1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of International Affairs
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 潛在的超強：中國崛起的地緣戰略與亞太安全研究
Potential super power: the study on rising China`s geostrategy and its impact on Asia-Pacific security
作者 王俊評
Wang, Chun Ping
貢獻者 林碧炤
Lin, Bih Jaw
王俊評
Wang, Chun Ping
關鍵詞 中國
亞太地緣政治次體系
權力平衡
地緣戰略
地緣政治密碼
戰略文化
China
Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Subsystem
Balance of Power
Geo-strategy
Geopolitical Code
Strategic Culture
日期 2011
摘要 本論文的問題意識在於，中國是否將與其古代帝國一樣，在力量強大時追求以武力或其他強制手段達成戰略目標，並試圖建立以其為核心的東亞勢力範圍與國際秩序，結果導致升高與周邊國家甚至美國在內的其他亞太強國的緊張關係與衝突發生機率，與其所宣稱的「和平發展/崛起」、「和諧世界」不符。\n\n中國戰略菁英繼承了帝國時代遺留下來的天下觀、內政導向戰略文化與陸權性格等地緣戰略遺產。同時，缺乏海軍戰略傳統的中國也在1950年代從同為大陸強國的蘇聯之處承接了19、20世紀的法國、德國、蘇聯等歐陸國家發展出來的以劣抗優的大陸國家縱深防禦海軍戰略與積極防禦艦隊海戰戰略。這些遺產與當代外來海軍戰略共同促成了中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略。\n\n在中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略中，古代天下觀在當代因為中國的國力迅速發展與中國戰略菁英的自信加強，而逐漸形成強調中國制度與文化優越性的新「中國中心主義」。此一新中國中心主義配合中國追求實現其領土主權聲索的現代「九州一統」周邊地緣政治密碼，壓倒日本、印度、東協等區域競爭對手，組織以其為核心的東亞地緣戰略領域的區域地緣政治密碼，以及中國自冷戰時期起就發展出的追求全球體系多極化與建立國際政治經濟新秩序，和在冷戰後希望消除美國於東亞的影響力，追求將亞太地緣政治次體系轉變為美中並立兩極結構的體系/次體系地緣政治密碼，使得中國難以成為一個維持現狀的國家。而中國的內政導向戰略文化雖然強調對內優先於對外，但其實際上具備相當重視權力政治與武力在國際事務中效用的強現實政治特徵和備戰本質。而中國的陸權性格與從蘇聯繼承而來的陸權式海洋地緣戰略，使當代中國的地緣戰略重心與方向皆位於東亞大陸與周邊海域，並未真正跨出亞太邊緣地區，只是將西太平洋的島鏈作為海上長城、島鏈周圍的海洋作為新的資源開發地區與戰略緩衝區，以此區隔與美國在亞太的勢力範圍，並按照安西、靠北、爭東南的地緣戰略操作來組織受其支配的東亞地緣戰略領域。\n\n本論文認為中國擴大參與東亞整合的原因，只是為了因應目前其實力尚無法獨力以軍事、政治等強制性手段完成組織受其支配的東亞地緣戰略領域的戰略目的的間接戰略運用，目的是藉此極大化中國的利益，並取得東亞整合的主導權。中國並無意在傳統安全議題與領土爭端和周邊國家與其他亞太主要強國妥協，並利用多邊傳統安全國際建制達成地緣政治安排，促成亞太地緣政治均衡。中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略雖然限於中國的海上戰略交通線控制能力，最終目的並不在取代美國成為體系中的新海權，但卻能嚴重威脅美國的海權地位，以及其他亞太主要強國和中國周邊中小型濱海國家的地緣政治利益。因此安西、靠北、爭東南的地緣戰略操作除了在北線地緣之外，皆激起其他次體系主要大國與東協的競爭性權力平衡反應。此種戰略反饋又使中國增強本身的競爭性權力平衡作為，難以形成達成均衡必要的協作性權力平衡。因此，中國的地緣戰略仍是傳統爭奪控制戰略交通線與要地的類型，不是為了追求和諧世界與地緣政治均衡的新類型，故無法促進目前不存在均衡的亞太地緣政治次體系達成均衡，反而可能升高與周邊國家甚至美國的衝突機率。\n\n但是，中國受制於本身有限的戰略交通線控制能力，目前仍無法形成其他次體系主要強國真正的傳統安全威脅，更為了繼續實施經濟建設，必須盡力維持周邊國際環境的穩定。其他亞太主要強國為了繼續藉由與中國的交往獲得的龐大經濟利益，在中國還未成為真正戰略威脅的情況下，亦不願意真正與中國敵對，導致亞太地緣政治次體系的局勢將逐漸走向中國與海洋國家之間政治上經常引發緊張關係，但其他方面互動熱絡，不致立即引發武裝衝突危機的「冷和平」狀態，無法形成真正的地緣政治均衡。\n\n關鍵字：中國、亞太地緣政治次體系、權力平衡、地緣政治均衡、地緣政治密碼、戰略文化、地緣戰略
The research question of this dissertation is that whether China might seek to apply coercive measures to create an East Asia Geostrategic Realm and to dominate the turf by itself, which just like what pre-modern China’s Empires did. Because of the increasing possibility of armed conflicts between China and other regional powers, including the United States, these measures will put the international security of the Asia-Pacific region in jeopardy. Furthermore, this is not according to what China’s claim on “peaceful development/rising” or the so-called “harmonious world.”\n\nModern Chinese strategic elites inherit three main geo-strategic legacies such as the Chinese traditional concept of “Tianxia” (天下觀), domestic-oriented strategic culture, and national land-power nature in China’s history. China also receives the European thought of continental-oriented naval strategy from the Soviet Union while Maoist China built its navy which supported by the Soviet’s help in the 1950s. These legacies and foreign naval strategic thought not only shape modern China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy,” but also affect the nature, gravity, directions, and the major operations of the geo-strategy.\n\nBase on China’s rapid economic growth and military modernization, the self-confidential Chinese elites gradually transform the traditional concept of Tianxia into the new “Sino-centricism,” which stress on the superiority of China’s culture and politico-economic systems. In terms of the geopolitical codes of modern China, they pursue the realization of territorial claims for the purpose of “union” on the local level; overwhelming the competitions of leadership in East Asia from Japan, India, and the ASEAN for creating a Chinese-dominated East Asian Geostrategic Realm on the regional level; pursuing multi-polarization of the international system and, establishing new international politico-economic orders on the systemic level, and dispel the influence of United States in East Asia by transforming the Asia-Pacific geopolitical structure into a bipolarity on the sub-systemic level. Over all, these three levels of geopolitical codes and the new “Sino-centricism” would not make China be a status-quo power in the Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. Additionally, with regard to the domestic-oriented strategic culture, although it stresses the priority of domestics, it also values power politics and the effectiveness of forces in the international politics. The domestic-oriented strategic culture of China, therefore, has the strong characteristics of hard “realpolitik” and “parabellum”.\n\nChina’s traditional land-power nature aside, its continental-oriented naval strategy is developed from the thought of the Soviet naval strategy and put the gravity and directions of China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy” in East Asian continent. China does not go beyond the “Asia-Pacific Rim” actually. What China does is using the “two island-chain” defense in West Pacific as a “Great Wall at Sea,” and the seas around the island chains as strategic buffer zone to distinguish the sphere of influence between China and the United States. China applies the strategic principles of “stabilizing West, relying on North, competing for the Southeast” to organize the region in the west of the island chains and shaping its dominance in the East Asian Geostrategic Realm.\n\nThe dissertation argues that since China cannot organize the East Asian Strategic Realm by political and military means at present, China’s participations in East Asian integrations are indirect strategic behavior. The purposes of indirect approaches are to utilize China’s economic interests and to obtain the leadership of East Asian integrations. China would not like to compromise with its neighbors and other Asia-Pacific Powers on highly sensitive traditional security issues, like territorial disputes essentially. Nor does China attempt to shape multi-pole geopolitical arrangements to achieve the geopolitical equilibrium of Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Sub-system by applying multi-pole international regimes. \n\nFurthermore, the purpose of China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy” is not to replace the United States as the Sea Power in the system just because China lacks the ability of controlling global strategic sea lines of communications. The Chinese naval strategy of active layer defense can still seriously threaten the Sea Power status of the United States and the important geopolitical interests of China’s neighbors. Therefore, the implementations of aforesaid geo-strategy of “stabilizing West, relying on North, competing for the Southeast,” seriously raise “adversary balance of power” in both West and Southeast fronts due to the convergences of geopolitical interests between China and other powers. Nevertheless, the adversary balancing feedback of other Asia-Pacific powers and even the ASEAN countries enhance China’s adversary behavior as well. This reciprocal process cannot create the necessary “associational balance of power” of geopolitical equilibrium. In other words, China’s geo-strategy belongs to the “traditional” type, which stresses the importance of controlling strategic communication in the Asia-Pacific region. It is not the “new” type of pursuing “harmonious world” and geopolitical equilibrium. Therefore, China’s geo-strategy cannot advance the equilibrium of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. On the contrary, it may raise the possibility of conflicts between China and Asia-Pacific countries, even the United States.\n\nChina is not deemed as major traditional threat by other major Asia-Pacific regional powers due to lacking the capabilities of controlling strategic communication of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. China must do its best to maintain the stability of the surrounding international environment to continue its economic development. Other major Asia-Pacific powers would like to obtain huge economic interests by engaging with China. As a result, the security of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system will gradually develop into a “cold peace” situation, but not the situation of geopolitical equilibrium. The “cold peace” is a situation not only can fill with geopolitical tensions between China and other major Asia-Pacific powers, but also can interact closely with each other on social, economic, cultural and other dimensions, which prevent the crisis of the outbreak of immediate armed conflicts in the region.\n\nKey Words: China, Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Subsystem, Balance of Power, Geopolitical Equilibrium, Geopolitical Code, Strategic Culture, Geo-strategy
描述 博士
國立政治大學
外交研究所
95253503
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095253503
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 林碧炤zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Lin, Bih Jawen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 王俊評zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wang, Chun Pingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 王俊評zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wang, Chun Pingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0095253503en_US
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 外交研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95253503zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文的問題意識在於，中國是否將與其古代帝國一樣，在力量強大時追求以武力或其他強制手段達成戰略目標，並試圖建立以其為核心的東亞勢力範圍與國際秩序，結果導致升高與周邊國家甚至美國在內的其他亞太強國的緊張關係與衝突發生機率，與其所宣稱的「和平發展/崛起」、「和諧世界」不符。\n\n中國戰略菁英繼承了帝國時代遺留下來的天下觀、內政導向戰略文化與陸權性格等地緣戰略遺產。同時，缺乏海軍戰略傳統的中國也在1950年代從同為大陸強國的蘇聯之處承接了19、20世紀的法國、德國、蘇聯等歐陸國家發展出來的以劣抗優的大陸國家縱深防禦海軍戰略與積極防禦艦隊海戰戰略。這些遺產與當代外來海軍戰略共同促成了中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略。\n\n在中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略中，古代天下觀在當代因為中國的國力迅速發展與中國戰略菁英的自信加強，而逐漸形成強調中國制度與文化優越性的新「中國中心主義」。此一新中國中心主義配合中國追求實現其領土主權聲索的現代「九州一統」周邊地緣政治密碼，壓倒日本、印度、東協等區域競爭對手，組織以其為核心的東亞地緣戰略領域的區域地緣政治密碼，以及中國自冷戰時期起就發展出的追求全球體系多極化與建立國際政治經濟新秩序，和在冷戰後希望消除美國於東亞的影響力，追求將亞太地緣政治次體系轉變為美中並立兩極結構的體系/次體系地緣政治密碼，使得中國難以成為一個維持現狀的國家。而中國的內政導向戰略文化雖然強調對內優先於對外，但其實際上具備相當重視權力政治與武力在國際事務中效用的強現實政治特徵和備戰本質。而中國的陸權性格與從蘇聯繼承而來的陸權式海洋地緣戰略，使當代中國的地緣戰略重心與方向皆位於東亞大陸與周邊海域，並未真正跨出亞太邊緣地區，只是將西太平洋的島鏈作為海上長城、島鏈周圍的海洋作為新的資源開發地區與戰略緩衝區，以此區隔與美國在亞太的勢力範圍，並按照安西、靠北、爭東南的地緣戰略操作來組織受其支配的東亞地緣戰略領域。\n\n本論文認為中國擴大參與東亞整合的原因，只是為了因應目前其實力尚無法獨力以軍事、政治等強制性手段完成組織受其支配的東亞地緣戰略領域的戰略目的的間接戰略運用，目的是藉此極大化中國的利益，並取得東亞整合的主導權。中國並無意在傳統安全議題與領土爭端和周邊國家與其他亞太主要強國妥協，並利用多邊傳統安全國際建制達成地緣政治安排，促成亞太地緣政治均衡。中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略雖然限於中國的海上戰略交通線控制能力，最終目的並不在取代美國成為體系中的新海權，但卻能嚴重威脅美國的海權地位，以及其他亞太主要強國和中國周邊中小型濱海國家的地緣政治利益。因此安西、靠北、爭東南的地緣戰略操作除了在北線地緣之外，皆激起其他次體系主要大國與東協的競爭性權力平衡反應。此種戰略反饋又使中國增強本身的競爭性權力平衡作為，難以形成達成均衡必要的協作性權力平衡。因此，中國的地緣戰略仍是傳統爭奪控制戰略交通線與要地的類型，不是為了追求和諧世界與地緣政治均衡的新類型，故無法促進目前不存在均衡的亞太地緣政治次體系達成均衡，反而可能升高與周邊國家甚至美國的衝突機率。\n\n但是，中國受制於本身有限的戰略交通線控制能力，目前仍無法形成其他次體系主要強國真正的傳統安全威脅，更為了繼續實施經濟建設，必須盡力維持周邊國際環境的穩定。其他亞太主要強國為了繼續藉由與中國的交往獲得的龐大經濟利益，在中國還未成為真正戰略威脅的情況下，亦不願意真正與中國敵對，導致亞太地緣政治次體系的局勢將逐漸走向中國與海洋國家之間政治上經常引發緊張關係，但其他方面互動熱絡，不致立即引發武裝衝突危機的「冷和平」狀態，無法形成真正的地緣政治均衡。\n\n關鍵字：中國、亞太地緣政治次體系、權力平衡、地緣政治均衡、地緣政治密碼、戰略文化、地緣戰略zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The research question of this dissertation is that whether China might seek to apply coercive measures to create an East Asia Geostrategic Realm and to dominate the turf by itself, which just like what pre-modern China’s Empires did. Because of the increasing possibility of armed conflicts between China and other regional powers, including the United States, these measures will put the international security of the Asia-Pacific region in jeopardy. Furthermore, this is not according to what China’s claim on “peaceful development/rising” or the so-called “harmonious world.”\n\nModern Chinese strategic elites inherit three main geo-strategic legacies such as the Chinese traditional concept of “Tianxia” (天下觀), domestic-oriented strategic culture, and national land-power nature in China’s history. China also receives the European thought of continental-oriented naval strategy from the Soviet Union while Maoist China built its navy which supported by the Soviet’s help in the 1950s. These legacies and foreign naval strategic thought not only shape modern China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy,” but also affect the nature, gravity, directions, and the major operations of the geo-strategy.\n\nBase on China’s rapid economic growth and military modernization, the self-confidential Chinese elites gradually transform the traditional concept of Tianxia into the new “Sino-centricism,” which stress on the superiority of China’s culture and politico-economic systems. In terms of the geopolitical codes of modern China, they pursue the realization of territorial claims for the purpose of “union” on the local level; overwhelming the competitions of leadership in East Asia from Japan, India, and the ASEAN for creating a Chinese-dominated East Asian Geostrategic Realm on the regional level; pursuing multi-polarization of the international system and, establishing new international politico-economic orders on the systemic level, and dispel the influence of United States in East Asia by transforming the Asia-Pacific geopolitical structure into a bipolarity on the sub-systemic level. Over all, these three levels of geopolitical codes and the new “Sino-centricism” would not make China be a status-quo power in the Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. Additionally, with regard to the domestic-oriented strategic culture, although it stresses the priority of domestics, it also values power politics and the effectiveness of forces in the international politics. The domestic-oriented strategic culture of China, therefore, has the strong characteristics of hard “realpolitik” and “parabellum”.\n\nChina’s traditional land-power nature aside, its continental-oriented naval strategy is developed from the thought of the Soviet naval strategy and put the gravity and directions of China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy” in East Asian continent. China does not go beyond the “Asia-Pacific Rim” actually. What China does is using the “two island-chain” defense in West Pacific as a “Great Wall at Sea,” and the seas around the island chains as strategic buffer zone to distinguish the sphere of influence between China and the United States. China applies the strategic principles of “stabilizing West, relying on North, competing for the Southeast” to organize the region in the west of the island chains and shaping its dominance in the East Asian Geostrategic Realm.\n\nThe dissertation argues that since China cannot organize the East Asian Strategic Realm by political and military means at present, China’s participations in East Asian integrations are indirect strategic behavior. The purposes of indirect approaches are to utilize China’s economic interests and to obtain the leadership of East Asian integrations. China would not like to compromise with its neighbors and other Asia-Pacific Powers on highly sensitive traditional security issues, like territorial disputes essentially. Nor does China attempt to shape multi-pole geopolitical arrangements to achieve the geopolitical equilibrium of Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Sub-system by applying multi-pole international regimes. \n\nFurthermore, the purpose of China’s “Land-Power Maritime Geo-strategy” is not to replace the United States as the Sea Power in the system just because China lacks the ability of controlling global strategic sea lines of communications. The Chinese naval strategy of active layer defense can still seriously threaten the Sea Power status of the United States and the important geopolitical interests of China’s neighbors. Therefore, the implementations of aforesaid geo-strategy of “stabilizing West, relying on North, competing for the Southeast,” seriously raise “adversary balance of power” in both West and Southeast fronts due to the convergences of geopolitical interests between China and other powers. Nevertheless, the adversary balancing feedback of other Asia-Pacific powers and even the ASEAN countries enhance China’s adversary behavior as well. This reciprocal process cannot create the necessary “associational balance of power” of geopolitical equilibrium. In other words, China’s geo-strategy belongs to the “traditional” type, which stresses the importance of controlling strategic communication in the Asia-Pacific region. It is not the “new” type of pursuing “harmonious world” and geopolitical equilibrium. Therefore, China’s geo-strategy cannot advance the equilibrium of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. On the contrary, it may raise the possibility of conflicts between China and Asia-Pacific countries, even the United States.\n\nChina is not deemed as major traditional threat by other major Asia-Pacific regional powers due to lacking the capabilities of controlling strategic communication of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system. China must do its best to maintain the stability of the surrounding international environment to continue its economic development. Other major Asia-Pacific powers would like to obtain huge economic interests by engaging with China. As a result, the security of Asia-Pacific geopolitical sub-system will gradually develop into a “cold peace” situation, but not the situation of geopolitical equilibrium. The “cold peace” is a situation not only can fill with geopolitical tensions between China and other major Asia-Pacific powers, but also can interact closely with each other on social, economic, cultural and other dimensions, which prevent the crisis of the outbreak of immediate armed conflicts in the region.\n\nKey Words: China, Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Subsystem, Balance of Power, Geopolitical Equilibrium, Geopolitical Code, Strategic Culture, Geo-strategyen_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 謝辭…………………………………………………………………………………i\n摘要…………………………………………………………………………………ii\n內文目錄…………………………………………………………………………vii\n圖目錄……………………………………………………………………………xii\n表目錄……………………………………………………………………………xiii\n\n內文目錄\n第一章、緒論………………………………………………………………………1\n第一節、研究動機……………………………………………………………1\n一、 地緣政治學、海軍戰略理論與國際關係理論的整合，\n 及在中國研究中的運用………………………………………1\n二、 對中國戰略文化的研究不足………………………………………5\n三、 未針對「和諧世界」與國際安全進行理論化的分析……………6\n第二節、研究目的與假設……………………………………………………8\n第三節、名詞定義與解釋……………………………………………………9\n一、 Geopolitics、地緣政治與地緣政治學………………………10\n二、 地緣政治學與政治地理學………………………………………12\n三、 地緣戰略……………………………………………………………13\n第四節、研究方法與變數設定………………………………………………17\n一、 新古典地緣政治學：以結構概念研究地緣戰略…………………18\n二、 批判性地緣政治學：對中國戰略菁英地緣政治密碼的解 構……………………………………………………………………22\n三、 戰略研究……………………………………………………………24\n四、 方法論………………………………………………………………28\n五、 變數設定……………………………………………………………30\n第五節、研究限制………………………………………………………………31\n一、 研究文獻類型的限制………………………………………………31\n二、 研究理論範圍的線至………………………………………………32\n第六節、研究架構與章節安排………………………………………………35\n \n第二章、文獻回顧…………………………………………………………………39\n第一節、對中國崛起與國際安全互動抱持悲觀態度的觀點……………………39\n一、 阿查亞………………………………………………………………39\n二、 海軍戰略的角度：荷姆斯與吉原俊井……………………………40\n三、 米爾斯海默與王元綱………………………………………………41\n第二節、對中國崛起與國際安全互動抱持樂觀態度的觀點…………………43\n一、 陸柏彬與黎安友：長城與空城計的遺產…………………………43\n二、 布里辛斯基：傳統歐洲中心地緣政治觀點的樂觀態度…………45\n三、 金竣遠：中國的「新俾斯麥式戰略」……………………………46\n四、 沈大偉………………………………………………………………47\n五、 江憶恩：從文化現實主義到維持現狀的強國……………………48\n六、 康燦雄：東亞階級化國際秩序的恢復……………………………49\n第三節、折衷的觀點…………………………………………………………51\n一、 史旺與泰利斯：中國歷史：戰略文化與地緣政治環境的分析…51\n二、 陸柏彬：由「和平地理」朝「海軍民族主義」轉變……………52\n第四節、中國學者對中國崛起的歷史與地緣政治分析……………………55\n一、 對中國地緣戰略的一般性分析……………………………………55\n二、 海陸性質與中國地緣戰略…………………………………………56\n三、 對於中國戰略文化的研究…………………………………………63\n第五節、小結…………………………………………………………………67\n\n第三章、地緣政治結構與地緣政治均衡…………………………………………69\n第一節、地緣政治結構理論與模型建構……………………………………69\n一、 古典地緣政治學：海陸兩極結構與地理力為主的均衡…………70\n二、 新古典地緣政治學：以海陸分佈為基礎的多極結構……………72\n三、 世界體系理論與單極地緣政治結構………………………………81\n第二節、本論文的地緣政治結構概念………………………………………85\n一、 交通線的類型………………………………………………………86\n二、 戰略交通線控制的類型、方式與程度……………………………90\n三、 交通線控制能力、國家地緣政治屬性與國家分級………………95\n四、 戰略交通線控制與結構形式劃分…………………………………99\n第三節、地緣政治均衡………………………………………………………100\n一、 均衡概念回顧………………………………………………………101\n二、 均衡的特徵及其與權力平衡的差異………………………………104\n三、 地緣政治均衡………………………………………………………112\n四、 地緣政治均衡的不均衡與顛覆……………………………………118\n第四節、地緣政治結構與地緣政治均衡……………………………………121\n一、 無極…………………………………………………………………123\n二、 霸權…………………………………………………………………124\n三、 單極…………………………………………………………………126\n四、 兩極…………………………………………………………………128\n五、 三極與多極…………………………………………………………129\n第五節、地緣政治均衡的實踐………………………………………………134\n一、 弭兵之盟與維也納公會體系………………………………………134\n二、 冷戰與冷戰後的全球地緣政治均衡………………………………136\n第六節、地緣政治結構與戰略文化…………………………………………142\n一、 地理變數與戰略文化的根源和變遷………………………………142\n二、 地緣政治結構形式對戰略文化性質的影響………………………146\n第七節、小結…………………………………………………………………149\n\n第四章、中國古代地緣戰略遺產……………………………………………150\n第一節、古代東亞區域地緣政治結構的特徵與模式………………………151\n一、 農耕－封建地緣戰略領域的地緣政治特徵與模式………………152\n二、 草原－部落地緣戰略領域的地緣政治特徵與模式………………154\n第二節、天下觀與中國古代地緣政治密碼…………………………………157\n一、 天下觀的地緣政治意涵……………………………………………157\n二、 天下觀對中國古代地緣政治密碼的影響…………………………160\n第三節、內政導向戰略文化…………………………………………………166\n一、 內政導向大戰略思想的起源………………………………………169\n二、 古代東亞區域地緣政治結構與內政導向戰略文化的變化………172\n第四節、內政導向戰略文化與中國古代帝國的大戰略偏好………………180\n第五節、地緣戰略遺產………………………………………………………194\n一、 徹底的陸權式地緣戰略與歐亞大陸重心…………………………194\n二、 缺乏均衡概念與以聯盟維繫競爭性權力平衡的思想……………196\n三、 缺乏海洋與海軍戰略思想…………………………………………200\n第六節、小結…………………………………………………………………204\n\n第五章、當代中國地緣政治密碼與戰略文化………………………………207\n第一節、當代全球地緣政治結構與亞太區域地緣政治結構………………208\n一、 美國海權單極………………………………………………………209\n二、 全球地緣政治結構中的四強………………………………………210\n三、 「單極＋三強」的亞太區域地緣政治結構………………………219\n第二節、當代中國的地緣政治密碼…………………………………………221\n一、 矛盾的新世界觀……………………………………………………222\n二、 各層次地緣政治密碼………………………………………………227\n第三節、內政導向戰略文化的當代延續與變化……………………………244\n一、 毛澤東時代的內政導向戰略文化與中國的大戰略行為…………246\n二、 鄧小平、江澤民與胡錦濤：重回內政導向戰略文化的限制……252\n第四節、小結…………………………………………………………………264\n\n第六章、當代中國的陸權式海洋地緣戰略…………………………………267\n第一節、陸權式海洋地緣戰略………………………………………………268\n一、 目的、重心與性質…………………………………………………269\n二、 特徵…………………………………………………………………273\n第二節、當代中國的地緣戰略：形式與特徵………………………………282\n一、 地緣政治屬性………………………………………………………283\n二、 海軍戰略思想與部署：陸戰觀念指導下的海上攻勢縱深防禦…286\n三、 以陸制海的海洋戰略………………………………………………295\n四、 陸地權力平衡的海上運用、海洋區域控制與領土化……………310\n五、 制海權與海權概念的混淆：海軍的威望性需求…………………313\n第三節、當代中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略：攻守性質、重心與操作…………315\n一、 中國與亞太區域地緣政治結構特徵的影響………………………316\n二、 地緣政治密碼之指導與內政導向戰略文化之影響………………318\n三、 中國海上戰略交通線控制能力不足………………………………320\n四、 中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略的攻守性質……………………………323\n五、 方向與操作…………………………………………………………327\n第四節、中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略對亞太地緣政治均衡之影響…………334\n第五節、小結…………………………………………………………………344\n\n第七章、中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略對亞太地緣政治均衡之影響…………347\n第一節、不存在的亞太次體系地緣政治均衡………………………………348\n一、 冷戰時的亞太地緣政治次體系與地緣政治均衡…………………348\n二、 當代亞太地緣政治均衡……………………………………………351\n第二節、中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略對亞太次體系的權力平衡效應………355\n一、 西線地緣……………………………………………………………355\n二、 東南線地緣…………………………………………………………358\n三、 北線地緣的協作性權力平衡與亞太次體系的海陸對峙…………371\n第三節、中國陸權式海洋地緣戰略與美中地緣政治競爭…………………374\n一、 中國中心的東亞地緣戰略領域與亞太島鏈長城…………………374\n二、 美國的回應…………………………………………………………381\n第四節、冷和平：對中國缺乏戰略交通線控制能力的次體系現狀………389\n一、 冷和平中各強國的聯盟行為：離岸平衡、推卸責任與扈從……392\n二、 東南亞國家的「兩屬」行為………………………………………396\n第五節、小結…………………………………………………………………398\n\n第八章、結論…………………………………………………………………401\n第一節、研究發現：中國對外戰略行為的本質……………………………401\n一、 購買時間或彈性反應………………………………………………402\n二、 地緣政治結構對中國擴張的限制：是否能超越東亞……………406\n第二節、研究假設驗證………………………………………………………408\n第三節、研究檢討與未來發展方向…………………………………………412\n一、 對研究限制的檢討…………………………………………………412\n二、 戰略文化研究途徑：組織文化研究的重要性……………………414\n三、 權力與地理變數結合的模型建構之改善…………………………414\n四、 與國際關係聯盟理論的結合………………………………………415\n\n參考文獻………………………………………………………………………418\n \n圖目錄\n圖1.1地緣戰略制訂過程與對國際安全影響的各種研究變數設定……………31\n圖3.1麥金德心臟地帶概念範圍的變遷…………………………………………73\n圖3.2科恩的當代地緣政治結構…………………………………………………77\n圖3.3根據運量所描繪的全球主要海上交通線分佈……………………………88\n圖3.4並列式三極陸權地緣政治結構…………………………………………131\n圖3.5三極均擁有共同邊界的結構……………………………………………132\n圖3.6只有兩強擁有共同邊界的三極結構……………………………………132\n圖3.7國家戰略文化生成過程圖解……………………………………………143\n圖3.8國家戰略文化的根源……………………………………………………145\n圖6.1泛亞鐵路網………………………………………………………………300\n圖6.2泛泛亞鐵路東南亞走廊與中國雲南省境內相接鐵道網………………302\n圖6.3中國能源主要進口路線與油氣管線建設計畫…………………………305\n圖6.4西氣東輸二線工程………………………………………………………306\n圖6.5中緬油氣管線……………………………………………………………307\n圖6.6中印勢力範圍……………………………………………………………330\n圖7.1 西太平洋第一與第二島鏈……………………………………………377\n圖7.2 1943年9月劃定的「絕對國防圈」範圍……………………………378\n圖7.3 中國海軍海上縱深防禦戰之活動範圍………………………………381\n \n\n表目錄\n表4.1一統帝國時期中國對外用兵記錄………………………………………188\n表6.1前蘇聯與中國海軍制海權概念比較……………………………………288\n表6.2前蘇聯與中國海軍防禦區域部署內容…………………………………291\n表6.3 2011年亞太主要國家海軍船艦與人員編制數量之比較……………322\n表7.1 亞太地區海軍船艦與人員編制數量之比較…………………………369zh_TW
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095253503en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中國zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 亞太地緣政治次體系zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 權力平衡zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 地緣戰略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 地緣政治密碼zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 戰略文化zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chinaen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Asia-Pacific Geopolitical Subsystemen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Balance of Poweren_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Geo-strategyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Geopolitical Codeen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Strategic Cultureen_US
dc.title (題名) 潛在的超強：中國崛起的地緣戰略與亞太安全研究zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Potential super power: the study on rising China`s geostrategy and its impact on Asia-Pacific securityen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen