國際關係攻勢與守勢現實主義理論爭辯之評析

Analytical Appraisal of Defensive vs. Offensive Realism

國際關係現主義理論於後冷戰時期面臨嚴竣挑戰，國際環境趨向緩和導致現實主義理論遭受強烈質疑，而現主義內部又產生攻勢與守勢現實主義兩個學派辯論。由於兩者對無政府狀態性質、權力作用以及外交政策有不同的詮釋，他們對於國家安全、國際合作、權力結構影響力以及政策角色皆有不同的主張。不過，縱然雙方間有許多差異，本文研究結果顯示，兩者之間只是程度之差，而非種類之別，而且兩派觀點各有其優缺點，如果能截長補短。雙方間其實具有多方面互補功能，對現實主義發展能產生正面助益。此外，只要攻勢與守勢現實主義的理論建構不至於過度推演發展，兩者的辯論對現實主義理論研究與實務政策取向，皆能增添探索與選擇的空間。

The theory of realism has been seriously challenged after the Cold War. The long peaceful international environment has undermined its theoretical assumptions. The theory, due to its internal theoretical disputes, has been divided into two schools of thought - defensive realism and offensive realism. They have different interpretation of the concept of anarchy, the nature of power politics, and thre role of the policy maker; they disagree with each other on various issues regarding national security, international cooperation, and foreign policy. However, in terms of the analytical appraisal of the two schools, this research shows that their theoretical differences only exist in degree but not in kind. Each approach has its theoretical applicability and limit, and in fact the two approaches could be incorporated into a broader framework and generate more explanches could be incorporated into a broader framework and generate more explanatory power since they are complementary in many aspects. Moreover, as long as the debate between defensive and offensive realism will not be over- extended be yond the theoretical bounds of realism, it should prove positive to the development of the theory of realism as a whole.