APEC的中美領導權之爭：以亞太自貿區議題為例

The Struggle for APEC Leadership between the US and China: Taking FTAAP as an Example

中國大陸正快速崛起成為世界第二大經濟體並且極力縮小與美國的差距，而在這中美國力接近以致於競逐領導地位之際，雙方會如何轉移領導地位呢？也就是說，在以霸權馬首是瞻的國際場域中新興強權會如何爭取影響力，成為新的支配性強權？除了透過戰爭來重新建立國際體外，現實主義之權力轉移論和霸權戰爭論都提出支配性強權和潛在強權有可能同樣受益於國際制度安排，因此潛在強權不必然要推翻既存國際體系。在亞太地區由於非拘束性和開放的原則使APEC成了中美競逐區域經貿秩序領導權的最佳場域之一，而在這之中亞太自貿區（FTAAP）議題的發展與演變最具代表性。中美雙方透過爭取主導FTAAP議題的發展顯現出一波波競逐亞太地區經貿整合領導地位的對決，美國從一開始支持到後來杯葛FTAAP的推動，中國大陸則是從消極對待轉而大力提倡FTAAP；雙方爭取領導FTAAP議題的脈絡顯現在時程與重要性、實現路徑、以及涵蓋的範圍三個面向上，最後FTAAP主導權之爭由於美國總統川普另闢議題戰場後化整為零。總而言之，中美在FTAAP發展過程的拉扯是支配性強權與後起強權在既有制度中如何爭奪話語權和影響力的縮影。中美爭霸將會持續在不同的議題領域競逐主導權與較量國際影響力，直到其中一方待在體制中付出成本大於利益為止。

China has risen to become the second largest economy in the world and has continued to grow. This being the case, scholars are concerned with how China and the US will confirm the power transition that will happen between them. Specifically, scholars are interested in how a rising state proves itself as a leader in international areas while a dominant power continue to occupy the leadership. The Power Transition Theory and Hegemonic War Theory propose that it's possible for both dominant powers and potential powers to benefit from existing international institutions; hence, potential powers need not overthrow existing systems. In the Asia-Pacific area, the non-binding and open APEC becomes one of the best areas for China and the US to compete in for the regional leadership of economic arrangements. Among APEC issues, the development of FTAAP is one of the best examples of Sino-US competition. The US initially supports the establishment of FTAAP but abandoned it and chose another way in the end. China initially delt with FTAAP negatively until it realized that it can utilize FTAAP to impede the US. Specifically, Sino-US competitions are revealed in the time-table, importance, realization pathways, and issue ranges of FTAAP. The struggle for leadership of FTAAP got heated in 2018 but then was put aside by Trump. To sum up, the competition of influence in the development of FTAAP is epitome of the struggle over the power of discourse among dominant powers and rising powers, and such competition will continue to occur until one of them cannot bear the cost of competition within the institutions.