冷戰結束後的「一超多強」情勢與「中國威脅論」興起，以美國為首的國際社會有圍堵「中國崛起」之意，中國遂提出「新安全觀」以維護周邊環境穩定。「新安全觀」有別於冷戰安全觀思維，強調以「和平共處五原則」與各國共處，以雙邊、多邊外交政策實踐，經由協商解決衝突。 此論文目的是瞭解中國在胡錦濤時期的「新安全觀」指導下的對外政策，與對美關係（一）詮釋中國「新安全觀」的背景、意涵及在外交上的實踐；（二）分析胡錦濤時期的外交政策；（三）分別就朝核問題、台海問題、南海主權爭議、人權問題等安全議題中，分析中國在「新安全觀」思維下與美國之互動關係。 / Since the end of the Cold War, there has no longer been superpower confrontation . Nonetheless the global situation has turned out to be a realm of “one superpower and many other powers.” As China’s threat emerges, China recognizes that the international community, especially the United States, is forging a strategy of containment. Therefore, the PRC initiates a “New Security Concept” to stabilize its adjacent environment, proclaiming a unique security concept, to implement bilateral and multilateral diplomatic ties with other nations. China emphasizes its “Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence,” solving disputes with others by way of coordination and cooperation. In this thesis, the author reviews the Hu Jintao government foreign policy and strategy based on China’s “New Security Concept,” and explore “Big Power” diplomacy . The author also analyzes the evolving changes of Sino-U.S. relationship under the “New Security Concept” so as to realize China’s very motive in manipulating foreign policy.

本論文以守勢現實主義的論點，觀察中共建構「中美新型大國關係」的相關作為，證明中共自冷戰後期以來，是以尋求防禦為主的國家。同時，近年中共領導人提出中美新型大國關係的倡議，符合以「溝通合作」和「維持現況」為主的守勢現實主義論述，以應對美國重返亞太政策，並藉此消除「中國威脅論」與「修昔底德陷阱」的疑慮，為中共創造出安全的國家發展空間。 針對守勢現實主義的論述，本論文設訂「溝通合作」、「維持現況」與「威脅平衡」三個項目，作為驗證中共對美外交政策的指標。同時，分別針對「中美軍事交流」、「南海問題」與「臺灣問題」三個熱點案例予以探討，以中共具體的作為加以驗證。最終發現依據守勢現實主義的觀點，可由先前設定的三個指標，來解釋中共現行推動「中美新型大國關係」的相關作為，符合守勢現實主義的論點。 最後，本文得到的結論是：一、中共推動中美新型大國關係可避免安全困境的發生。二、中共建構中美新型大國關係訴求維持現況的局面。三、中美新型大國關係下的臺灣問題易邊緣化。四、中美新型大國關係下的兩軍關係是未來發展重點。 / This dissertation, based on the arguments of defensive realism, observes China's efforts to construct "a new type of great power relations between China and the United States," and proves that China has been seeking a defense-oriented country since the end of the Cold War. In recent years, the Chinese leaders proposed the new type of great power relations between China and the United States, defensive realism based on "communication and cooperation" and "maintaining the status quo" in response to the United States policy of returning to the Asia-Pacific region and thereby eliminating the "China threat theory" and " Thucydides trap "suspicions for China to create a safe space for national development. In view of defensive realism, this article sets three items of "communication and cooperation", "maintaining the status quo" and "threat balance" as the indicators to verify China's foreign policy toward the United States. Three cases of "Sino-US military exchange", "South China Sea issue" and "Taiwan issue" were explored. Finally, according to the viewpoint of defensive realism, the three indicators set beforehand can be used to explain the relevant current China's efforts to promote the " new type of great power relations ," and to conform to defensive realism. Finally, the conclusion of this article is: First, China's promotion of the relations between the new type of great powers can avoid the security dilemma. Second, the new-type relations between China and the United States appeal to maintain the status quo. Third, the Taiwan issue under the relations between the new big powers of China and the United States is easily marginalized. Fourth, the relations between the two armies under the relations between the new great powers of China and the United States are the focus of future development.

No description available.

印度為近代新興崛起的國家，在政治、經濟、資訊、科技與軍事上均有顯著的進步，其綜合國力的提升已不容忽視。尤其在經濟上的發展速度，更令世界各國所矚目，而現今世界公認的「金磚四國」中，印度則列居名單之內，其涵意代表著在未來國際權力地位追逐的過程當中，具有更深厚的競爭潛力。就地緣戰略的觀點而言，印度位於麻六甲海峽至波斯灣之間的交通樞紐，為非洲與中東地區能源及貿易物資輸往西太平洋的必經路線，而能源線的暢通與否，均牽動著東、南亞地區的經濟命脈。 冷戰結束後，兩極對抗的國際格局不再，印度新一代戰略菁英份子認為，印度應採取「以武力取代外交功能」的戰略觀。由於印、巴衝突所帶來的不安全感，及中共的核武構成的威脅，使得印度方面必須藉由核武發展與整建軍力，來化解印度所面臨的威脅，卻也引了發核武競賽問題。1947年印度獨立後美國並未重視，僅視印度是一個阻止共產主義擴散的國家。當印度躋身進入核武國家行列之後，便開始發崛印度在南亞地緣戰略的重要性，正因為印度國力逐漸提升，使得美、印兩國建立「邁向21世紀戰略夥伴」關係，來面對中國「和平崛起」的所帶來的挑戰。 1979年12月24日蘇聯入侵阿富汗後，卡特政府體認到印度戰略地位的重要性，視印度為防堵蘇聯共產勢力擴散的國家，於1980年再度恢復美、印核能合作計畫，提供有關核反應爐所需原料，藉此拉攏印度成為美國反共產主義的盟友。冷戰結束後，柯林頓政府提出了「交往與擴大的國家安全戰略」，強調「安全、經濟、民主」是美國外交政策的三大支柱，因而開始拓展與印度的合作範圍，加強經貿與軍事合作，以符合美國國家利益目標。 小布希總統上台，將中共定位為「戰略競爭者」的角色，視中國「和平崛起」對美國的威脅。「911」恐佈攻擊事件，美國雖與中共在反恐任務上共同合作，但仍不失其對中國的戒心，因此與印度共同結合成為「邁向21世紀的戰略夥伴」關係，以防止中國「和平崛起」對美國霸權地位的挑戰。 中國「和平崛起」強調努力發展和壯大自己，維護世界和平，堅持開放與平等互利原則，與各國發展經貿，強調現在與未來不稱霸。美印戰略合作，將使得中共在海洋戰略發展受限，同時更影響了中、印兩國的經貿發展。中國為了防止美、印戰略關係所形成的衝擊，必須展現其大國外交作風，穩固與印度經貿上的合作，深化與歐盟實質關係，運用「上海合作組織」來強化其在區域大國的地位，以防範美國對其所實施的新圍堵策略。 / India, one of emerging countries in recent years, has had great progress in politics, economics, information, technology and military. India’s current social status and economic strength has drawn everyone’s attention, especially in BRICs, it plays an important part. In terms of its geo-strategic prospects, India, locating between Strait of Malacca and Persia Gulf, is an essential commercial access. After the Cold War, the new-generation elites think India should take the strategy of replacing democratic function with power. Because of the fear resulting from the India-Pakistan conflicts and the threat of nuclear power in China Communist, India must rebuild its military forces by developing nuclear power so that some threat to the national defense will be released. The problem about nuclear competition is getting worse. As a result, America and India start to set up “the relationships of strategic partnership toward 21st century” to face the challenge coming from “Peaceful Rise” in China. After Soviet invaded Afghanistan in December 24, 1979, the Cater Administration, realizing the importance of India’s strategic status, regarded India as a defense stopping the communist from spreading and regained the nuclear cooperation plan between America and India to make India a member of the alliance of anti-china communist. After the Cold War, the Clinton Administration addressed the strategy of “enlargement and engagement”, emphasizing that safety, economics and democracy are three main parts in diplomatic policy in U.S.A. America started to cooperate with India in commerce and military to meet their own national interest. George, W. Bush considered China a “strategic competitor” and regarded “Peaceful Rise” as a threat to America. After 911 terror attack. America made efforts to establish the relationship of “strategic partnership toward 21st century” with India and prevent China’s “Peaceful Rise” from challenging America’s powerful status. America and India’s cooperation restricts the development of China’s ocean strategy and influences the development of economics and commerce between China and India. Therefore, China tries hard to make use of “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” to reinforce its status and guard against America’s “Geopolitics”.

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.