發(fā)布時間：2018-06-27 02:52

  本文選題：不對稱聯(lián)盟 + 韓美同盟　； 參考：《山東大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：國家為什么結盟以及如何選擇自己的盟友是國際政治經(jīng)常要探討的重要問題。聯(lián)盟可以定義為主權國家之間為了安全合作而針對成員之外的國家簽訂的正式的和非正式的協(xié)議。國家結盟的動機源自于維護自身利益的需要,只有當結盟所帶來的利益大于其所付出的代價時,國家才傾向于形成聯(lián)盟關系。根據(jù)聯(lián)盟成員實力的大小以及對聯(lián)盟貢獻程度的多少可以將聯(lián)盟分為對稱聯(lián)盟與不對稱聯(lián)盟。相比對稱聯(lián)盟,不對稱聯(lián)盟更難形成、持續(xù)時間更長且更加普遍。一般情況下,不對稱聯(lián)盟由一個實力強大的大國和一個弱小的小國組成。由于不對稱聯(lián)盟結構的存在,內部成員由于實力地位的不同而面臨不同的困境,相比大國,小國通常面臨著更多的聯(lián)盟困境。在聯(lián)盟形成階段,由于小國面臨嚴重的安全威脅,因此,通過犧牲自主利益的方式獲得大國的安全保護是其根本目的。在聯(lián)盟形成之后,小國主要面臨“連累”與“拋棄”的安全困境：在大國對敵強硬時,小國主要怕被連累；而當大國對敵采取緩和措施時,則擔心被拋棄。同時,在不對稱聯(lián)盟的發(fā)展過程中,由于雙方實力地位的變化,尤其是小國實力的增加,改變聯(lián)盟內部的不平等地位的需求也將產生,這將迫使聯(lián)盟進行重新定義,甚至可能會導致聯(lián)盟解體,這是小國所主要面臨的聯(lián)盟“動態(tài)”困境。韓美聯(lián)盟正是這樣一種不對稱聯(lián)盟。在聯(lián)盟內部,韓國最主要的問題是面臨著聯(lián)盟困境。在韓美聯(lián)盟的形成階段,韓國主要面臨著安全與自主的交易困境,主要表現(xiàn)在：由于朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭的爆發(fā),韓國的國家安全遭遇到嚴重的威脅,在這種情況下,為了獲得美國的安全保證而不得不與美國結盟,由此導致國家自主權力的喪失：韓國的軍隊處于美國的領導之下,在國內、國外政策方面也完全聽從美國,沒有任何的獨立自主可言。在韓美聯(lián)盟形成之后,韓國主要面臨著“連累”與“拋棄”的聯(lián)盟困境。主要表現(xiàn)在：越南戰(zhàn)爭爆發(fā),雖然韓國在越南并沒有多少實際的利益,而且還面臨國內民眾反對的壓力,韓國政府最終不得不應美國的要求派遣部隊到越南作戰(zhàn)；韓國被拋棄的擔心主要來自于駐韓美軍的調整問題上,當美國政府撤離部分駐韓美軍,宣布減少對韓國的支持時,韓國則擔心被美國拋棄。隨著韓國經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,韓國的國家實力有了進一步的提升,它開始尋求改變聯(lián)盟內部這種不對稱的關系地位,并最終為實現(xiàn)國家的完全統(tǒng)一而做準備。但是這種要求受制于美國的全球戰(zhàn)略,韓國的目的并不容易達到。韓美之間這種不對稱的聯(lián)盟關系對韓國的外交政策也產生了深遠的影響。建國之初,韓國為了獲得美國的保護與支持,采取了完全依附美國的追隨外交。在韓國經(jīng)濟發(fā)展實力增長的情況下,韓國逐漸開始采取自主的外交政策。冷戰(zhàn)結束后,韓國政府則根據(jù)國際和地區(qū)形勢的變化實施了平衡外交政策。但是從這些外交政策的實施效果來看,并沒有達到理想的結果。終其原因,韓國外交政策的實施都受到美國、也即韓美不對稱聯(lián)盟結構的影響,都不同程度的面臨著外交困境。從長遠的時間觀察,只要東北亞、朝鮮半島的局勢依然嚴峻,美國的戰(zhàn)略不做調整,則韓國的外交困境將始終存在。
[Abstract]:Why the alliance and how to choose its own ally is an important issue that is often discussed by international politics. The alliance can be defined as a formal and informal agreement between sovereign states for security cooperation for countries other than members. The motive of the state alliance derives from the need to maintain its own interests, only as a conclusion. When the interest is greater than the price it pays, the state tends to form the alliance relationship. According to the size of the alliance members and the degree of contribution to the alliance, the alliance can be divided into symmetrical alliance and asymmetric alliance. Compared to symmetric alliances, asymmetric alliances are more difficult to form, longer and more general. Under the circumstances, the asymmetric alliance is made up of a powerful country and a small and small country. Because of the existence of the asymmetric alliance structure, the internal members face different difficulties due to the different power status. Compared with the big countries, the small countries often face more consortium difficulties. In the formation stage of the alliance, the small countries face serious security. As a result, the security protection of the great powers is the fundamental purpose of obtaining the security protection of the great powers by sacrificing their own interests. After the formation of the alliance, the small countries are mainly faced with the security dilemma of "continuous involvement" and "abandonment". In the course of the development of the asymmetric alliance, the changes in the strength of the two sides, especially the strength of the small countries, will result in the change of the unequal status within the alliance. This will force the alliance to redefine and even lead to the disintegration of the alliance. This is the "dynamic" dilemma of the alliance. It is such an asymmetrical alliance. In the alliance, South Korea's main problem is facing the dilemma of the alliance. In the formation stage of the Korea and the United States, South Korea is mainly faced with the dilemma of security and autonomy. It is mainly manifested in the serious threat to the national security of Korea because of the outbreak of the Korean War. In this case, in this case, The United States has to be allied with the United States, which leads to the loss of national autonomy: the Korean army is under the leadership of the United States, and at home, foreign policy is completely obedience to the United States, without any independence. After the formation of the Korea and the United States, South Korea is mainly faced with "compromised" and "discarded". The main manifestation of the alliance is: the Vietnam War broke out. Although Korea did not have many practical interests in Vietnam, and faced the pressure from the domestic people, the Korean government eventually had to send troops to Vietnam in response to the requirements of the United States; the fear of abandonment of Korea was mainly due to the adjustment of the US troops in Korea, and the United States When the government withdrew from some of the US troops in Korea and announced the reduction of support to South Korea, South Korea was worried about being abandoned by the United States. With the development of the South Korean economy, the country's national strength had been further promoted. It began to seek to change the asymmetrical relationship status within the alliance and finally prepare for the complete unity of the country. In the early days of the founding of the people's Republic of China, South Korea, in order to obtain the protection and support of the United States, took the following diplomacy that was fully attached to the United States, and increased the strength of the economic development of Korea. Since the end of the cold war, the Korean government has implemented a balanced foreign policy in accordance with the changes in the international and regional situation. But from the effect of the implementation of these foreign policies, the Korean government has not achieved the desired results. In the long run, as long as the situation in Northeast Asia, the Korean Peninsula is still severe, the strategy of the United States does not adjust, then the diplomatic predicament of Korea will always exist.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D831.26

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 玄偉東;韓國北方外交政策及其對東北亞政治形勢的影響[J];東北師大學報;1994年04期

2 王生;;韓國外交的美國情結與現(xiàn)實抉擇——接近美國并不會疏遠中國[J];東北亞論壇;2008年04期

3 韓獻棟;;利益差異、戰(zhàn)略分歧和美韓同盟關系的再調整[J];東北亞論壇;2010年01期

4 路寶春;論韓美關系的發(fā)展[J];東北亞論壇;1997年02期

5 張鍵;;當代韓國外交決策機制分析[J];當代韓國;2010年01期

6 吳心伯;冷戰(zhàn)后韓國的安全政策[J];當代亞太;1996年02期

7 汪偉民;;美韓同盟再定義:一種聯(lián)盟理論的視角[J];當代亞太;2006年03期

8 董向榮;;不對稱同盟與韓國的反美主義[J];當代亞太;2009年06期

9 馬仲可;金大中“陽光政策”的兩難處境與當前的朝鮮半島形勢[J];東南亞研究;2002年04期

10 王傳劍;試析冷戰(zhàn)后美韓同盟關系的變化[J];國際論壇;2001年04期

相關博士學位論文 前2條

1 汪偉民;聯(lián)盟理論與美國的聯(lián)盟戰(zhàn)略[D];復旦大學;2005年

2 李治軍;美韓同盟與東亞安全：一種結構主義理論的分析[D];復旦大學;2008年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 姜良杰;美國與日韓邦交正常化[D];東北師范大學;2002年

2 任平;韓國親美外交沿革史研究[D];延邊大學;2003年

3 任志芳;美韓同盟——從冷戰(zhàn)到新世紀[D];外交學院;2004年

4 魏麗娟;澳大利亞對美國不對稱聯(lián)盟關系的形成和演變[D];華東師范大學;2005年

5 郭玉巧;論韓國盧泰愚政府時期的北方外交政策[D];青島大學;2006年

6 李曉雪;冷戰(zhàn)后美韓同盟及其戰(zhàn)略選擇[D];青島大學;2007年

7 李曄;美韓同盟之間的隔閡及其走向研究[D];延邊大學;2008年

8 李智恒;國內政治與冷戰(zhàn)后美韓同盟再定義[D];上海外國語大學;2009年

9 李沅烈;從韓國外交政策看韓美同盟的演變及未來[D];外交學院;2009年

10 高一格;現(xiàn)實主義視角下的美韓同盟解析[D];延邊大學;2009年

，

本文編號：2072390