攻勢現實主義

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳到导航 跳到搜索

攻勢現實主義(英语:offensive realism)是美國政治學家約翰·米爾斯海默[1]首先提出的新現實主義學派的一種理論結構,認為國際體系中的無政府狀態英语Anarchy (international relations)要對國際政治中國家層面的侵略性行為負責。它從根本上不同於守勢現實主義英语Defensive realism,這個理論最初由肯尼思·沃爾茲提出。這個理論主張大國的權力最大化,通過卸責英语Buck passing平衡英语Balancing (international relations)策略,最終達到主宰國際體系。該理論為研究和理解國際關係做出了重要貢獻,但其爭議性仍然很大。

理論起源[编辑]

攻勢現實主義是屬於國際關係現實主義學派的一個重要理論,其中的代表性人物包括羅伯特·吉爾平蘭德爾·施韋勒英语Randall Schweller、Eric J. Labs和法里德·扎卡利亞[2][3][4],他們都以各自的觀點提出了這個理論。然而到目前為止,公認的對攻勢現實主義詮釋最準確完整的是約翰·米爾斯海默,他在他的著作《大國政治的悲劇英语The Tragedy of Great Power Politics》一書中充分詮釋了這個理論。[5]雖然米爾斯海默重申其的攻勢現實主義理論是以古典現實主義英语Classical realism (international relations)者所闡述的某些假設為基礎,但其將實證主義作為其研究手法,以國際政治中國家的行為為研究基礎,將其作為該理論的中心,從而又和傳統的現實主義理論大有不同。[6][7][8]也囙此,他的攻勢現實主義又和結構現實主義的一些其他支論相似,如守勢現實主義。[9]

主要内容[编辑]

該理論基於五個核心假設,類似於肯尼思·沃爾茲的守勢現實主義的核心假設。其為[10][11]

  1. 大國是世界政治的主要角色,國際體系是無政府狀態的
  2. 所有強權都擁有進攻性的軍事實力
  3. 各國永遠無法確定其他國家的意圖
  4. 各國都以生存為主要目標
  5. 國家是理性的行為者,能够提出最大化其生存前景的合理戰略

與守勢現實主義一樣,攻勢現實主義主張國際體系為無政府狀態,在這個體系中,理性大國始終無法確定其他國家的意圖,並且能够發動軍事進攻,以求生存。[12][13]儘管米爾斯海默最初是從類似主張中發展而來的,但其攻勢現實主義對國際政治中的大國行為提出了截然不同的預測。[14][15]其主要是在權力英语Power (international relations)積累方面和守勢現實主義相背,認為國家需要不停地採取舉措確保國家的安全並建立戰略維持國家保證自身安全的能力。最終,米爾斯海默的攻勢現實主義繪製了一幅更加悲觀的國際政治圖景,其特點是危險的國家間競爭可能導致衝突和戰爭。[16][17]

參考文獻[编辑]

  1. ^ Toft, Peter. John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power. Journal of International Relations and Development (Palgrave Macmillan). December 2005, 8 (4): 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065. 
  2. ^ Feng, Liu; Ruizhuan, Zhang. The typologies of realism. The Chinese Journal of International Politics (Oxford Journals). Summer 2006, 1 (1): 124 and 126. doi:10.1093/cjip/pol006. 
  3. ^ Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited. International Security (MIT Press). Winter 2000–2001, 25 (3): 128–129 and 134. JSTOR 2626708. doi:10.1162/016228800560543. 
  4. ^ Gerald Geunwook Lee, "To Be Long or Not to Be Long–That is the Question: The Contradiction of Time-Horizon in Offensive Realism", Security Studies 12:2 (2003): 196.
  5. ^ John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2001).
  6. ^ Glenn H. Snyder, "Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay", International Security 27:1 (2002): 151.
  7. ^ Feng and Zheng, Typologies of Realism, 113–114.
  8. ^ Kaplan, Robert D. Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things). The Atlantic Magazine. 2012. 
  9. ^ Kenneth N. Waltz, "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory", Journal of International Affairs 44:1 (1990): 34.
  10. ^ Mearsheimer, J. (2005). Structural Realism, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith, International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. ^ Mearsheimer, John J. "The false promise of international institutions." International Security 19, no. 3 (1994): 5–49.
  12. ^ Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 30–31.
  13. ^ Eric J. Labs, "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims", Security Studies 6:4 (1997): 7–8.
  14. ^ Shiping Tang, "From Offensive to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China's Security Strategy", 148–149, in China's Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics, edited by Robert Ross and Zhu Feng. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008).
  15. ^ Taliaferro, Security Seeking, 134.
  16. ^ Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 32–33.
  17. ^ Snyder, Mearsheimer's World, 153.

參考書目[编辑]

  • Feng, Liu; Ruizhuan, Zhang. The typologies of realism. The Chinese Journal of International Politics (Oxford Journals). Summer 2006, 1 (1): 109–134. doi:10.1093/cjip/pol006. 
  • Hendrickson, David C. "The Lion and the Lamb: Realism and Liberalism Reconsidered." World Policy Journal 20:1 (2003): 93–102.
  • Kaplan, Robert D. Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things). The Atlantic Magazine. 2012. 
  • Kirshner, Jonathan. "The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical Realism and the Rise of China." European Journal of International Relations 18:1 (2012): 53–75.
  • Labs, Eric. "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims." Security Studies 6:4 (1997): 1–49.
  • Lake, David A. "Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War." International Security 35:3 (2010/11): 7–52.
  • Layne, Christopher. "The Poster Child for Offensive Realism: America as a Global Hegemon." Security Studies 12:2 (2002/2003): 120–163.
  • Lee, Gerald Geunwook. "To be Long or Not to Be Long—That is the Question: The Contradiction of Time-Horizon in Offensive Realism." Security Studies 12:2 (2002/2003): 196–217.
  • Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson. "Balancing on Land and at Sea: Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?" International Security 35:1 (2010): 7–43.
  • Lieber, Keir A. and Gerard Alexander. "Waiting for Balancing Why the World Is Not Pushing Back." International Security 30:1 (2005): 109–139.
  • Lim, Y.-H. China's Naval Power, Surrey, New York, Ashgate, 2014, 234 p. (ISBN 9781409451846).
  • Mearsheimer, John J. "The False Promise of International Institutions." International Security 19:3 (1994–1995): 5–49.
  • Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2001.
  • Mearsheimer, John J. "China's Unpeaceful Rise." Current History 105:690 (2006): 160–162.
  • Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. "Back to the Drawing Board: A Critique of Offensive Realism." International Relations 27:202 (2013): 202–225.
  • Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. "Waltz, Mearsheimer and the Post-Cold War World: The Rise of America and the Fall of Structural Realism", International Politics 51:3 (2014): 295–315.
  • Rynning, Sten and Jens Ringsmose. "Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change." International Politics 45 (2008): 19–39.
  • Shiping Tang. "From Offensive to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China's Security Strategy." In China's Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics, edited by Robert Ross and Zhu Feng, 141–162. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008.
  • Snyder, Glenn H. "Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay." International Security 27:1 (2002): 149–173.
  • Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited. International Security (MIT Press). Winter 2000–2001, 25 (3): 128–161. JSTOR 2626708. doi:10.1162/016228800560543. 
  • Toft, Peter. John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power. Journal of International Relations and Development (Palgrave Macmillan). December 2005, 8 (4): 381–408. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065. 
  • Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979).
  • Waltz, Kenneth N. "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory." Journal of International Affairs 44:1 (1990): 21–37.
  • Waltz, Kenneth N. "International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy." Security Studies 6:1 (1996): 54–57.
  • Wang, Yuan-Kang. "Offensive Realism and the Rise of China." Issues & Studies 40:1 (2004): 173–201.

擴展閱讀[编辑]

  • Robert Giplin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
  • Randall L. Schweller, "Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In", International Security 19 :1 (1994): 72–107.
  • Fareed Zarkaria, From Wealth to Power: the Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).