請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33184
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳世民(Shih-Min Chen) | |
dc.contributor.author | Devin Chun-Jung Wu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 吳昀融 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T04:28:18Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2013-09-18 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2011-09-18 | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考書目
一、中文資料 Andrew Scobell and Larry M. Wortzel,李育慈譯(2002),<中國對美國強硬立場之 回應>。施道安與伍爾澤(編),《中共軍力成長》,頁1-14。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 Daniel S. Papp,高一中、吳惠民譯(1999),<前蘇聯共和國與獨立國協>。道格 拉斯.莫瑞與保羅.維阿提(編),《世界各國國防政策比較研究(上)》,頁489-585。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 David S. Yost,高一中、吳惠民譯(1999),<法國>。道格拉斯.莫瑞與保羅. 維阿提(編),《世界各國國防政策比較研究(上)》,頁489-585。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 Henry Kissinger,顧淑馨、林添貴譯(2007),《大外交》,海口:海南出版社。 Henry Kissinger,胡國材譯(1982),《核子武器與外交政策》,台北:黎明。 John E. Endicott,高一中、吳惠民譯(1999),<日本>。道格拉斯.莫瑞與保羅. 維阿提(編),《世界各國國防政策比較研究(下)》,頁167-212。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 Maurice Isserman,陳昱澍譯(2005),《美國人眼中的朝鮮戰爭》,北京:當代中國 出版社。 Maurice Isserman,孫寶寅譯(2006),《美國人眼中的越南戰爭》,北京:當代中國 出版社。 丁永康(2003),<21世紀初澳洲的國家利益分析>。朱松柏與蔡增家(編),《新 世紀亞太情勢與區域安全》,頁221-249。台北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心。 井上清,天津市歷史研究所與南開大學歷史系譯(1972),《戰後日本史》,天津: 天津人民出版社。 王元綱(2003),〈樂觀的現實主義:國際關係守勢現實主義之評析〉,《國際關係 學報》,第18期,頁41-57。 中居良文,楊連仲等譯(2000),<有關台灣的政策協商>。西原正(編),《美日 聯盟的新挑戰》,頁1-30。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 日本防衛廳,黃朝茂、宋一之譯(2005),《2003日本防衛白皮書》,台北: 國防部史政編譯室。 朱松柏(2000),<北韓的飛彈外交與亞太安全>,《問題與研究》,第39卷第2 期,頁1-11。 朱松柏(2003),<北韓發展核武與東亞區域安全>。朱松柏與蔡增家(編),《新 世紀亞太情勢與區域安全》,頁139-164。台北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心。 朱松柏(2004)。<國際反恐與朝鮮半島的角色>,邱稔壤與柯玉枝(編),《國際 反恐與亞太情勢》,頁120-150。台北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心。 西原正,楊連仲等譯(2000),<美日聯盟:防衛合作及其他事項>。西原正(編), 《美日聯盟的新挑戰》,頁1-30。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 西爾,高一中譯(1995),<東北亞和平的重要屏障>。國防部史政編譯局(編), 《戰區飛彈防衛》,頁265-273。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 村田晃嗣,楊連仲等譯(2000),<美日聯盟是否因新指針而更具效能?>。西原 正(編),《美日聯盟的新挑戰》,頁1-30。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 佐伯喜一編,韓立基、潘富德譯(1985),《一九九0年代日本之安全保障》,台 北:黎明出版社。 松村岐夫、伊藤光利與辻中豐,吳明上譯(2005),《日本政府與政治》。台北:五 南。 林佾靜(2009),<國際關係理論大辯論─從實證主義到後實證主義>,《淡江人 文社會學刊》,第39期,頁79-104。 金田秀明,李育慈譯(2004),<中共軍力成長及對日本國家安全之衝擊>。施道 安與伍爾澤(編),《中共軍力成長》,頁55-70。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 金熙德(2000),<繼續發展對中國友好關係的方針不會改變>。蔣立峰(編),《2 1世紀日本沉浮辨》,頁326-351。北京:中國社會科學出版社。 胡宗山(2005),〈現實主義的內部分歧與外部批叛〉,《世界經濟與政治》,第8期, 頁24-30。 姚文禮(2000),<加強軍事實力,鞏固日美同盟,合霸亞太地區>。蔣立峰(編), 《21世紀日本沉浮辨》,頁284-307。北京:中國社會科學出版社。 柯玉枝(2003),<日本安保政策與日美同盟>。朱松柏與蔡增家(編),《新世紀 亞太情勢與區域安全》,頁139-164。台北:國立政治大學國際關係研究中心。 倪世雄(2003),《當代國際關係理論》,台北:五南出版公司。 高洪、金熙德(2000),<政治外交發展方向不會發生重大變化>。蔣立峰(編), 《21世紀日本沉浮辨》,頁185-202。北京:中國社會科學出版社。 徐家仁(2003),《彈道飛彈與彈道飛彈防禦》,台北:麥田。 鳥井順,黃朝茂譯(1995),<北韓「勞動一號」飛彈真面目>。國防部史政編譯 局(編),《戰區飛彈防衛》,頁275-289。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 張雅君(2009),〈日本與中國和諧世界建構:在中國與美國之間的政策選擇困境〉, 《「東亞國際關係中的日本:邁向正常國家?」研討會》,台北市政治大學。 黃大慧(2008),《日本大國化趨勢與中日關係》,北京:社會科學文獻出版社。 道下德成,楊連仲等譯(2000),<朝鮮半島出現和平之後的安全協定>。西原 正(編),《美日聯盟的新挑戰》,頁1-30。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 楊永明(2002),〈冷戰時期日本之防衛與安全保障政策-一九四五至一九九○〉, 《問題與研究》,第41卷第5期,頁13-40。 楊奎松(2001),〈評《抗美援朝戰爭史》〉,《史學月刊》,第六期,頁25-35。 劉世龍(2000),<日美關係基本格局不變但有新發展>。蔣立峰(編),《21世 紀日本沉浮辨》,頁308-325。北京:中國社會科學出版社。 劉冠効(2002),〈轉變中的日本安全保障政策-「反恐特別措施法」的探討〉,《問 題與研究》,第41卷第5期,頁41-65。 潘乃德,呂萬和、熊達雲與王智新譯(2008),《菊與刀》,台北:笛籐。 鄭瑞耀(2003),「國際關係攻勢與守勢現實主義理論爭辯之評析」,《問題與研究》, 第42卷第2期,頁1-21。 蔣立峰(2000),<序言>。蔣立峰(編),《21世紀日本沉浮辨》,頁1-21。北 京:中國社會科學出版社。 戴天昭,李明峻譯(2002),《台灣國際政治史》,台北:前衛。 二、英文資料 Akaha, Tsuneo (2006). Japan and the recurrent nuclear crisis. In Linus Hagström and Marie Söderberg (eds.), NorthKorea Policy: Japan and the great powers (pp. 38-52). New York: Routledge. Auer, James E. (1990). Article Nine of Japan's Constitution: From Renunciation of Armed Force 'Forever' to the Third Largest Defense Budget in the World. Law and Contemporary Problems, 53(2): 171-187. Berger, Thomas U. (1993). From Sword to Chrysanthemum: Japan’s Culture of Anti-militarism. International Security, 17(4): 119-150. Brooks, Stephen G. (1997). Dueling Realisms. International Organization, 51(3): 445-477. Campbell, Kurt M. and Tsuyoshi Sunohara (2004). Japan. In Campbell, Kurt M. et al. (eds.) The Nuclear Tipping Point (pp. 218-253). Washington, D.C. : The Brookings Institution. Chanlett-Avery, E. and M. B. Nikitin (2009). Japan’s Nuclear Future: Policy Debate, Prospects, and U.S. Interests. (CRS Report for Congress RL34487) Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Curtis, Gerald L. (2000). U.S. Policy toward Japan from Nixon to Clinton: An Assessment. In Curtis, Gerald L. (ed.), New perspective on U.S.-Japan relations (pp. 1-38). New York: Japan Center for International Exchange. Dannreuther, Roland (2007). International Security: The Contemporary Agenda, Cambridge: Polity Press. Department of Defense (2010). Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2010 (Annual Report to Congress).Washington, D.C. DiFilippo, Anthony (2006). Japan’s nuclear disarmament policy and the U.S. Security umbrella, New York: Palgrave Macmillian. Drifte, Reinhard (2003). Japan’s Security Relations with China since 1989, New York: Routledge Curzon. Freedman, Lawrence (1981). The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Hong Kong: The MacMillan Press. Funabashi, Yoichi (1994). Introduction: Japan’s Interantional Agenda in the 1990s. In Yoichi Funabashi (ed.) Japan’s International Agenda (pp1-27). New York: New York University Press. Furukawa, Katsuhisa (2003). Making Sense of Japan’s Nuclear Policy: Arms Control, Extended Deterrence, and the Nuclear Option. In Self, Benjamin L. and Jeffrey W. Thompson (eds.), Japan’s Nuclear Option: security, politics, and policies in the 21st century, Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center. Glaser, Charles L. and C. Kaufmann (1998). What is the Offense-Defense Balance and Can We Measure it? In Brown, Michael E. et al. (eds.) Offense, Defense, and War (pp. 266-304). Mass.: MIT Press. Hughes, Christopher (2004). Japan’s Security Agenda: Military, Economic and Environmental Dimensions, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Hughes, Llewelyn (2007). Why Japan will not go nuclear (yet). International Security, 31(4): 67-96. Horimoto, Takenori (2005). Changing Security Environment Around Japan: A Mid-Term Perspective. In Sisodia, N. S. and G.V. C. Naidu (eds.) Changing Security Dynamic In Eastern Asia: Focus on Japan (pp. 235-256). New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) (2009). The Military Balance 2009. London: Taylor & Francis. Jervis, R. (1978). Cooperation under the Security Dilemma. World Politics, 30, 167-214. Kahn, Herman (1970). The emerging Japanese superstate : challenge and response. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall. Kaneko, Kumao (1996). Japan Needs No Umbrella. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 50(2), 46-51. Karp, Aaron(2005). The Impact of Japanese Missile Defenses on Global Security. In Sisodia, N. S. and G.V. C. Naidu (eds.) Changing Security Dynamic In Eastern Asia: Focus on Japan (pp. 298-314). New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Karp, Regina Cowen (1991). The continuing nuclear challenge. In Regina Cowen Karp (ed.) Security with Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on ational Security (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford University Press. Katzenstein, Peter J. and N. Okawara (1993). Japan’s National Security: Structures, Norms, and Policies. International Security, 17(4): 84-118. Katzenstein, Peter J. and N. Okawara (2001/2002). Japan, Asian-Pacific Security, and the Case for Analytical Eclecticism. International Security, 26(3): 153-185. Kawasaki, Tsuyoshi (2001). Postclassical realism and Japanese security policy. The Pacific Review, 14(2): 221-240. Kawashima, Yutaka (2005). Japanese Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Challenges and Options for the Twenty-First Century, Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution. Keddell, Joseph P. (1993). The politics of defense in Japan : managing internal and external pressures, New York: M. E. Sharpe. Keylor, William R. (2006). The Twentieth-Century World and Beyond: An International History Since 1900, New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Kishlansky, Mark A. (ed.) (1995). Sources of World History, New York, Harper Collins. Kliman, Daniel M. (2006). Japan’s security strategy in the post-9/11 world: embracing a new realpolitik, Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Krause, Keith (1999). Rationality and Deterrence in Theory and Practice. In Craig A. Snyder (ed.) Comtemporary Security and Strategy (pp. 120-149). London: MacMillian Press. Larson, Joyce E. (ed.)(1980). New Foundations for Asian and Pacific Security, New York: National Strategy Information Center. Layne, Christopher (1993). The Unipolar Illusion Revisited. International Security, 31(2): 7-41. L’Estrange, Michael G. (1990). The internationalization of Japan's security policy : challenges and dilemmas for a reluctant power, Berkeley : Institute of International Studies, University of California. Lind, J. M. (2004). Pacifism or Passing the Buck: Testing Theories of Japanese Security Policies. International Security, 29(1): 92-121. Lynch, Allen (1991).The Soviet Union: nuclear weapons and their role in security policy. In Regina Cowen Karp (ed.) Security with Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on ational Security (pp. 209-228). New York: Oxford University Press. Manning, Robert A. (1999). Waiting for Godot? Northeast Asian Future Shock and the U.S.-Japan Alliance. In Green, Michael J. and Patrick M. Cronin (eds.), The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 42-68). New York: Council of Foreign Relations. Mastanduno, Michael (2003). The U.S.-Japan Alliance and Models of Regional Security Order. In Ikenberry, G. John and Takashi Inoguchi (eds.), Reinventing the Alliance: U.S.-Japan Security Partnership in an Era of Change, New York: Palgrave. McDevitt, Michael (2007). The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and National Security Strategy: Is There an American Strategic Vision for East Asia? (Issues & Insights, 7:1). Honolulu, Hawaii: Pacific Forum CSIS. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: Norton. Miyashita, Akitoshi (2001). Introduction: A Framework for Analysis. In Miyashita, Akitoshi and Yoichiro Sato (eds.), Japan’s Foreign Policy in Asia and the Pacific, New York:Palgrave. Morgenthau, H. J. (1967). Politics Among Nations, New York: Knopf. Müller, Harald (1991). Maintaining non-nuclear weapon status. In Regina Cowen Karp (ed.) Security with Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on ational Security (pp. 301-339). New York: Oxford University Press. Nixon, Richard M. (1967). Asia after Viet Nam. Foreign Affairs, 46(1): 111-125. Ogata, Sadako (1988). Normalization with China: A Comparative Study of U.S. and Japanese Processes, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of East Asian Studies. Ogawa, Shinichi (2005). Japan’s Position on Nuclear Weapons: A Japanese View. In Sisodia, N. S. and G.V. C. Naidu (eds.) Changing Security Dynamic In Eastern Asia: Focus on Japan (pp. 261-277). New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Oros, Andrew L. (2003). Godzilla’s Return: The New Nuclear Politics in an Insecure Japan. In Self, Benjamin L. and Jeffrey W. Thompson (eds.), Japan’s Nuclear Option: security, politics, and policies in the 21st century, Washington, D.C.: Henry L. Stimson Center. Osius, Ted. (2002). The U.S.-Japan security alliance: why it matters and how to strengthen it, Westport, Conn. : Praeger. Park, Hans S. (2006). The rationales behind North Korean foreign policy. In Linus Hagström and Marie Söderberg (eds.), NorthKorea Policy: Japan and the great powers (pp. 38-52). New York: Routledge. Przystup, James (1999). China, Japan, and the United States. In Green, Michael J. and Patrick M. Cronin (eds.), The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and FutureI (pp. 21-41). New York: Council of Foreign Relations. Quester, George H. (1977). Offense and Defense in the International System. In Brown, Michael E. et al. (eds.) Offense, Defense, and War (pp. 51-65). Mass.: MIT Press. Quester, George H. (1991). Conceptions of nuclear threshold status. In Regina Cowen Karp (ed.) Security with Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on ational Security (pp. 209-228). New York: Oxford University Press. Rose, Caroline. (2005). Sino-Japanese Relations: Facing the past, looking to the future?, New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Rose, Gideon (1998). Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics, 51(1): 144-172. Sagan, Scott D. and Kenneth Waltz (2003). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A debate renewed, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Samuel, Richard J. and C. Twomey (1999). The Eagle Eyes the Pacific: American Foreign Policy Options in East Asia after the Cold War. In Green, Michael J. and Patrick M. Cronin (eds.), The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and FutureI (pp. 3-20). New York: Council of Foreign Relations. Sato, Yoichiro (2006). US North Korea policy: the ‘Japan Factor’. In Linus Hagström and Marie Söderberg (eds.), NorthKorea Policy: Japan and the great powers (pp. 38-52). New York: Routledge. Scalapino, Robert A. (1992). The Foreign Policy of Modern Japan. In Macridis, Roy (ed.) , Foreign policy in world politics (pp. 186-221). Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall. Sherrill, Clifton W. (2001). The need for a Japanese Nuclear Deterrent. Comparative Strategy, 20: 259-270. Shinoda, Tomohito (2007). Koizumi Diplomacy: Japan’s Kantei Approach to Foreign and Defense Affairs, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Simpson, John (2006). France, the United Kingdom and Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century. In Ian R. Kenyon and John Simpson (eds), Deterrence and the New Global Security Environment (pp. 127-144). New York: Routledge. Smith, Sheila A. (1999). Managing the New U.S.-Japan Seucirty Alliance: Enhancing Structures and Mechanisms to Address Post-Cold War Requirements. In Green, Michael J. and Patrick M. Cronin (eds.), The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Past, Present, and FutureI (pp. 94-113). New York: Council of Foreign Relations. Snyder, Jack (1991). Myths of Empire, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Soligen, Etel (2010). The Perils Prediction: Japan’s Once and Future Nuclear Status. In William C. Potter and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova (eds.), Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century Volume II: A Comparative Perspective. (pp. 131-157). Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Taliaferro, J. W. (2000). Security Seeking under Anarchy. International Security, 25(3): 128-161. Tanaka, Akihiko (2000). The International Context of U.S.-Japan Relations in the 1990s. In Curtis, Gerald L. (ed.), New perspective on U.S.-Japan relations (pp. 265-294). New York: Japan Center for International Exchange. Tang, Shiping (2010). Social evolution of international politics: From Mearsheimer to Jervis. European Journal of International Relations, 16(1): 31-55. Taylor, Brendan and Desmond Ball (2007). Historical overview. In William T. Tow, Mark J. Thomson, Yoshinobu Yamamoto & Satu P. Limaye (eds.), Asia-Pacific Security: US, Australia and Japan and the New Security Triangle. (pp. 1-30). New York: Routledge. The Council on Security and Defense Capabilities (2004). Japan’s Vision for Future Security and Defense Capabilities (The Council on Security and Defense Capabilities Report). Tokyo, Japan. Togo, Kazuhiko(2005). Japan’s Foreign Policy 1945-2003, Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. Twomey, Christopher P. (2000). Japan, a circumscribed balancer: Building on defensive realism to make predictions about East Asian security. Security Studies, 9(4): 167-205. Van Evera, Stephan (1998). Offense, Defense and the Cause of War. In Brown, Michael E. et al. (eds.) Offense, Defense, and War (pp. 227-265). Mass.: MIT Press. Walt, Stephan M. (1985). Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power. International Security, 9(4): 208-248. Walt, Stephan M. (1987). The Origin of Alliances, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House. Waltz, Kenneth N. (1994). The Emerging Structure of International Politics. International Security, 18(2): 44-79. Wendt, Alexander (1995). Constructing International Politics. International Security, 20(1): 71-81. Williams, Phil (1987). Nuclear Deterrence. In Baylis, John et al. (eds.), Contemporary Strategy: Theories and Concepts (pp. 113-139). London, Sydney: Croom Helm. 三、網站資料 日本防衛省 http://www.mod.go.jp 美國之音 http://www.voa.com 美國中情局TheWorld Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/33184 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 本論文旨在研究日本自二次大戰戰後的安全保障政策,並論述較之新現實主義和建構主義,守勢現實主義在解釋日本戰後安保政策上最具有解釋力度。本文首先就歷史的脈絡依序扼要介紹第二次世界大戰之後影響日本安保環境的諸多歷史事件,以及日本在安保政策上的演革。越戰和冷戰無疑在日本的安保政策變革上扮演著重要的角色:前者間接促使日本的自衛隊實力逐步加強,後者則清楚刻畫了對日本威脅之來源的變遷。透過歷史的回顧,不難發現日本雖然和英國同屬海島國家但卻四面楚歌,先有蘇聯大軍壓境,後則有中國與北韓的潛在威脅。其次的研究則發現過往對於日本安保政策與國際關係理論之間關聯之研究仍有不足,且各派國際關係理論所提出之論點多有矛盾之處。據此,本文先就過往依循守勢現實主義對日本安保政策做出研究的學術成果做一介紹與整理,並瞭解到新古典現實主義的出現不但修正了新現實主義,也使守勢現實主義產生了新的變型。考慮到本論文的分析對象為日本此一單一國家,而非整體的國際環境,因此本論文利用新古典現實主義中的守勢現實主義變型:威脅平衡理論和攻守理論來對戰後的日本安保政策進行分析與研究,論證守勢現實主義的解釋力。最後,則運用核武與飛彈防禦政策為例,進行案例的研究與探討。
戰後的日本雖然在憲法上揚棄了擁有發動戰爭的武力,但卻因為韓戰爆發而在美軍的要求下進行再武裝。因應蘇聯日益加強的軍事威脅以及美軍因越戰的陰霾而撤出亞洲的事實,日本在冷戰時期大幅在質與量上增進軍事能力,這點顯然與建構主義的論述有所牴觸。然而,做為經濟超強的日本卻終究沒有背棄與美國的同盟關係,其堅定維護日美同盟的決心使得新現實主義基於權力平衡而做出之「日本必然將會平衡美國」的假設同樣失去說服力。上述兩者乃戰後學界賴以解釋日本安保政策的兩大國際關係理論,卻皆有其論述上的缺陷。相對的,守勢現實主義的威脅平衡理論卻精準地解釋日本在戰後的結盟選擇,也對於日本為何能夠在進行軍事實力的同時避免陷入安全困境之中提出合理論述。 日本的核武與飛彈防禦政策則進一步地證實了守勢現實主義在戰後日本安保政策上的解釋力。日本長期以來受到鄰國的核武恫嚇與威脅:先有冷戰時期的蘇聯,後有積極進行核武現代化的中國與不理性的北韓。然而,日本並未如新現實主義論者所預測地一般獲取獨立的核武實力,也並未完全徹底以道德考量揚棄核武。日本官方文件、官員發言與政策顯然都將威脅納入考量,而以美日同盟做為基礎佈署飛彈防禦系統。 綜論之,透過理論層面的論證以及實際案例的分析,守勢現實主義確然對二次大戰以降的日本安保政策具有解釋力,也因此值得做為未來預測日本安保政策變遷的參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | This thesis intends to study the security policies of Japan since the Second World War, and argue that defensive realism has the strongest explanatory power on these policies, against neo-realism and constructivism. In time sequence, an overview of all the major historical events since WWII that have impacts on the security environment of Japan and the subsequent changes on Japan’s security policies constitutes the first part of the thesis, and points out that both the Vietnam War and the Cold War have played significant roles in shaping Japanese security policies after WWII, with the Vietnam War triggering the consolidation of military power of the Japanese Self-Defense Force and the Cold War marking the change of source of the major threat to Japan. Through the historical review, it is not difficult to find out that Japan has constantly been surrounded by threats, even though it is an island-state like the United Kingdom: first by the Russian forces on its borders, and now with the potential dangers imposed by China and North Korea. The thesis then realizes the insufficiency in the research of the link between international relation theories and Japanese security policies, with emphasis on the contradiction between the viewpoints of the different international relation theories. This thesis then, based on this finding, sorts out the previous research works that use defensive realism to study the security policies of Japan, and at the same time, points out that the emergence of neo-classical realism has created new variants of defensive realism. Understanding the subject of research of this thesis is one single country, Japan, instead of the whole international environment, this thesis makes use of the variants of defensive realism that roots in neo-classical realism, namely balance-of-threat theory and offensive-defensive theory, to study and analyze the security policies of Japan since WWII, and proves the explanatory power of defensive realism. Lastly, Japan’s nuclear and missile defence policies are thoroughly studied as a case study to again prove the explanatory power of defensive realism.
Japan surrenders its right to wage war and own a war-fighting military force in its post-war constitution, but the Americans have requested Japan to re-arm under the shadow of the Korean War. In response to the growing military threat from Soviet Russia and the withdrawal of American forces in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Japan has greatly enhanced its military ability both in quantity and in quality. This certainly contradicts with the contentions of the constructivists. However, being an economical giant, Japan has never abandoned its alliance with the U.S., and its determination in maintaining the alliance has also proven neo-realist’s “Japan to balance the U.S.” hypothesis to be flawed. These two are the two most commonly applied international relation theories in explaining the post-WWII Japanese security policies, yet their arguments are both inperfect. In comparison, however, balance-of-threat theory of the defensive realism school accurately explains Japan’s preference in post-war alliance formation, while the offensive-defensive theory explains why Japan may develop its military capability and yet avoid to be trapped in a security dilemma. The Japanese policy on nuclear weapons and missile defense further proves the explanatory power of defensive realism on the post-WWII security policies of Japan. Japan has long been under nuclear threats from its neighbors: first with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and later with a quickly modernizing China and the irrational North Korea. Yet, Japan has not developed an independent nuclear force, as predicted by neo-realists, not has it totally abandoned nuclear weapons based on moral grounds, as advocated by many constructivists. Official documents, public statements by government officials and official policies have obviously include “threat” as a factor of consideration, and disposed missile defence systems in accordance to the U.S.-Japan alliance. In short, supported by the results from the discussion of the different international relation theories and the analysis of the case study, defensive realism truly has a strong explanatory power towards the post-WWII security policies of Japan, and can be a convincing reference in predicting future Japanese security policies. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T04:28:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R94341020-1.pdf: 1238749 bytes, checksum: bee88fc05ad51d8071d30a4f21dfe0ee (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 次
第壹章 緒論……………………………………………………………1 第一節 研究動機與研究目的………………………………………………… 1 一、 研究動機……………………………………………………………… 1 二、 研究目的……………………………………………………………… 4 第二節 研究途徑與研究方法………………………………………………… 5 一、 研究途徑……………………………………………………………… 5 二、 研究方法………………………………………………………………13 第三節 分析架構、研究範圍與研究限制……………………………………14 一、分析架構………………………………………………………………14 二、研究範圍與研究限制…………………………………………………15 第四節 文獻回顧………………………………………………………………16 一、過往應用守勢現實主義對日本安保政策所進行之分析……………16 二、過往日本核武政策相關研究……………………………………19 第五節 章節安排………………………………………………………………23 第貳章 二戰後日本安全環境與安保政策之演變……………………26 第一節 二戰結束至越戰爆發前的日本安保政策(1945-1960年)……………27 一、軍事佔領之影響及日本新憲法的制定(1945-1950年)………………27 二、自衛隊體制的建立與美日安保條約的簽訂(1950-1957年)…………35 三、岸信介內閣的外交三原則與新美日安保條約(1957-1960年)………40 第二節 越戰影響下至冷戰終結時期的日本安保政策(1961-1989年)………43 一、越戰的影響(1961-1975年)…………………………………………43 二、美中�日中關係正常化(1969-1976年)……………………………47 三、日中關係正常化後安保政策的變革(1976-1979年)………………49 四、冷戰後期日本的安保政策變革(1979-1989年)………………………51 第三節 後冷戰時期日本安全挑戰與安保政策(1989年至今)………………53 一、第一次波斯灣戰爭(1990-1991年)…………………………………54 二、台海飛彈危機(1995-1996年)………………………………………56 三、90年代北韓飛彈與核武危機(1993-1999年)………………………58 四、911事件對日本安保政策的衝擊(2001-2005年)…………………60 五、第二次北韓核武危機(2002年-至今)………………………………62 第參章 以守勢現實主義分析日本安保政策…………………………65 第一節 過往學界對日本安保政策之研究……………………………………66 一、歐美學者的研究……………………………………………………66 二、日本學者的研究……………………………………………………68 三、大陸學者的研究……………………………………………………69 四、小結……………………………………………………………………71 第二節 新現實主義與建構主義對日本安保政策之分析……………………71 一、新現實主義的論述與分析……………………………………………75 二、建構主義的論述與分析……………………………………………78 三、相互的批判:新現實主義和建構主義………………………………82 第三節 守勢現實主義對日本安保政策之分析……………………………84 一、威脅平衡理論分析………………………………………………87 二、攻守理論分析…………………………………………………………95 第肆章 以日本核武與飛彈防禦政策為例……………………………104 第一節 日本核武與飛彈防禦政策的歷史回顧………………………………104 第二節 核武戰略研究對日本的定位…………………………………………117 第三節 以國際關係理論觀點看日本核武及飛彈防禦政策…………………122 第伍章 結論與展望…………………………………………………132 第一節 研究結論……………………………………………………………132 第二節 未來研究展望…………………………………………………………135 參考書目………………………………………………………………137 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 戰後日本安保政策:守勢現實主義之分析—以日本核武政策為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Post-War Japanese Security Policies: Analysis based on Defensive Realism with A Case Study on Japanese Nuclear Weapon Policies | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李明峻,楊鈞池 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 日本,日本安保政策,日本核武政策,飛彈防禦,守勢現實主義, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Japan,Japanese Security Policies,Japanese Nuclear Policies,Missile Defense,Defensive Realism, | en |
dc.relation.page | 149 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-21 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 國家發展研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 國家發展研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-100-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.21 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。