國家權力之性質與遞嬗：三大主流國際關係理論的對話與反思

The Nature and Evolution of National Power: A Dialogue and Reflection on Three Major Mainstream International Relations Theories

國家權力（National Power）作為國際關係學科的基石概念，其定義、來源與作用機制，始終是學術辯論的核心。本文旨在對此核心概念，進行一次系統性且具深度的理論梳理與比較分析，以應對二十一世紀日益複雜的全球權力動態。
本文致力於系統性地檢視，並比較當代國際關係三大主流理論—新現實主義、自由主義與建構主義—如何詮釋國家權力。詳細闡述了新現實主義內部守勢與攻勢流派的理論分歧；深入探討了自由主義旗下新自由制度主義、複合相互依存與民主和平論等多元分支的權力觀；並細緻剖析了建構主義如何透過規範、認同與話語等社會性要素，來解構並重塑權力。本文透過一個詳盡的分析比較表，系統性地呈現了三大理論在存在論、核心問題、關鍵行為者、權力定義、衝突前景及變革途徑等面向的根本差異。
本文最終論證，任何單一理論均不足以完整捕捉國家權力的複雜全貌。一個更具解釋力的分析框架，必須超越理論壁壘，採取一種整合性視野，亦即承認國家權力兼具物質性、制度性與社會建構性三個不可分割的層面。此整合性框架不僅有助於理解傳統的權力政治，更能為分析氣候變遷、網路治理、全球公共衛生等新興權力領域，提供有力的理論工具。

National Power, as a foundational concept in the discipline of International Relations, has consistently remained at the core of academic debate regarding its definition, sources, and operational mechanisms. This paper aims to conduct a systematic and in-depth theoretical examination and comparative analysis of this core concept to address the increasingly complex global power dynamics of the twenty-first century.
The paper begins with a genealogical investigation of the concept of power, tracing the evolution of its definitions throughout the history of academic thought. Building on this foundation, the paper thoroughly analyzes the dual nature of power resources, carefully distinguishing the connotations, interrelationships, and evolving meanings of“hard power,”“soft power,”and the more recent concept of“sharp power”across different historical contexts.
The central section of the paper is devoted to systematically examining and comparing how the three major mainstream theories of contemporary International Relations—neorealism, liberalism, and constructivism—interpret national power. The paper elaborates on the theoretical divergence between defensive and offensive schools within neorealism; explores in depth the diverse perspectives on power held by various branches of liberalism, including neoliberal institutionalism, complex interdependence, and democratic peace theory; and meticulously analyzes how constructivism deconstructs and reshapes power through social elements such as norms, identity, and discourse. Through a comprehensive analytical comparison table, the paper systematically presents the fundamental differences among the three major theories in terms of ontology, core issues, key actors, definitions of power, prospects for conflict, and pathways for change.
The paper ultimately argues that no single theory is sufficient to fully capture the complex totality of national power. A more explanatory analytical framework must transcend theoretical barriers and adopt an integrative perspective—one that recognizes national power as possessing three inseparable dimensions: material, institutional, and socially constructed. This integrative framework not only facilitates understanding of traditional power politics but also provides robust theoretical tools for analyzing emerging power domains such as climate change, cyber governance, and global public health.