北極圈海域爭端之研究—Waltz結構現實主義理論之檢視與評析

• Main Author: 戴宗翰
• Other Authors: 政治學系
• Format: Thesis
• Language: Chinese; English
• Published: 2011
• Subjects: 結構現實主義; structural realism; 北極圈; Arctic Circle; 1982年海洋法公約; 1982 UNCLOS; 聯合國大陸礁層界限委員會; CLCS; 海域劃界; sea boundary delimitation; 專屬經濟區; EEZ; 大陸礁層外界限; continental shelf; 層次分析研究途徑; levels of analysis approach; Arctic; Canada; Norway
• Online Access: http://ir.lib.pccu.edu.tw//handle/987654321/23456; http://ir.lib.pccu.edu.tw/bitstream/987654321/23456/4/http___thesis.lib.pccu.edu.tw_cgi-bin_cdrfb3_gsweb.pdf

本研究試圖以Waltz結構現實主義理論觀點，解釋北極圈沿海美國、俄國、加拿大、丹麥與挪威五國海域爭端之現象，並透過層次分析研究途徑與Waltz理論基本核心假設所造成之盲點來評析Waltz理論之限制。 本研究在爭端案例的現象解釋上，選擇「島嶼主權」、「主權權利」及「航道利用」作為北極圈海域爭端的三個主要事項，透過此三個「自變項」得以解釋北極圈次體系穩定與否此「依變項」；另在Waltz理論檢證操作上，本研究透過三個步驟來逐一檢證Waltz理論對北極圈海域爭端案例之解釋力，首先架構北極圈次體系為多極體系；其次，再透過各單元於爭端事項上之國際公法主張來檢證單元具有「權力極大化」傾向；最後透過爭端事項中「海域劃界」及「協議合作」兩類型來檢證「權力平衡」之作用力的確是造成北極圈次體系穩定之原因，上述檢證也使Waltz理論對於北極圈海域爭端現象解釋獲得正面之成果。 在Waltz理論運用之評析方面，筆者透過層次分析研究途徑來評析Waltz理論之限制，也透過Waltz理論基本假設立場中對於「理念因素」與「非國家行為者」的排除來觀察Waltz理論之盲點，筆者建議有關北極圈海域爭端議題，除考量「跨層次分析研究途徑」以解決Waltz理論「體系層次分析研究途徑」之限制外，亦納入「國際公法」與「國際組織」因素作為北極圈次體系穩定之影響因素，以強化Waltz理論之解釋力。 This work studies the maritime disputes among five States along the Arctic sea－namely the United State of American, Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway－based on Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of Structural Realism (hereinafter referred to as “Waltz’s Theory”). The author further reviews and comments on the limitations of Waltz’s Theory based on the “Levels of Analysis Approach” and on some “blind spots” found in the basic assumption of Waltz’s Theory. In order to explain the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle, this Paper uses three independent variables which are “Island Sovereignty,” “Sovereign Rights” and “Navigation Usage” to explain the stability of the Arctic subsystem, the dependent variable. On the application of Waltz’s Theory, the following three main steps are taken to verify that Waltz’s Theory has the effectiveness in explaining the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle. The first step is to construct the Arctic subsystem as a multi-polar system. The second step is to verify that actors (states) have the tendency to seek “maximum power” under the international law on events of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle. The third step is through “sea boundary delimitation” and “cooperation agreement” cases to verify that Waltz Theory’s assumption on “balance of power” does in fact have a positive effect on keeping of stability in the Arctic subsystem. According to the aforementioned steps, this Paper reaches ...