請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21171完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 張登及(Teng-Chi Chang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Yu-Ning Chang | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 張祐寧 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T03:28:05Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2019-12-03 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2019-10-02 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文文獻
(一)、專書 中華民國外交部，2016。《和平南海 國疆永固：中華民國南海政策說帖》，臺北：中華民國外交部。 王冠雄，2006。《南海諸島爭端與漁業共同合作》。臺北：秀威資訊科技。 何函潔，2013。《中共處理邊界爭議的戰略選擇（1949-2009）—守勢現實主義的驗證》，台北：致知學術出版社。 蘇冠群，2013。《中國的南海戰略》，臺北：新銳文創。 (二)、專書論文 王高成，2012。〈中國大陸對於東海的政策〉，《東海及南海爭端與和平展望》，臺北：遠景基金會。 (三)、期刊論文 王冠雄，2012。〈近期黃岩島所涉及之國際法議題分析〉，《戰略安全研析》，第85期，頁5-11。 呂蕊、趙建明，2013。〈韓國對蘇岩礁的政策立場析評〉，《現代國際關係》，2013年第9期，頁7-13。 宋學文，2008。〈層次分析對國際關係研究的重要性及模型建構〉，《問題與研究》，第47卷第4期，頁167-199。 宋燕輝，2012。〈南海主權與海域爭端：中國與美國之間的潛在衝突〉，《中國海洋法學評論》，2012年第2期，頁80-111。 李少軍，2008。〈論國際關係中的案例研究法〉，《當代亞太》，第3期，頁111-123。 郁志榮，2007。〈對韓國在蘇岩礁建造海洋觀測平臺的幾點思考〉，《海洋開發與管理》，2007年第3期，頁75-78。 秦亞青，1998。〈層次分析法與國際關係研究〉，《歐洲》，1998年第3期，頁4-10。 高少凡、李文堂，2013。〈黃岩島爭執與中國南海政策的轉變〉，《亞太通訊研究》，第11期，頁1-41。 張登及，2012。〈中菲黃岩島與中共因應的意涵分析〉，《戰略安全研析》，第85期，頁20-26。 翟新，2012。〈日本民主黨政權「國有化」釣魚島的動因〉，《國際問題研究》，2012年第5期，頁23-31。 廖舜右、蔡松伯，2013。〈新古典現實主義與外交政策分析的再連結〉，《問題與研究》，第52卷第3期，頁43-61。 蔡明彥，2017。〈中國在南海的強勢外交與美中戰略角力〉，《台灣國際研究季刊》，第13卷第1期，頁37-54。 蔡榮祥，2018。〈中國崛起與南海衝突： 臺灣在亞太秩序中之戰略影響〉，《遠景基金會季刊》，第19卷第一期，頁3-53。 劉亞丁，2008。〈蘇岩礁的法律地位及其意義〉，《世紀橋》，2008年第3期，頁68-69。 鄭端耀，2005。〈國際關係新古典現實主義理論〉，《問題與研究》，第44卷第1期，頁115-140。 駱永昆，2011。〈馬來西亞的南海政策及其走向〉，《國際資料信息》，2011年第10期，頁21-24。 駱永昆，2012。〈汶萊的南海政策〉，《國際資料信息》，2012年第9期，頁13-15。 鞠海龍，2010。〈汶萊海上安全政策初探〉，《東南亞研究》，2010年第6期，頁24-28。 鞠海龍，2011。〈汶萊海洋安全政策與實踐〉，《世界經濟與政治論壇》，2011年9月第5期，頁55-64。 聶宏毅、李彬，2008。〈中國在領土爭端中的政策選擇〉，《國際政治科學》，第16期，頁1-34。 顧長永，1995。〈美軍撤離菲律賓事件的決策分析〉，《歐美研究》，第25卷第1期，頁 37-64。 嚴清，2014。〈中越南海爭端歷史回顧〉，《新紀元周刊》，第378期，頁32-35。 龔曉輝，2011。〈2011年馬來西亞南海政策分析〉，《東南亞研究》，2011年第6期，頁23-28。 龔曉輝，2012。〈馬來西亞南海安全政策初探〉，《南洋問題研究》，2012年第3期，頁59-66。 (四)、學位論文 任立丞，2017。〈中共與越南意識型態異同之研究〉。臺中:東海大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 陳柏沂，2016。〈中國處理南海爭端政策之研究（2012-2016年）〉。臺中:國立中興大學國際政治研究所碩士論文。 劉彥芝，2019。〈中菲南海主權爭議研究:以南海仲裁案為例〉。臺北:淡江大學國際事務與戰略研究所碩士在職專班論文。 (五)、網路資料 中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會常務委員會，《中華人民共和國領海及毗連區法》，《中華人民共和國全國人民代表大會》，1992年2月25日，<http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/wxzl/2000-12/05/content_4562.htm>。 中華人民共和國國務院新聞辦公室，《2010年中國的國防》白皮書，《中華人民共和國中央人民政府》，2011年3月31日，< http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2011-03/31/content_1835289.htm >。 中華人民共和國國務院新聞辦公室，《中國武裝力量的多樣化運用》，2013年4月16日，《中華人民共和國國務院新聞辦公室》，<http://www.scio.gov.cn/zxbd/wz/201304/t1312687.htm >。 中華人民共和國國務院新聞辦公室，《釣魚島是中國的固有領土》白皮書，《中華人民共和國中央人民政府》，2012年9月25日，< http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-09/25/content_2232710.htm >。 中時電子報，藍孝威，〈陸外交部：排除干擾 爭取3年內完成COC磋商〉，2018年11月16日，<https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20181116004090-260408?chdtv>。 新華社，〈中華人民共和國政府關於釣魚島及其附屬島嶼領海基線的聲明〉，《中華人民共和國中央人民政府》，2012年9月10日，<http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2012-09/10/content_2221140.htm>。 二、英文文獻 (一)、專書 Batongbacal, Jay L., etc. 2018. Defusing the South China Sea Disputes: A Regional Blueprint. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Chung, Chien-peng, 2004. Domestic Politics, International Bargaining and China's Territorial Disputes. London; New York: Routledge Curzon. Dolven, Ben, Shirley A. Kan & Mark E. Manyin, 2013. Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia: Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Ellinwood, D. C. & Cynthia H. Enloe, 2017. Ethnicity and the Military in Asia. London; New York: Routledge. Emmers, Ralf, 2010. Geopolitics and Maritime Territorial Disputes in East Asia. London; New York: Routledge. Evans, Peter B., Harold K. Jacobson & Robert D. Putnam eds., 1993. Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fravel, M. Taylor, 2008. Strong Borders, Secure Nations: Cooperation and Conflict in China's Territorial Disputes. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Garcia, Z. 2019. China’s Military Modernization, Japan’s Normalization and the South China Sea Territorial Disputes. Switzerland: Palgrave Pivot. George, Alexander L. & Andrew Bennett, 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Gonzales, R., 2014. The Spratly Islands Dispute: International Law, Conflicting Claims, and Alternative Frameworks for Dispute Resolution. Las Vegas: University of Nevada. Huth, Paul K. & Todd L. Allee, 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. Huth, Paul, 1996. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hyer, Eric, 2015. The Pragmatic Dragon: China’s Grand Strategy and Boundary Settlements. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press. International Institute for Strategic Studies(IISS), 2013. The Military Balance. London: Routledge. Mansfield, Edward D. & Brian M. Pollins eds., 2003. Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: New Perspective on an Enduring Debate. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. O’Rourke, Ronald, 2014. Maritime Territorial and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Disputes Involving China: Issue for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. O'Rourke, Ronald, 2019. China’s Actions in South and East China Seas: Implications for U.S. Interests—Background and Issues for Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Pan, Junwu, 2009. Toward a New Framework for Peaceful Settlement of China's Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pedrozo, Raul, 2014. China versus Vietnam: An Analysis of the Competing Claims in the South China Sea. Virginia: CNA Corporation. Tir, Jaroslav, 2006. Redrawing the Map to Promote Peace: Territorial Management via Territorial Changes. Lanham: Lexington Books. Waltz, Kenneth N., 1959. Man, the State, and the War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, Kenneth N., 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Wiegand, Krista E., 2011. Enduring Territorial Disputes: Strategies of Bargaining, Coercive Diplomacy, and Settlement. Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press. (二)、專書論文 Bennett, Andrew, 2004. “Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages,” in Detlef F. Sprinz and Yael Wolinsky-Namias, eds., Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Dalton, R. J., & Ong, N. N. T., 2005. “Civil Society and Social Capital in Vietnam. Modernization and Social Change in Vietnam,” Hamburg Institut für Asienkunde. Fravel, Taylor, 2014. “Things Fall Apart: Maritime Disputes and China's Regional Diplomacy,” in Jacques deLisle and Avery Goldstein, eds., China's Challenges. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Keohane, Robert O., 1983. “The Demand for International Regimes,” in Stephen D. Krasner ed., International Regimes. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 141-171. Palanca, E., & Ong, A. 2019. “Philippines–China Relations: Interplay Between Domestic Politics and Globalization.” In The Sociology of Chinese Capitalism in Southeast Asia, pp. 93-122. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Raditio, Klaus H., 2018. “China’s Interest in the South China Sea.” In Understanding China’s Behaviour in the South China Sea: A Defensive Realist Perspective, pp. 69-86. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. Zhang, Feng, 2018. “Chinese Thinking on the South China Sea and the Future of Regional Security.” In US-China Competition and the South China Sea Disputes, eds. Huiyun Feng and Kai He. London; New York: Routledge, pp.64-80. (三)、期刊論文 Athukorala, P. C., 2009. “The Rise of China and East Asian Export Performance: Is the Crowding‐Out Fear Warranted?,” World Economy, Vol.32, No.2, pp.234-266. Ba, A. D. ,2011. “Staking Claims and Making Waves in the South China Sea: How Troubled Are the Waters?,” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, Vol.33, No.3, pp.269-294. Banlaoi, R. C., 2002. “The Role of Philippine—American Relations in the Global Campaign against Terrorism: Implications for Regional Security,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, pp.294-312. Barbieri, Katherine, 1996. “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 29-49. Beckman, R., 2013. “The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 142-163. Blackwill, Robert D., 2019. “Territory disputes in South China Sea,” Councils on Foreign Relations, Vol. 2, No.3, pp.1-3. Burgess, J. P. 2003. “The politics of the South China Sea: Territoriality and International Law,” Security Dialogue, Vol.34, No.1, pp.7-10. Cha, Victor D., 2010. “Power Play: Origins of the U.S. Alliance System in Asia,” International Security, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 158-196. Christensen, Thomas J., 2006. “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S. Policy toward East Asia,” International Security, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 81-126. Chung, Chien-peng, 2007. “Resolving China's Island Disputes: A Two-Level Game Analysis,” Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 49-70. Clinton, Hillary, 2011. “American's Pacific Century,” Foreign Policy, Vol. 189(November 2011), pp. 56-63. Cotillon, Hannah, 2017. “Territorial Disputes and Nationalism: A Comparative Case Study of China and Vietnam,” Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 51–88. Dzurek, Daniel J. 1996. “The Spratly Islands Dispute: Who's on First?”, Maritime Briefings, Vol.2, No 1, pp.45-47. Fravel, Taylor, 2005. “Regime Insecurity and International Cooperation: Explaining China's Compromises in Territorial Disputes,” International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 46-83. Fravel, Taylor, 2008. “Power Shifts and Escalation: Explaining China's Use of Force in Territorial Disputes,” International Security, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 44-83. Fravel, Taylor, 2011. “China's Strategy in the South China Sea,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 292-319. Gao, Z., & Jia, B. B., 2013. “The Nine-Dash Line in the South China Sea: History, Status, and Implications,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp.98-123. Gartzke, Erik, Quan Li & Charles Boehmer, 2001. “Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict,” International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 391-438. Gasiorowski, Mark J., 1986. “Economic Interdependence and International Conflict: Some Cross-National Evidence,” International Studies Quarterly, No. 30, 1986, pp. 23-38. Gibler, Douglas M., 2007. “Bordering on Peace: Democracy, Territorial Issues, and Conflict,” International Studies Quarterly, No. 51, 2007, pp. 509-532. Gourevitch, Peter, 1978. “The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestics Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 881-912. Hemmer, Christopher & Peter J. Katzenstein, 2002. “Why is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and the Origins of Multilateralism,” International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 575-607. Hiep, Le Hong, 2013. “Vietnam's Hedging Strategy against China since Normalization,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 333-368. Huth, Paul K. & Todd L. Allee, 2002. “Domestic Political Accountability and the Escalation and Settlement of International Disputes,” The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 754-790. Li, Xueqing & Lei Guo, 2018. “Exposure to News about the South China Sea, Nationalism, and Government Evaluation: Examining the Mediation Roles of Third-Person Effects and Online Discussion,” Chinese Journal of Communication, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 455-472. Ling, B., 2019. “China's Attitude to the International Legal Order in the Xi Era: The Case of South China Sea Arbitration,” Sydney Law School Research Paper, Vol. 4, No. 19, pp. 1-21. Nguyen, Hoa, 2017. “Principled Negotiation: The Final Answer to the South China Sea Dispute,” Texas A&M Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 287-314. Noorani, A. G. 2008. “Truth & Tawang.” Frontline, Vol. 25, No. 25, pp. 83-87. Oishi, Mikio & Nguyen Minh Quang, 2017. “Brothers in Trouble: China-Vietnam Territorial Disputes and Their Bilateral Approach to Conflict Management,” International Journal of China Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp.287-319. Ortuoste, M., 2013. “The Philippines in the South China Sea: Out of Time, Out of Options?,” Southeast Asian Affairs, Vol. 2013, pp.240-253. Oneal, John R. & Bruce Russett, 1999. “Assessing the Liberal Peace with Alternative Specifications: Trade Still Reduces Conflict,” Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 423-442. Pinotti, Talita, 2015. “China And Vietnam In The South China Sea: Disputes And Strategic Questions, ”Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations, Vol. 4, No. 8, pp. 158-178. Putnam, Robert D., 1988. “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 427-460. Ramadhani, Eryan, 2019. “Is Assertiveness Paying the Bill? China’s Domestic Audience Costs in the South China Sea Disputes,” Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.30-54. Rocamora, J., 1998. “Philippine Political Parties, Electoral System and Political Reform,” Philippines International Review, Vol.1, No.1, pp. 1-10. Rose, Gideon, 1998. “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics, Vol. 51, pp. 144-172. Ross, Robert, 1999. “The Geography of the Peace: East Asia in the Twenty-First Century,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 81-118. Singer, J. David, 1960. “International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis,” World Politics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 453-461. Singer, J. David, 1961. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations,” World Politics, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 77-92. Tang, Shaocheng, 2019. “South China Sea―A Conflict-Prone Place?,” International Relations and Diplomacy, Vol.7, No.1, pp.1-6. Vuving, Alexander L. 2006. “Strategy and Evolution of Vietnam’s China Policy: A Changing Mixture of Pathways,” Asian Survey, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 805-824. Wang, Ke, 2014. “Rethinking Chinese Territorial Disputes: How the Value of Contested Land Shapes Territorial Policies,” Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.34-276. Wang, Kuan-hsiung, 2012. “China's South China Sea Strategy: An Analysis Based on the Establishment of Sansha City,” Prospect Journal, Vol. 2012, No. 8, pp. 83-108. Wang, V. W. C., 2002. “Asymmetric war? Implications for China's information warfare strategies,” American Asian Review, Vol.20, No.167. pp.176-194. Woods, Shelton, 2016. “The Sino-Philippine South China Sea Dispute,” American Journal of Chinese Studies, Vol. 23, pp. 159-172. Yamaguchi, Shinji, 2016. “Strategies of China’s Maritime Actors in the South China Sea,” China Perspectives, Vol. 2016, No. 3, pp. 23-31. You, Ji, 2015. “China's Civil-Military Strategies for South China Sea Dispute Control,” World Scientific, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 78-89. Zhao, S, 2018. “China and the South China Sea Arbitration: Geopolitics Versus International Law,” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 27, No.109, pp. 1-15. (四)、網路資源 Backgrounders, 2018. “South China Sea Dispute: Vietnam,” Geopolitical Monitor. In https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/south-china-sea-dispute-vietnam/. Latest update 22 May 2018. Bodeen, Christopher & Jim Gomez, 2016. “South China Sea: China Willing to Pay the Price of Defiance,” Associated Press. In https://apnews.com/e88e6f1a8f584c508165f244132f8914. Latest update 15 June 2016. China Power Team, 2017. “How Much Trade Transits the South China Sea,” Center for Strategic and International Studies. In https://chinapower.csis.org/much-trade-transits-south-china-sea/. Latest update 27 October 2017. Dasgupta, Neha & Sanjeev Miglani, 2018. “With U.S. Trade under a Cloud, China Opens to Indian Pharma,” Reuters. In https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-india-exclusive/exclusive-with-us-trade-under-a-cloud-china-opens-to-indian-pharma-idUSKBN1K20IF. Latest update 12 July 2018. Gomez, Jim 2019. “Philippines Slams China's South China Sea Flotilla,” The Diplomat. In https://thediplomat.com/2019/04/philippines-slams-chinas-south-china-sea-flotilla/. Latest update 8 April 2019. Grossman, Derek & Nguyen Nhat Anh, 2018. “Deciphering Vietnam’s Evolving Military Doctrine in the South China Sea,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. In https://amti.csis.org/deciphering-vietnams-doctrine-south-china-sea/. Latest update 11 May 2018. Marghelis, Aris-Georges 2016. “Tensions in the South China Sea: A Politico-Strategic Overview,” Programme Human Sea – Rendre la mer humaine. In https://humansea.hypotheses.org/518. Latest update 17 May 2016. Rediff India Abroad, 2008. “Tawang Dispute Blocking India-China Border Talks: NSA,” In http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/aug/12tawa.htm. Latest update 12 August 2008. Times of India, 2008. “Tawang is Part of India: Dalai Lama.” In http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Tawang_is_part_of_India_Dalai_Lama_/articleshow/3097568.cms. Latest update 4 June 2008. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/21171 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 南中國海（South China Sea）的領土爭議，在東南亞的權力競賽中逐漸白熱化，近年來中國在國家主席習近平的領導下，在外交和軍事方面動作頻頻，對該區域的主權問題不斷增添變數。藉由梳理與回顧南海爭議之歷史脈絡，本研究著重在作為南海區域霸權的中國政府，如何處理南海議題的諸多爭議，尤其在海洋領土方面，中國聲明基於歷史因素，享有該區域部分海域及海島的主權，並逕行訂立出九段線的領土地界，此舉和多個東協國家的領土主張發生重疊，其中涉及石油、天然氣、捕魚和貿易等國家利益的爭奪，更引發美國等強大國際勢力介入其中，紛紛為實力較弱的聲索國提供基礎建設和軍力補給，藉此對抗中國日益壯大的野心，也因此形成多次的軍事對峙和武裝衝突。
在研究中國策略背後形成的條件及原因時，本研究自南海眾多聲索國中，選擇與中國在領土爭議衝突最為嚴重的菲律賓及越南進行探討，從體系層次和單位層次的角度，對中菲、中越之間的各項檢驗指標進行調查，包含與美國的同盟情形、海、空軍實力比較、國際組織參與情況、兩國歷史關係、經濟關係、政府體制與意識形態及國內政治成本等因素。另外，由於中國的領土爭議並非只有南海海域，是以本研究藉由曾與中國發生領土爭議的印度和俄羅斯，分析中國在與他國的領土爭議中，針對各項爭議議題所採取的策略，如天然資源、貿易路線、戰略考量等，從中可窺知中國在南海爭議事件可能採取的策略。 最後，自上述的理論基礎，探討菲律賓和越南的兩個實例，觀察中國在南海策略的歷史演進、優劣勢、利益考量和權力投射，透過深入分析中國和兩國之間各項主張和軍事外交的攻防，來描繪出中國在軍事威嚇、拖延策略及協議解決階段的決策分水嶺，並推測其策略形成的驅動力及目標，進而思考中國未來策略的走向。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Amidst the brawl of Southeast Asian’s power game, the territory dispute of the South China Sea (SCS) has taken the center stage. In recent years, under the rule of president Xi Jinping, the China government continues to make waves in the disputed area by aggressive diplomatic and military actions, leaving the ambiguous sovereignty regarding this region to slip back into chaos. By combing through the history of the dispute, the study focuses on the strategies and policies analysis of China, the regional hegemony, especially around the sovereignty issue of the territorial sea. Based on history claim, China announced its sovereignty and drew the well-known “Nine-Dash Line” on the certain said area. This action had a major conflict of interest with other ASEAN countries, involving the rights of oil, natural gas, fishing and business trade.
Also, the unbalanced situation brought the eyes of many traditional power states, U.S. included, and to counter China’s aggression, many of them have been proving military supplies and building infrastructure for the weaker within the region, which resulted in multiple military confrontations and armed clashes throughout the years. While researching the reasons behind China’s strategies, the study chooses Philippines and Vietnam as the regional representatives to further dissect the situation from system level and state level, including the alliance with the U.S., Military comparison, the involvement of international organization, mutual history entanglement, the economics, forms of governments & ideology, and domestic political cost. Furthermore, the SCS is not the only disputed area on the agenda of China’s expansion; on that note, by taking a close look at the past experience with India and Russia, the study is able to surmise China’s logic in certain particular factors, such as natural resources, trade routes and strategic consideration, etc, and to formulate a possible prediction regarding China’s strategy in the SCS. In conclusion, as the study used the aforementioned theories to apply Philippines’ and Vietnam’s encounter with China, the variables of progress timeline, the strength and the weakness, respective interests and power projection have all be taken into account, and helped to see a bigger picture of China’s real intention which is well-camouflaged under the apparent military coercion, delaying strategy or negotiation. Once the study deduced the underlying drives and purposes of these strategies, it would significantly increase the credibility on the prediction of China’s future strategy. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T03:28:05Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R00322032-1.pdf: 3972040 bytes, checksum: 80b51562e3c19cd10ff3504dca6c7382 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 中文摘要 i
英文摘要 ii 目錄 iii 圖目錄 v 表目錄 vi 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究背景與動機 1 第二節 研究問題與目的 2 第三節 文獻回顧 3 第四節 研究途徑、方法與架構 14 第五節 研究範圍與限制 27 第六節 章節安排 27 第二章 策略模型的建立 29 第一節 策略背後原因的具體種類 29 第二節 面對領土爭議的策略類型 32 第三節 檢證指標的建立 37 第四節 中國面對領土爭議的策略案例回顧 41 第五節 小結 44 第三章 南海領土爭議：越南的案例 47 第一節 背景 47 第二節 領土產生爭議的原因 48 第三節 指標檢驗 55 第四節 中國採取的策略類型 60 第五節 小結 66 第四章 南海領土爭議：菲律賓的案例 69 第一節 背景 69 第二節 領土產生爭議的原因 71 第三節 指標檢驗 73 第四節 中國採取的策略類型 79 第五節 小結 81 第五章 結論 85 第一節 中國對兩國策略之關聯性與研究發現 85 第二節 中國未來策略走向的意涵及研究展望 93 第三節 與國際關係理論新古典現實主義的對話 98 參考文獻 101 一、中文文獻 101 二、英文文獻 104 附錄 南海諸島主要島/礁中英文資料表 113 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 西沙群島 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 南海領土爭議 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 中越關係 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 中菲關係 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 黃岩島 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | Paracel Islands | en |
| dc.subject | Territorial Disputes of South China Sea | en |
| dc.subject | Sino-Vietnam Relations | en |
| dc.subject | Sino-Philippines Relations | en |
| dc.subject | Scarborough Shoal | en |
| dc.title | 中國面對南海領土爭議的策略選擇：
以處理與越南及菲律賓爭議為例（2002-2018） | zh_TW |
| dc.title | The Analysis of China’s Strategic Choice in the South China Sea Territorial Disputes:
Case Studies on Dealing with Vietnam and The Philippines（2002-2018） | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 108-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 王冠雄(Kuan-Hsiung Wang),盧業中(Yeh-Chung Lu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 南海領土爭議,中越關係,中菲關係,黃岩島,西沙群島, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Territorial Disputes of South China Sea,Sino-Vietnam Relations,Sino-Philippines Relations,Scarborough Shoal,Paracel Islands, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 114 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201904173 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2019-10-02 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 政治學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-108-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 3.88 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。