權力平衡理論之再推進：體系抑或狀態之辨

本文旨在釐清學界對於「權力平衡狀態」與「權力平衡體系」的內涵混淆，透過對「權力平衡體系」進行嚴謹的定義，推進權力平衡理論的解釋力。
學界一直對「權力平衡」的理解有許多誤解與偏見，其中，誤將「狀態」等同於「體系」是最常見的問題。本文先回顧華爾茲（Kenneth Waltz）對於體系的界定，指出其中的不足之處，並借用建構主義溫特（Alexander Wendt）的理論來補充。描繪出我們對於權力平衡體系的文化、結構與邏輯等論點。
藉由對體系進行嚴謹的定義，不但使得「權力平衡狀態」與「權力平衡體系」的區別得以釐清，我們更可進一步指出，「權力平衡狀態」雖然是「權力平衡體系」的形成要件，但「權力平衡狀態」也同樣有可能存在於其他形式的國際體系當中。換言之，除非「權力平衡狀態」有機會經過結構建構、邏輯內化等過程而上升成為「權力平衡體系」，否則人們所觀察到出現於任何國際體系中的「權力平衡狀態」，就只能是「權力平衡狀態」，而權力平衡理論實際上是權力平衡體系的運作規則，不見得能適用於單純的權力平衡狀態，也不見得能適用於其他體系，更非國際政治的「鐵律」。

This article aims to clarify the confusion among academic circles about the connotations of“Balance of Power Situation”and“Balance of Power System”and to advance the explanatory power of BOP theory through a rigorous definition of“Balance of Power System.”
There have always been many misunderstandings and deviations in“Balance of Power.”Mistaking“situation”with“system”is the most common problem. This article first reviews the definition of“system”by Kenneth Waltz, points out its flaws, uses Alexander Wendt’s Constructivism to supplement it, and finally proposes our view of the culture, structure, and logic of the BOP system.
By defining the system precisely, we not only clarify the difference between“BOP Situation”and“BOP System”but can also point out that although“BOP Situation”is the condition for the formation of“BOP System,”it is also possible to exist in other international systems. In other words, unless the“BOP Situation”has been through processes such as structural construction and logic internalization to become a“BOP System,”the“BOP Situation”that people observe in any international system can only be“a situation.”