不理性的平衡？重新審視美國在1995-96 年間台海危機的 ... - 東吳大學

More documents

Recommendations

Info

196 東吳政治學報 /2009/ 第二十七卷第一期費學禮 (Richard D. Fisher Jr.)。1999。〈中國飛彈飛越台灣海峽的政治與軍事評估〉。李潔明等譯《台灣有沒有明天 ?: 台海危機美中台關係揭密》:204-246。台北 : 先覺。裘兆琳。1998。〈1995-1996 台海危機 : 華府、北京與台北之決策失誤檢討〉。林正義編《中美關係專題研究 :1995-1997》:99-144。台北 : 中央研究院歐美研究所。蔡榮祥。2007。〈一觸即發或虛張聲勢 : 論一九九五、一九九六台海危機〉。《台灣政治學刊》11,1:201-239。藍普頓 (David M. Lampton)。2003 。計秋楓譯《同床異夢 : 處理 1989 至 2000 年之中美外交》。香港 : 中文大學出版社。
不理性的平衡 ?─ 重新審視美國在 1995-96 年間台海危機的軍事干預行為 197 Irrational Balancing? ―The Review of the U.S. Military Intervention during the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait Crisis Lucian T. H. Hsu * Most 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis studies developed thus far are based on the expected utility theory. Its axiom is that the state is like a rational actor seeking to maximize profit. Taiwan, however, is an asymmetric interest between the U.S. and China. The military intervention of the U.S. to the Taiwan Strait during the 1995-96 is not the best means towards profit maximization. More importantly, the expected utility theory is used to understand decision-making process over a long period of time; it fail to explain the decision-making process within a short period of time. Thus, neoclassical realist Jeffrey W. Taliaferro developed the Balance of Risk theory explain why the great powers initiate risky military or diplomatic commitments in the peripherial regions. These peripheral regions usually do not factor into the core interests of the great powers. This goes to show how the action of the great powers do not always accord with the rational principle. * Ph.D Student, Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University.
Page 1 and 2: 不理性的平衡 ?─ 重
Page 41: 不理性的平衡 ?─ 重

不理性的平衡？ 重新審視美國在1995-96 年間台海危機的 ... - 東吳大學

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?

不理性的平衡？重新審視美國在1995-96 年間台海危機的 ... - 東吳大學