对新现实主义、新自由主义和建构主义关于安全困境理论之比较

Comparison of security dilemma theory in neo-realism, neo-liberalism and constructivism

新现实主义、新自由主义和建构主义对于安全困境的产生看法基本相同。分歧在于这种困境是物质现象还是思维现象。国际政治的无政府状态,是它们理论共同的逻辑起点。新现实主义、新自由主义认为无政府状态的存在就决定了国家之间不可能实现真正的安全,也不可能真正的脱离"安全困境",主体行为追求相对权力的最大化。而建构主义对安全的预期、主体行为均取决于主体间"互动—认知"程度。新现实主义、新自由主义把"安全困境"理解为无政府状态下的固有特征,必然会得出"安全困境"是不可避免的结论。而建构主义的理论中国际结构是通过主体间行为和认知的互动而架构起来的论断,给"安全困境"的超越带来了可能,但其主观性太浓而趋于理想化。要建成真正的"安全共同体",要求物质力量和利益的平衡作为保障,认同等观念因素的影响是以其为基础的。

The opinions of neo-realism, neo-liberalism and constructivism concerning the origin of security dilemma are basically same. The difference is that the dilemma is material or thinking phenomenon. Anarchy of international politics is their same logic beginning . Neo-realism and neo-liberalism think the existence of anarchy decides that countries can not achieve the true security and escape from security dilemma , the main behaviour pursues the maximum of power. But constructivism thinks security and the behaviour of main body are decided by the degree of ＂interactivity-recognize＂ between main bodies. Neo-realism and neo-liberalism think security dilemma is the intrinsic characteristic under anarchy. So they draw the conclusion that security dilemma can not be avoided. In the theory of constructivism, international structure forms through the interactivity and recognize between the main body, which takes the possibility of escaping from security dilemma, but it is so subjective that it inclines to idealization. To build of the true ＂security community＂ needs the balance of material power and interest and the influence of some thinking factors recognition is based on the balance.