【作者】 王佳；

【导师】 夏维勇；

【作者基本信息】 云南大学 ， 国际政治， 2014， 硕士

【摘要】 自美国—改在南海争端中的中立立场,高调宣布介入南海争端后,原本已非常复杂的南海就更加波涛汹涌。因此,了解美国之所以选择重返亚太,对南海问题进行介入的动因研究可以使中国不至于处于被动状态,同时也可以就美国的介入的意图作出相应的对策,所以对美国介入南海事务的原因研究就显得格外重要。本文首先主要是对国内外关于美国南海政策的动因研究进行概括,得出学者们多数是从地缘政治论、利益至上论、霸权主义论、权力转移论这四个方面的原因进行研究。笔者认为,这四个理论都是对美国南海政策的动因具有很好的解释力,美国在作出对外政策时也会从上述四个方面进行考虑并作出决策,但是,这四个动因存在缺陷。如果单单从地缘政治的角度解释美国南海政策的动因有其欠缺性,地缘政治不能解释美国为什么在同样具有非常地缘优势的中东地区、紧挨大西洋的西欧地区减少其力量的投入,把视线转移到南中国还这块区域。同样,如果只从利益至上的角度考虑美国南海政策的动因也不能解释为何美国要在南海问题上针对与其有大量利益关系的中国却反而站在发展落后的南海小国一边。因此,仅从这一理论去研究美国南海政策动因这个问题上具有片面性。而关于霸权主义论,笔者认为这个解释不符合美国的国情,同样也不能解释美国在面对中国对黄岩岛宣誓主权的强硬态度上的让步。最后关于对美国南海政策是因为权力转移的解释也具是有缺陷的,例如,权力是否开始从美国转移到中国还是一个未知数,基于中国的国情,中国还没有能力担当超级大国,并且权力转移理论也不能对美国要求中国承担大国责任作出解释。因此,笔者在此基础上对美国南海政策的动因研究进行再研究,发现只有将国家利益(本文研究的国家利益主要是国家安全利益和国家经济利益)和精英政治理论结合起来才能合理的解释美国南海政策的动因。笔者设定国家利益和精英政治两个理论为美国之所以制定此种南海政策缘由的自变量。如果美国从国家安全利益角度出发,那么美国会对介入南海争端的态度会是慎重的,而如果从国家经济利益的角度出大,对南海问题的介入的态度是积极的；而如果美国的政治精英是反华的,相应的政策将会是“围堵”型的,如果美国的政治精英是亲华的(这里包括对中国的态度是中立的和友好的),那么相应的政策将会是“合作”型的。所以,根据上述理论假设得出美国南海政策的四种类型,即慎重介入—围堵中国型、积极介入—围堵中国型、慎重介入—中美合作型、积极介入—中美合作型,并且选取这四种类型的美国南海政策进行验证,分析后得出,美国南海政策主要是以慎重介入—围堵中国型为主。最后,笔者基于博弈论中的“囚徒困境”模型分析得出：中美双方在解决南海问题上的最优选择是合作,而推动中美合作的前提则是双方作出的承诺。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the advent of America’s high profile existence in South China Sea, comple x issues here get worse. And analysis based upon the reason on the USA’s return help s to prevent China from passive and lag-behind assessment and reply. Therefore resear ch on why the USA will play in South China Sea is a top priority. This thesis sorts ou t four perspectives from which scholar home and abroad use to mould the USA’s Sout h China Sea policies into Geopolitical theory, Interests Supremacy theory, Hegemon y theory, Power transition theory.The author admits these four theories can partly explain America’s behavior an d decisions on South China Sea issue. As for the other part of the picture, Geopolitica1theory can not explain American’s retreat from middle-east area and Western Europ e where America also has Geographical advantage and switch to South China Sea area. Similarly, Interests Supremacy theory can not explain the USA against China with w-hich it has great interest relationship while for those weak countries. Hegemony theor y in the author’s opinion can not explain American concrete condition and its compro mise on China’s stern Sovereign declaration of Huangyan Island. Last but not least, P ower transition theory does not clearly tell us the vista of china’s replacement of the U SA and why America believe china to should its responsibility as a great power.There is the need to replenish past theories, and the author dig out the national int erest’s theory composed by safety and economic aspects and elite politics theory to ex plain America’s south-china-sea policies, thus two independent variables made. Expre ssions are that the USA’s safety consideration leads to careful operation while state ec onomic interests active, and anti-China political elite take a containment policy whil e pro-China, no matter neutrality or friendly, a cooperation one. The above said mod el concludes four alterations of America’s south-china-sea policies which are careful i nvolvement vs. containment, active involvement vs. containment, careful involvemen t vs. cooperation and active involvement vs. cooperation. After trial analysis from al1the four types, this thesis make a conclusion that America is developing its South-Ch ina-Sea policy into type of careful involvement vs. containment. In the last part, the a uthor chooses careful involvement vs. cooperation as best type of China-US A relation ship in South China Sea area through prisoner’s dilemma model in Game Theory. Ho w to advance towards good direction takes bilateral, Promises as a prelude.更多还原