跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(98.80.143.34) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/10/04 17:45
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:鄭玉崧
研究生(外文):Yu Sung Cheng
論文名稱:東協區域論壇的發展與挑戰:建構主義的觀點
論文名稱(外文):The Developments and Challenges of ASEAN Regional Forum: A Constructivist View
指導教授:李文志李文志引用關係
指導教授(外文):Wen Chih Lee
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立暨南國際大學
系所名稱:公共行政與政策學系
學門:社會及行為科學學門
學類:公共行政學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:160
中文關鍵詞:東協區域論壇建構主義規範認同安全文化東南亞國家協會東協模式南中國海爭議臺海問題
外文關鍵詞:ASEAN Regional ForumConstructivismnormidentitysecurity cultureAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:1107
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:296
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
論文名稱:東協區域論壇的發展與挑戰:建構主義的觀點
校院系:國立暨南國際大學人文學院公共行政與政策研究所   頁數:160頁
畢業時間:九十六年八月           學位別:碩士
研究生:鄭玉崧               指導教授:李文志博士

論文摘要
傳統上,現實主義與自由主義觀點位居亞太區域安全研究的主要地位,其理性主義取向。使得採取這類理論觀點的研究,均以功利主義的理性個體分析出發。忽略意識層次的影響力及意涵。1990年代崛起的國際關係建構主義,重視理念的意義,以及行為者與結構之間綿密的相互建構過程,適度彌補了理性主義途徑所無法探及的部分。其重視史觀的特質,也為安全研究領域帶來新的啟發。
冷戰時期的亞太地區,是美、蘇勢力對抗的前沿。長久以來,安全合作的層次維持在打擊彼此的軍事同盟形式,廣泛容納亞太各國的安全合作倡議僅止於構想討論,而無法落實。隨著美、蘇和解,冷戰結束,亞太區域安全文化產生重大變遷。
面對舊秩序瓦解、新秩序未確立的安全環境,東南亞國家協會遂開始著手架建亞太地區多邊安全合作機制,並將東協數十年歷史中所發展出的規範認同架構外化到更廣泛的亞太地區之中。嘗試以不斷的互動,社會化亞太國家行為者,建構出嶄新的安全文化,東協區域論壇即是這個背景下的產物。是故,東協區域論壇可視為是弱小國家透過集體力量建構區域安全文化的努力。而東協區域論壇成功與否,端視亞太國家行為者是否能夠依循、甚至衍生出屬於亞太地區的安全規範及文化。
本文從建構主義研究觀點出發,透過實際案例分析,探討東協區域論壇十餘年來規範的演化與進展,以及所面臨的發展與挑戰。




關鍵詞:東協區域論壇、建構主義、安全研究、規範、世界觀、認同、安全文化、東南亞國家協會、東協模式、南中國海爭議、臺海問題、911恐怖攻擊事件
Title of Thesis:The Developments and Challenges of ASEAN Regional Forum: A Constructivist View
Name of Institute:Graduate Institute of Department of Public Policy and Administration, National Chi Nan University
Pages:160
Graduation Time:August, 2007
Degree Conferred:Master
Student Name:Cheng, Yu Sung
Advisor Name:Lee, Wen Chih
Abstract:
Realist and liberalist approaches dominated the realm of Asia-Pacific security study for a long time. Researchers adopted those theories initial their study from the utilitarianist rational analysis, which ignored the importance and effect of idea. The Constructivist approach, risen in the 1990’s, emphasis the continuously mutual constructing process between structure and actors, adequately complemented the rationalist approach. Constructivist approach also brought a new illumination to security studies.
Asia-Pacific Region is the forefront of US and USSR confrontation during the cold war period. Security cooperation level was limited to military alliance, which was set to against another camp. Any initial proposes to build security cooperation mechanism was stopped before practice. As the cold war came to an end, Asia-Pacific security culture transitioned greatly.
While the cold war system collapsed, and faced with the chaotic situation. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations began to make efforts to construct a multilateral security cooperation mechanism. Externalize the norms, which were developed in Southeast Asia for many years, to the broader Asia-Pacific region. Try to socialize the actors in Asia-Pacific region, and construct a brand-new security culture. ASEAN Regional Forum was the creature of such thinking. Therefore, the ARF can be seen as an effort of many small nations to construct security culture through their collective action. The success or not of the ARF, is highly depend on the Asia-Pacific nations’ action.
This dissertation based on a constructivist view, as through many cases studied, I discussed the process of norms development in Asia-Pacific region, and how those norms effect the collective identity in reverse. In the conclusion chapter, I also discussed the foresight and the challenges of the ARF.

Key Words: ASEAN Regional Forum(ARF), Constructivism, security study, norm, identity, security culture, Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN), ASEAN way, South China Sea dispute, Taiwan Strait dispute, 9-11 terrorist attack
目 錄

目 錄 i
圖表目錄 iv
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機與目的 1
第二節 文獻回顧 3
壹 、現實主義觀點(the Realist Perspective) 4
貳 、自由主義觀點( the Liberalist Perspective) 8
一 、新自由制度主義(Neo-Liberal Institutionalism) 8
二 、民主和平論( Democratic Peace Theory) 10
參 、小結 12
第三節 建構主義的研究觀點 12
壹 、建構主義觀點 12
貳 、建構主義的安全論述及其啟發 15
參 、建構主義研究架構 18
一 、規範的建立 19
二 、認同的凝聚 20
三 、研究架構 21
肆 、小結 23
第四節 研究方法、研究限制及章節安排 23
壹 、研究方法與限制 23
一 、文獻分析法 23
二 、歷史結構法 24
三 、研究限制 25
貳 、章節安排 26
第二章 東協區域論壇源起的世界觀、規範與集體認同 29
第一節 東南亞國家的世界觀與安全理念 29
壹 、東南亞國家的世界觀 29
一 、殖民時期歷史經驗的影響 32
二 、第二次世界大戰後東南亞局勢的發展 39
貳 、東南亞國家的安全理念 42
第二節 東協架構下東南亞區域規範的繁衍 45
壹 、東南亞國家協會的成立與其意涵 46
貳 、不干涉原則的重要性 48
一 、不干涉原則在柬埔寨問題的操作化 50
二 、越南、寮國、緬甸、柬埔寨四國入會問題: 51
(一) 、越南加入東協:意識形態不是障礙 51
(二) 、緬甸入會申請:人權問題的爭論 53
(三) 、柬埔寨政變及其入會過程對不干涉原則的衝擊 54
三 、東南亞金融危機:跨國界的新挑戰 55
參 、「區域自主」概念的強化 57
一 、柬埔寨問題-東協區域自主的能力的展現或有限? 58
二 、東南亞金融危機:區域自主的失與得 60
肆 、和平與非武力的區域文化 62
一 、越南入侵柬埔寨的影響 62
二 、南中國海爭議 63
第三節 東南亞區域認同的凝聚與塑造 65
壹 、東協模式的特點 66
一 、非正式-擱置爭議的藝術 67
二 、協商與共識 69
貳 、東協集體認同的演進 70
第三章 東協區域論壇的成立與發展 75
第一節 東協區域論壇的成立 76
壹 、ARF成立的背景—區域安全環境的變遷 76
貳 、東協區域論壇成立過程 80
第二節 東協區域論壇的組織架構及發展進程規劃 82
壹 、ARF的組織架構 83
一 、整體組織走向 85
二 、ARF部長會議(ARF Ministerial Meeting) 85
三 、ARF資深官員會議(ARF Senior Officials Meetings, ARF-SOM) 86
四 、第二軌層次會議 87
五 、參與成員資格 88
貳 、ARF三階段安全進程 89
一 、推動信心建立措施階段 90
(一) 、引介東協既有規範 90
(二) 、具體信心建立措施 90
二 、預防外交階段 92
三 、處理衝突階段 92
參 、ARF的規範 93
一 、非建制化 93
二 、雙軌並行的對話機制 93
三 、協商共識原則 94
四 、漸進式進程 94
五 、東協行為規範 95
第三節 小結-ARF設立對亞太區域安全的意義 95
第四章 東協區域論壇規範的拓增與強化-案例研究 97
第一節 南中國海爭議對ARF的試煉 98
第二節 不干涉原則的固守與僵化-東帝汶與臺灣問題 111
壹 、東帝汶獨立問題 111
貳 、臺海問題 114
第三節 911恐怖攻擊事件對ARF的影響 117
第五章 結論 121
第一節 東協區域論壇的成就 121
壹 、南中國海問題的良性發展 121
貳 、ARF進程有助區域安全 122
第二節 東協區域論壇的挑戰 123
壹 、區域安全文化-規範的作用亦或大國政治的折衝 123
貳 、認同建構過程面臨的問題 124
參 、ARF與區域安全事件的關聯性 126
第三節 東協區域論壇未來展望 126
參考書目 129
A. 中文部分 129
B. 英文部分 132
C. 主要網站 144
附錄一:ARF歷屆會議重要議題與規範聲明一覽表 145
附錄二:東協區域論壇歷年第一軌會議活動列表 151
參考書目
A. 中文部分
Benedict Anderson著,吳叡人譯,1999,《想像的共同體:民族主義的起源與散布》,臺北:時報文化出版。
Dewi Fortuna Anwar著,蔡百銓譯,1998,《印尼與東南亞國協:外交政策與區域主義》,臺北:國立編譯館出版。
Guy J. Pauker、Frank H. Goldlay、Cynthia H. Enloe著,朱建民譯,1981,《一九八O年代東南亞:歧異與發展》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館出版。
Kate Nash著,林庭瑤譯,2004,《全球化、政治與權力:政治社會學的分析》,臺北:韋伯出版。
Mahathir Bin Mohamad著、何爾榮譯,1999,《勇往直前》,檳城:立騰出版。
Paul Evans著、李文志譯,1996,〈亞太多邊安全合作:意義與展望〉,《後冷戰時期亞太集體安全》,臺北:業強出版,頁437-465。
Robert Cribb、Colin Brown著,蔡百銓譯,1997,《印尼當代史》,臺北:國立編譯館出版。
Roger Irvine著,1988,〈東南亞國協的形成期(1967-1975)〉,Alison Broinowski編,胡寶鳳等譯,《21世紀東南亞國協巡禮》,臺北:渤海堂文化事業出版。
天行,1994,〈南中國海風雲洶湧──周邊國外礁、擴軍雙管齊下〉,《中央日報》,民國83年8月22日,第7版。
王子昌、郭又新著,2005,《國家利益還是地區利益-東盟合作的政治經濟學》,北京:世界知識出版社。
王子昌著,2004,《東亞區域合作的動力與機制》,北京:中國社會科學出版社。
宋學文、黃子哲,2002,〈從東帝汶獨立運動探討美國的干預主義:一個霸權穩定論的觀點〉,《問題與研究》,第41卷,第3期,頁83-107。
宋燕輝,1996,〈「南海會議」與中華民國之參與:回顧與展望〉,《問題與研究》,第35卷第2期,頁15-39。
宋燕輝,2000,〈東協與中共協商南海區域行為準則及對我可能影響〉,《問題與研究》,第39卷,第4期,頁17-39。
宋燕輝,2003,〈南海地區安全戰略情勢之發展與現況〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁。
李文志,1997,《後冷戰時代美國的亞太戰略:從扇形戰略到新太平洋共同體》,臺北:憬藝出版。
李文志,2002,〈美國競逐亞太價值版圖的戰略論述與攻防:知識與權力動員的觀點〉,《2002年臺灣的東南亞區域研究論文研討會》,高雄:中央研究院、國立中山大學東南亞研究中心主辦。
李文志,2003,〈台灣『南向』世界觀的建構:亞太海、陸爭霸的觀點〉,蕭新煌(編),《台灣與東南亞:南向政策與越南新娘》,臺北:中央研究院亞太區域研究專題中心出版。
李文志,2003,《『外援』的政治經濟分析-重構『美援來華』的歷史圖像(1946-1948)》,臺北:憬藝出版。
李文志,2004,〈全球化對亞太安全理念的衝擊與重建:理論的初探〉,《政治科學論叢》,第22期,頁31-66。
李文志、蕭全政,1999,〈第二軌外交的內涵及對臺灣的意義〉,《政治科學論叢》,第10期,頁393-394。
李文志、蕭全政,2000,〈東亞「區域主義」的發展與臺灣的角色〉,《國科會東亞區域研究成果發表研討會》,臺北:中央研究院東南亞區域研究計畫主辦。
李光耀,2000,《李光耀回憶錄(1965-2000)》,臺北:世界出版。
李明峻,1994,〈南海諸島的領有問題〉,《現代學術研究(專刊Ⅵ)》,頁151-172。
李美賢著,2005,《印尼史-異中求同的海上神鷹》,臺北:三民出版、
林文程,2000,〈中共參與亞太多邊安全機制之目的與立場〉,《中國事務》,第2期,頁82-97。
林正義,1998,《東南亞區域安全體系的研究:理論與實際》,台北:中央研究院東南亞區域研究計畫。
林正義,2003,〈十年來南海島嶼聲索國實際作法〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁1-11。
林蘋蘋,1998,〈美國柯林頓政府對中(共)菲『美濟礁』爭議事件之立場與反應(1993-1996)〉,《東南亞季刊》,第2卷第2期,頁45-65。
林蘋蘋譯,1997,〈美國首次正式的「南中國海聲明」(1995年5月10日)〉,《東南亞季刊》,第2卷第1期,頁131-132。
俞寬賜,1992,〈從萬隆南海會議展望未來南海地區之國際合作關係〉,《社會科學論叢》,第40期,頁51-65。
孫國祥,2002,〈重新構建南海議題:司法解決之探討〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁22-39。
孫國祥,2004,《亞太綜合安全年報2003-2004》,臺北:遠景基金會出版。
秦亞青,2001,〈國際政治的社會建構-溫特及其建構主義國際政治理論〉,《美歐季刊》,第15卷,第2期,頁231-264。
馬普強主編,2000,《當代東南亞國際關係》,北京:世界知識出版社。
高英茂,1996,〈亞太集體安全體系之建立:趨勢、型態、前景〉,陶威廉等著,謝淑媛、蕭全政編,《後冷戰時期亞太集體安全》,臺北:業強出版,頁467-479。
張中勇,1996,〈中共對南海紛爭的衝突策略〉,《警學叢刊》,第27卷第2期,頁143-160。
張蘊岭、越江林主編,2003,《亞太區域合作的發展》,北京:世界知識出版社。
梁東屏,1999,〈越南購買北韓潛艦──將部署南沙〉,《中國時報》,民國88年2月1日,第13版。
梁嘉桓,2005,《「九一一」後東南亞恐怖主義活動與區域安全》,國立政治大學外交研究所碩士論文。
梁銘華,2001,〈南海衝突與亞太區域安全〉,《2001年臺灣的東南亞區域研究年度研討會》,南投:國立暨南國際大學東南亞研究所主辦。
紹大衛著,葉盛夫譯,1991,〈東南亞國家國防發展趨勢〉,《國防譯粹》,第18卷第11期。
莫大華,1997,〈東帝汶獨立運動的緣起與困境〉,《問題與研究》,第36卷,第2期,頁70-86。
莫大華,2003,《建構主義國際關係理論與安全研究》,臺北:時英出版。
許介鱗、李文志、蕭全政,1996,《臺灣的亞太戰略》,臺北:業強出版社。
許志嘉,2003,〈九一一事件後美國對中共政策的調整〉,《問題與研究》,第42卷,第3期,頁79-102。
陳水逢著,1977,《東南亞各國的政治社會動態》,臺北:臺灣商務印書館出版。
陳欣之,1999,《東南亞安全》,臺北:生智出版。
陳欣之,2004,〈國際安全研究之理論變遷與挑戰〉,《遠景季刊》,第4卷,第3期,頁1-39。
陳治萍譯,1996,〈1992年東協南海宣言(1992年7月22日,於馬尼拉)〉,《東南亞季刊》,第1卷第3期,頁117-118。
陳鴻瑜著,1992,《東南亞各國的政治與外交政策》,臺北:渤海堂文化出版。
楊永明、唐欣偉,1999,〈信心建立措施與亞太安全〉,《問題與研究》,第38卷,第6期,頁1-22。
楊作洲,1993,《南海風雲──海域及相關問題的探討》,台北:正中書局。
趙明義、張延廷,1998,〈南海諸島主權爭端論析〉,《軍事社會科學半年刊》,第1期,頁1-26。
劉必榮,1995,〈後冷戰時期東南亞政治秩序〉,《東吳政治學報》,第4期,頁113-133。
鄭先武,2004,〈安全共同體理論探微〉,《現代國際關係》,2004年第2期,頁55-61。
謝福進,2003,〈東協國家之安全觀及其對中共威脅認知之演變〉,《海華與東南亞研究》,第3卷第4期,頁1-36。
顧長永、邴兆魯,1996,〈論後冷戰時期亞太政經秩序的變遷:兼論我國對外關係的因應之道〉,《理論與政策》,第11卷,第1期,頁32-42。
B. 英文部分
“Chairman’s Statement of the First ASEAN Regional Forum,” July 25, 1994.
“Chairman’s Statement of the Ninth ASEAN Regional Forum,” July 31, 2002.
“Chairman’s Statement of the Seventh ASEAN Regional Forum,“ July 27, 2000.
“PGMA's Message of Sympathy to the U.S. President,” in http://www.op.gov.ph/speeches.asp?iid=43andiyear=2001andimonth=9.
“Philippines Raises Regional Security Concerns in ARF,” Department of Foreign Affairs, the Philippines, DFA News Release, No. BSB23, August 1, 1995.
“Recent Developments in the South China Sea,” March 18, 1995.
“Singapore Declaration of 1992,” January 28, 1992.
“Statement by the Chairman of the ARF on the Terrorist Acts of the 11th September 2001,” October 4, 2001.
“The ASEAN Declaration,” August 8, 1967.
“Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia,” February 24, 1976.
“Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality Declaration,” November 27, 1971.
Acharya, Amitav. 1996. “ASEAN and Conditional Engagement,” in James Shinn (ed.), Weaving the Net: Conditional Engagement with China. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, pp.220-248.
Acharya, Amitav. 1999. “Realism, Institutionalism, and the Asian Economic Crisis,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 21(1): 1-29.
Acharya, Amitav. 2001. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order. London: Routledge.
Adler, Emanuel and Michael Barnett (eds.). 1998. Security Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anthony, Mely C. 2003. “Regionalisation of Peace in Asia: Experiences and Prospects of ASEAN, ARF and UN Partnership,” Working Paper of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Singapore.
ARF. 2000. “ASEAN Regional Forum Concept and Principles of Preventive Diplomacy,” July 27.
ARF. 2003, ASEAN Regional Forum Documents Series 1994-2002. Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
ASEAN Secretariat. “2003 Co-Chairs’ Summary Report of the Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum Inter-Sessional Support Group on Confidence Building Measures,” http://www.aseansec.org/15991.htm.
ASEAN Secretariat. “Chairman’s Statement of the Tenth ASEAN Regional Forum,” http://www.aseansec.org/14845.htm.
ASEAN. 1995. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: A Concept Paper,” August 1.
Ashley, Richard. 1986. “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Robert Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and It’s Critics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Paridah Abd. Samad and Darusalam Abu Bakar. 1992. “Malaysia-Philippines Relations: The Issue of Sabah”, Asian Survey, 32(6): 554-567.
Ball, Desmond J. 1994. “CSCAP: Its Future Place in the Regional Security Architecture,” paper presented at the Eighth Asia Pacific Roundtable, Kuala Lumpur, June 6-8.
Ball, Desmond J. 2000. “Solving Taiwan Strait Crisis: Can Preventive Diplomacy Work?” paper presented at the Peace Forum conference on Taiwan Security in the Year 2000: Retrospect and Prospects, Taipei.
Banlaoi, Rommel C. 2003. “Southeast Asian Perspectives on the Rise of China: Regional Security After 9/11,” Parameters, 33(2): 98-107.
Bellwood, Peter. 1992. “Southeast Asia Before History,” in Nicholas Tarlin (ed.), The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bernama Daily Malaysian News, September 20, 2006.
Booth, Ken. 1991. “War Security and Strategy: Towards a Doctrine For Stable Peace,” in Ken Booth (ed), New Thinking About Strategy and International Security. London: Harper Collins Academic Press, pp.335-376.
Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. 1992. “An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping,” report of the United Nations Secretary-General, A/47/277 - S/24111, June 17.
Busse, Nikolas. 1999. “Constructivism and Southeast Asian security,” The Pacific Review, 12(1): 39-60.
Buszynski, Leszek .1997. “ASEAN’s New Challenges,” Pacific Affairs, 70(4):
Buzan, Barry. 2003. “Security Architecture in Asia: The Interplay of Regional and Global Level,” The Pacific Review, 16(2): 143-173.
Caballero-Anthony, Mely. 2002. “Partnership for Peace in Asia: ASEAN, the ARF, and the United Nations,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 24(3): 528-548.
Capie, David. 2004. “Between a Hegemon and a Hard Place: The ‘War on Terror’ and Southeast Asian-US Relations,” The Pacific Review, 17(2): 223-248.



Chalk, Peter.2001. Australian Foreign and Defense Policy in the Wake of the 1999/2000 East Timor Intervention. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. <https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1409.pdf>.
Chee, Chan Heng. 1992. “ASEAN and the Indochina Conflict,” in K. S. Sandhu, et al. (eds.), The ASEAN Reader. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, pp. 382-385.
Collins, Alan. 2003. Security and Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Cotton, James. 2004. East Timor, Australia and Regional Order: Intervention and Its Aftermath in Southeast Asia. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Denoon, David B. H. and Evelyn Colbert. 1998. “Challenges for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),” Pacific Affairs, 71(4): 505-523.
Dewitt, David B. 1993. “Concept of Security for the Asia-Pacific Region in the Post-Cold War Era: Common Security, Cooperative Security, Comprehensive Security,” in Seventh Asia-Pacific Roundtable: Confidence Building and Conflict Reduction in the Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, 6-9 June.
Dillon, Dana R. 1997. “Contemporary Security Challenges in Southeast Asia,” Parameters, 27(1): 119-133.
Emerson, Rupert. 1946. “An Analysis of Nationalism in Southeast Asia,” The Far Eastern Quarterly, 5(2): 208-215.
Emmers, Ralf. 2001. “The Influence of the Balance of Power Factor within the ASEAN Regional Forum,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 23(2): 275-291.
Evans, Paul M. 2001. “Cooperative Security and Its Discontents in Asia Pacific: The ASEAN Connection,” American Asian Review, 19(2): 99-210.
Foot, Rosemary. 2003. “The UN System’s Contribution to Asia-Pacific Security Architecture,” The Pacific Review, 16(2):
Ganesan, N. 1995. “Rethinking ASEAN as a Security Community in Southeast Asia,” Asian Affairs, an American Review, 21(4): 207-230.
Garofano, John. 1999. “Flexibility or Irrelevance: Ways Forward the ARF,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 21(1): 74-94.
Garofano, John. 2002. “Power, Institutions, and the ASEAN Regional Forum: A Security Community for Asia?” Asian Survey, 42(3): 502-521.
Gershman, John. 2002. “Is Southeast Asia the Second Front?” Foreign Affairs, 81(4): 60-73.
Haacke, Jürgen. 1998. “The ASEANization of Regional Order in East Asia: A Failed Endeavor?” Asian Perspective, 22(3): 7-47.
Haacke, Jürgen. 2003. “ASEAN’s Diplomatic and Security Culture: A Constructivist Assessment,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 3: 57-87.
Hall, D. G. E. 1960. “On the Study of Southeast Asian History,” Pacific Affairs, 33(3): 268-281.
Hernandez, Carolina G.. 2000. “The East Timor Crisis: Regional Mechanisms on Trail and Implications for Regional Political and Security Cooperation,” paper delivered at ARF Profession Development Programme, Bandar Seri Begawan, April 23-28.
Hernandez, Carolina. 1984. “Regional Security in ASEAN: A Philippine Perspective,” Paper presented to the Asiatic Research Center Conference on East Asian Security: Perceptions and Realities, Seoul, Korea University, May 25-26.
Hirschman, Charles. 1986. “The Making of Race in Colonial Malaya: Political Economy and Racial Ideology,” Sociological Forum, 1(2): 330-361.
Hopf, Ted. 1998. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, 23(1): 171-200.
Ikenberry, G. John and Jitsuo Tsuchiyama. 2002. “Between Balance of Power and Community: the Future of Multilateral Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific,” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2(1): 69-94.
Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2003. “Socialization in International Institutions: The ASEAN Way and International Relations Theory,” in John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno(eds.), International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jolliffe, Jill. 1978. East Timor: Nationalism and Colonialism. Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Jones, David Martin and Michael L. R. Smith. 2002. “ASEAN’s Imitation Community,” Orbis, 46(1): 93-109.
Jorgensen-Dahl, Arnfinn. 1982. Regional Organization and Order in South-East Asia. London: Macmillan Press.
Katsumata, Hiro. 2003a. “Reconstruction of Diplomatic Norms in Southeast Asia: The Case for Strict Adherence to the ‘ASEAN Way’,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 25(1):
Katsumata, Hiro. 2003b. “The Role of ASEAN Institutes of Strategic and International Studies in Developing Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region,” Asian Journal of Political Science, 11(1): 104-121.
Katsumata, Hiro. 2006. “Establishment of the ASEAN Regional Forum: Constructing a Talking Shop or a ‘Norm Brewery’?” The Pacific Review, 19(2): 181-198.
Kawasaki, Tsuyoshi. 2006. “Neither Skepticism Nor Romanticism: The ASEAN Regional Forum as a Solution for the Asia-Pacific Assurance Game,” The Pacific Review, 19(2): 219-237.
Keohane, Robert. 1988. “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, 32(4): 379-396.
Khong, Yuen Foong. 1997. “ASEAN and the Southeast Asian Security Complex,” in David A. Lake and Patrick M. Morgan(eds.), Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kratoska, Paul and Ben Batson. 1992. “Nationalism and Modernist Reform,” The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lacanlale, Agerico O. 1981. “ Community Formation in ASEAN’s External Relations,” in R. P. Anand and Purification V. Quisumbing (eds.), ASEAN: Identity, Development and Culture. Qezon City: University of the Philippines Law Centre and East-West Culture Learning Institute.
Lankowski, Michael. 2003. “America’s Asian Alliances in a Changing World,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(1): 113-124.
Leifer, Michael. 1996. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security,” ADELPHI Paper No. 302. New York: Oxford University Press for The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Leighton, Marian Kirsch. 1978. “Perspectives on the Vietnam-Cambodia Border Conflict,” Asian Survey, 18(5): 448-457.
Lim, Robyn. 1998. “The ASEAN Regional Forum: Building on Sand,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 20(2): 115-136.
Lockard, Craig A. 1995. “Integrating Southeast Asia into the Framework of World History: The Period before 1500,” The History Teacher, 29(1): 7-35.
Mearsheimer, John. 1994, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, 19: 5-49.
Mohamad, Mahathir. 2003. Terrorism and the Real Issues. Selangor Darul Ehsan: Pelanduk Publications.
Moller, Kay. 1998. “Cambodia and Burma: The ASEAN Way Ends Here,” Asian Survey, 38(12): 1087-1104.
Müller, Harald. 2002. “Security Cooperation,” in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons(eds.) Handbook of International Relations. California: SAGE Publications.
Narine, Shaun. 1997. “ASEAN and the ARF: The Limits of the ‘ASEAN Way’,” Asian Survey, 37(10): 961-978.
Narine, Shaun.1998. “ASEAN and the Management of Regional Security,” Pacific Affairs, 71(2): 195-214.
Narine, Shaun. 2002. Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Narramore, Terry. 1998. “Coming to Terms with Asia in Discourses of Asia-Pacific Regional Security,” Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(2): 253-266.
Ness, Peter Van. 1999. “Globalization and Security in East Asia,” Asian Perspective, 23(4): 315-342.
Nischalke, Tobias. 2002. “Does ASEAN Measure Up? Post-Cold War Diplomacy and the Idea of Regional Community,” The Pacific Review, 15(1): 89-117.
Nuechterlein, Donald E. 1975. “Southeast Asia in International Politics: A 1975 Perspective,” Asian Survey, 15(7): 574-585.
Olsen, Edward A. 1991. “A New American Strategy in Asia?” Asian Survey, 31(12): 1139-1154.
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.
Ortuoste, Maria Consuelo C. 2000. “Reviewing the ASEAN Regional Forum and Its Role in Southeast Asian Security,” paper for the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Hawaii: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
Pablo-Baviera, Aileen San. 2003. “The China Factor in US Alliances in East Asia and the Asia Pacific,” Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(2): 339-352.
Peou, Sorpong. 2002. “Realism and Constructivism in Southeast Asian Security Studies Today: A Review Essay,” The Pacific Review, 15(1): 119-138.
Ping, Lee Poh 1982. “The Indochinese Situation and the Big Power in Southeast Asia: The Malaysian View,” Asian Survey, 22(6): 516-523.
Poon-Kim, Shee. 1977. “A Decade of ASEAN, 1967-1977,” Asian Survey, 17(8): 753-770.
Ramcharan, Robin. 2000. “ASEAN and Non-interference: A Principle Maintained,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, 22(2): 60-88.
Ruggie, John. 1998. Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization. New York: Routledge.
Segal, Gerald. 1996. “East Asia and the ‘Constrainment’ of China,” International Security, 20(4): 107-135.
Sharpe, Samuel. 2003. “An ASEAN Way to Security Cooperation in Southeast Asia?” The Pacific Review, 16(2): 231-250.
Simon, Sheldon. 1987. “ASEAN’s Strategic Situation in the 1980s,” Pacific Affairs, 60(1): 73-93.
Simon, Sheldon. 1994. “East Asian Security: The Playing Field has Changed,” Asian Survey, 34(12): 1047-1063.
Simon, Sheldon. 1996. “Alternative Visions of Security in the Asia Pacific,” Pacific Affairs, 69(3): 381-396.
Simon, Sheldon. 2002. “Evaluating Track II Approaches to Security Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific: the CSCAP Experience,” The Pacific Review, 15(2): 167-200.
Soon, Lau Teik. 1982. “ASEAN and the Cambodian Problem”, Asian Survey, 22(6): 548-560.

Stewart, Ian. 1997. “Conflicting Signals Remain Over Burma’s Admission”, South China Morning Post, May 31.
Sukarno, Ahmed. 1951. “Pantja-Sila: The Basic Philosophy of the Indonesian State,” Indonesian Review, (1): 13-17.
Suryodipuro, Sidharto. 2002. “ASEAN: The Challenge of Integration, Cohesion, and Maritime Cooperation,” The Indonesian Quarterly, 30(2): 207-219.
Tarlin, Nicholas. 1992. “The Establishment of the Colonial Regimes,” The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Terriff, Terry, et al. 1999. “Traditional Views of Security in International Politics,” in Terry Terriff, et al. (eds.), Security Studies Today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
The Nation, September 22, 2006.
To, Lee Lai. 1993. “ASEAN-PRC Political and Security Cooperation: Problems, Proposals, and Prospects,” Asian Survey, 33(11): 1095-1104.
Trocki, Carl A. 1992. “Political Structures in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wæver, Ole. 1996. “The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski(eds.), International theory: positivism & beyond. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 149-185.
Weatherbee, Donald E. 1993. “ASEAN and Indochina: The ‘ASEANization’ of Vietnam,” in Sheldon W. Simon (ed.), East Asian Security in the Post-Cold War Era. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Wendt, Alexander. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory,” International Organization, 41(3): 335-370.
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is what States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2): 391-425.
Wendt, Alexander. 1995. “Constructing International Politics,” International Security, 20(1): 71-81.
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whiting, Allen S. 1997. “ASEAN Eyes China: The Security Dimension,” Asian Survey, 37(4): 299-322.
Yahuda, Michael. 2003. “Chinese Dilemmas in Thinking About Regional Security Architecture,” The Pacific Review, 16(2): 189-206.
C. 主要網站
ARF官方網站,網址:http://www.aseanregionalforum.org/。
CIA網站:https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/。
亞太安全合作理事會(CSCAP)網站:http://www.cscap.org/。
東協秘書處網站:http://www.aseansec.org/。
國際危機組織網站:http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?action=conflict_search&l=1&t=1&c_country=121。
聯合國網站:http://www.un.org/。
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 宋學文、黃子哲,2002,〈從東帝汶獨立運動探討美國的干預主義:一個霸權穩定論的觀點〉,《問題與研究》,第41卷,第3期,頁83-107。
2. 宋燕輝,1996,〈「南海會議」與中華民國之參與:回顧與展望〉,《問題與研究》,第35卷第2期,頁15-39。
3. 宋燕輝,2000,〈東協與中共協商南海區域行為準則及對我可能影響〉,《問題與研究》,第39卷,第4期,頁17-39。
4. 宋燕輝,2003,〈南海地區安全戰略情勢之發展與現況〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁。
5. 李文志,2004,〈全球化對亞太安全理念的衝擊與重建:理論的初探〉,《政治科學論叢》,第22期,頁31-66。
6. 李明峻,1994,〈南海諸島的領有問題〉,《現代學術研究(專刊Ⅵ)》,頁151-172。
7. 林文程,2000,〈中共參與亞太多邊安全機制之目的與立場〉,《中國事務》,第2期,頁82-97。
8. 林正義,2003,〈十年來南海島嶼聲索國實際作法〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁1-11。
9. 林蘋蘋,1998,〈美國柯林頓政府對中(共)菲『美濟礁』爭議事件之立場與反應(1993-1996)〉,《東南亞季刊》,第2卷第2期,頁45-65。
10. 俞寬賜,1992,〈從萬隆南海會議展望未來南海地區之國際合作關係〉,《社會科學論叢》,第40期,頁51-65。
11. 孫國祥,2002,〈重新構建南海議題:司法解決之探討〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第19期,頁22-39。
12. 張中勇,1996,〈中共對南海紛爭的衝突策略〉,《警學叢刊》,第27卷第2期,頁143-160。
13. 紹大衛著,葉盛夫譯,1991,〈東南亞國家國防發展趨勢〉,《國防譯粹》,第18卷第11期。
14. 莫大華,1997,〈東帝汶獨立運動的緣起與困境〉,《問題與研究》,第36卷,第2期,頁70-86。
15. 莫大華,2003,《建構主義國際關係理論與安全研究》,臺北:時英出版。