| dc.contributor | 國際事務學院 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | 陳麒安 | |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chen, Chi-an | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2025-04 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 21-Aug-2025 09:33:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 21-Aug-2025 09:33:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 21-Aug-2025 09:33:17 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/158848 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 自從冷戰結束以來，學者們就對於美國霸權提出不同戰略選擇的建議分析。在 2001 年 911 恐怖攻擊事件後，美國大幅提升軍費開支，將打擊恐怖主義作為主要目標。然而，美國不但耗 費大量資源，造成沈重財政負擔，還因為北約東擴與海外駐軍問題，引起其他國家反彈。便有 部分現實主義學者將其歸因於採取「自由主義霸權」大戰略的失敗。 如果吾人耙梳國際關係理論新自由主義學派的觀點，重新檢視「自由主義霸權」大戰略的 理論概念，其內涵應該要具備以下特色：一、霸權國家運用軟權力吸引其他國家合作，而非運 用硬權力強制要求其他國家配合，以免誘發制衡。二、重視自由民主價值，並鼓勵國家之間多 元交流合作，但是霸權國家不能以軍事手段強迫改變其他國家政治體制。三、透過國際制度促 進溝通，建立穩定秩序，霸權國家避免壟斷國際事務決策權利。整體而言，部分現實主義學者 的批判合理，美國霸權在後 911 時代採取的大戰略作為確實破壞了美國長遠的國家利益，也並 未實現其預期成果。然而，吾人不能僅憑藉美國政府官員提出的自由民主口號，就將其簡化歸 類為追求「自由主義霸權」，尤其是在小布希與川普兩位共和黨總統任內。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | Since the end of the Cold War, scholars have proposed various strategic options regarding U.S. hegemony. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the United States significantly increased its military expenditures, prioritizing counterterrorism efforts. However, this approach not only consumed vast resources and imposed a heavy fiscal burden but also provoked backlash from other nations due to NATO expansion and the presence of U.S. military forces abroad. Some realist scholars have attributed these challenges to the failure of the U.S. grand strategy of “liberal hegemony”. If we examine the ideas of the school of neo-liberalism in international relations theory, a reconsideration of the concept of “liberal hegemony” suggests that it should possess the following characteristics: 1. A hegemonic power should employ soft power to attract cooperation from other states rather than relying on hard power to coerce compliance, in order to avoid triggering counterbalancing efforts. 2. The strategy should emphasize values of liberal democracy and encourage diverse exchanges and cooperation among states; however, the hegemon should not impose political regime changes on other countries through military means. 3. International institutions should be leveraged to promote communication and establish a stable order, while the hegemonic power should refrain from monopolizing decision-making in global affairs. Overall, while the critiques from certain realist scholars are reasonable—pointing out that the grand strategy pursued by the U.S. in the post-9/11 era undermined its long-term national interests and failed to achieve its intended objectives. However, it would be an oversimplification to classify U.S. actions as a pursuit of “liberal hegemony” merely based on the rhetoric of freedom and democracy espoused by American officials. This is particularly evident during the administrations of Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump. | |
| dc.format.extent | 141 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | text/html | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 理論與政策, 28:1=100, pp.41-69 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 美國霸權; 自由主義霸權; 後911時代; 全球反恐戰爭; 伊拉克戰爭 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | U.S. hegemony; Liberal hegemony; The post-9/11 era; The global war on terror; The Iraq War | |
| dc.title (題名) | 後911時代的美國霸權戰略：自由主義霸權的反思 | |
| dc.title (題名) | U.S. Grand Strategy for Hegemony in the Post-911 Era: Reflections on Liberal Hegemony | |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
