the responsibility of balance on the other hand. As far as we know, the latter seldom results in success. Although the balance-of-threat theory sustained by Stephen M. Walt still has some shortcomings, it can provide a better explanation of the case discussed in the dissertation. This author concludes that NATO faces multiple threats of the spread of WMD, the existence of Russia and transnational terrorism in the post-Cold War era. That’s why the allies continue to cooperate. From the standing points of neo-liberalists, if states want to maintain cooperation under the anarchical international system, they will need international institutions based on reciprocity. When international institutions can be adjusted with the demand of their member states, they will obtain more supports. Because the primacy of the U.S. was reduced by the institutional rules and joint decision making process in NATO and accompanied with persuasive soft power, some Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) were drew to join the alliance. Moreover, there are few wars among democracies. For all these reasons, NATO still survives until now. When NATO seeks to develop in-group favoritism in the post-Cold War era, it does not activate out-group discrimination. Constructivists state that if members of alliances can cultivate their collective identities and transform national security problems into collective ones, they can go beyond traditional military alliances and become security communities. Features of norms in NATO also strengthen their capabilities in shaping the alliance. The essence of alliance is cooperation. Its key points for states lie in why they cooperate, how to facilitate their cooperation and how to choose their partners or opponents. As a matter of fact, in the aftermath of the Cold War, NATO doesn’t give up its core purpose of fighting against common threats, while it develops the function of security management gradually. Besides, NATO takes part in the peace-keeping operations and builds the mechanisms for communication with Russia and Ukraine. In the end, NATO solidates the belief from its member states and turns into a security community of collective identity.