戰略三角與儒家倫理國際關係模式研究： 古代東亞歷史的三個案例

Abstract

本文旨在結合儒家倫理角色「君父臣子」、「君臣」、「兄弟」等關係，探討小國在兩大國下的外交抉擇空間及其制約因素。隨著中國再起，傳統基於西方經驗發展而成的國際關係理論或不足以周延詮釋中國扮演重要角色下的全球治理體系。為分析影響小國對外決策的關鍵因素，本文提出權力與儒家倫理不對稱戰略三角模型，以「大國關係（友善/敵對）」及「小國對大國之倫理角色關係」兩大變項切入，探討兩者如何形塑小國的決策空間。本文以三個歷史案例檢驗兩項假設：其一，大國關係越友善，小國決策空間越大；其二，小國對大國之倫理角色關係越強，小國決策空間越受限。 本文研究結果顯示，物質權力決定了基調，而大小國間的倫理關係則在基調上決定小國戰略彈性的空間。在大國友善的環境下，倫理關係可轉化為槓桿，使小國獲得一定的紅利；反之在大國敵對的環境下，同一倫理關係反將成為束縛小國的枷鎖。在三個歷史案例中，朝鮮在壬辰倭亂後因再造之恩對明朝建立深厚「君父臣子」倫理關係，當明金關係轉為敵對，朝鮮因深陷倫理義務與現實壓力的雙重束縛，導致決策空間急遽壓縮，最終招致丁丑下城。反觀高麗在遼宋維持和平的友善環境下，巧妙地以雙軌外交的模式，最大化國家利益，實現近百年的左右逢源。而勃律因缺乏深層倫理認同，其對外戰略選擇主要取決於物質權力，倫理關係角色在其中的作用最小，在唐蕃交惡的情況下，勃律的外交立場也隨著大國輪番武力攻伐而轉換。 綜上，大國關係決定了小國運作的空間，而倫理關係則界定了小國行為彈性的上限。本文提出的模型具體化了儒家倫理在不對稱三角中的作用，並進一步推演出小國的戰略彈性公式。本文期望能為歷史與國關，以及不對稱三角關係之研究，提供新的解釋路徑。

This study incorporates Confucian ethical role relationships—specifically "sovereign–father and subject–son"（君父臣子）, "sovereign–subject"（君臣）, and "brotherly"（兄弟） ties—to examine the decision-making space of small states situated between two major powers. With the resurgence of China, traditional international relations theories developed from Western experiences may be insufficient to comprehensively interpret a global governance system with strong Chinese influence. To analyze the key factors influencing small state decision-making, this study proposes the "Power and Confucian Ethical Asymmetric Strategic Triangle"（權力與儒家倫理不對稱戰略三角）, employing two variables: (1) the nature of great power relations (amicable or hostile), and (2) the strength of the ethical role relationship between the small state and the great power. The study examines three historical cases to test two hypotheses. The findings demonstrate that power establishes the baseline, while ethical relationships determine the scope of strategic flexibility. In an amicable environment, ethical relationships can be transformed into leverage; in a hostile environment, however, the same relationships become constraints. Historically, following the Imjin War（壬辰倭亂）, Joseon（朝鮮） established a profound ethical bond with the Ming dynasty（明）. However, when relations between the Ming and the Later Jin（明金） turned hostile, Joseon became trapped by its ethical obligations and realistic pressures, ultimately resulting in the "Humiliation at Samjeondo"（丁丑下城）. In contrast, Goryeo（高麗） skillfully adopted dual-track diplomacy under the amicable Liao–Song（遼宋） environment, achieving nearly a century of successful hedging. Finally, Balur（勃律）, lying outside the Confucian sphere, shifted its alignment primarily in accordance with power amidst Tang–Tibetan（唐蕃） hostilities. In conclusion, this study argues that amicable great power relations provide the structural basis for a small state's diplomatic maneuvering, while ethical relationships define the limits of this autonomy. By integrating Confucian ethics into an asymmetrical framework, this model offers a new explanatory path for History and IR.