攻势现实主义

攻势现实主义（英语：offensive realism），又译为“进攻性现实主义”，是美国政治学家约翰·米尔斯海默^[1]首先提出的新现实主义学派中之理论结构，认为国际体系中的无政府状态要对国际政治中国家层面的侵略性行为负责。它从根本上不同于肯尼思·沃尔兹提出的守势现实主义。这个理论主张大国的权力最大化，通过卸责（英语：Buck passing）和平衡（英语：Balancing (international relations)）策略，最终达到主宰国际体系。该理论为研究和理解国际关系做出了重要贡献。

约翰·米尔斯海默

理论起源

攻势现实主义是属于国际关系现实主义学派的一个重要理论，其中的代表性人物包括罗伯特·吉尔平、兰德尔·施韦勒、乐伯斯(Eric J. Labs)和法里德·扎卡利亚^[2][3][4]，他们都以各自的观点提出了这个理论。然而到目前为止，公认的对攻势现实主义诠释最准确完整的是约翰·米尔斯海默，他在他的著作《大国政治的悲剧》一书中充分诠释了这个理论。^[5]虽然米尔斯海默重申其的攻势现实主义理论是以古典现实主义（英语：Classical realism (international relations)）者所阐述的某些假设为基础，但其将实证主义作为其研究手法，以国际政治中国家的行为为研究基础，将其作为该理论的中心，从而又和传统的现实主义理论大有不同。^[6][7][8]也因此，他的攻势现实主义又和结构现实主义的一些其他支论相似，如守势现实主义。^[9]

主要内容

该理论基于五个核心假设，类似于肯尼思·沃尔兹的守势现实主义的核心假设。其为^[10][11]：

1. 大国是世界政治的主要角色，国际体系是无政府状态的
2. 所有强权都拥有进攻性的军事实力
3. 各国永远无法确定其他国家的意图
4. 各国都以生存为主要目标
5. 国家是理性的行为者，能够提出最大化其生存前景的合理战略

与守势现实主义一样，攻势现实主义主张国际体系为无政府状态，在这个体系中，理性大国始终无法确定其他国家的意图，并且能够发动军事进攻，以求生存。^[12][13]尽管米尔斯海默最初是从类似主张中发展而来的，但其攻势现实主义对国际政治中的大国行为提出了截然不同的预测。^[14][15]其主要是在权力积累方面和守势现实主义相背，认为国家需要不停地采取举措确保国家的安全并建立战略维持国家保证自身安全的能力。最终，米尔斯海默的攻势现实主义绘制了一幅更加悲观的国际政治图景，其特点是危险的国家间竞争可能导致冲突和战争。^[16][17]

现状与国家权力最大化

约翰·米尔斯海默的进攻性现实主义旨在纠正肯尼斯·华尔兹的防御性现实主义的“现状偏见”。^[18][19]虽然这两种新现实主义变体都认为，国家主要关心的是最大限度地提高自身的安全，但他们在这一过程中所需的权力数量上存在分歧。与防御性现实主义相反，根据防御性现实主义，国家是维持现状的大国，只寻求通过维持普遍的权力平衡来维持各自在国际体系中的地位，^[20][21]进攻性现实主义声称，国家实际上是权力最大化的修正主义者，怀有侵略意图。事实上，在进攻性现实主义中，国际体系为大国提供了强有力的动机，促使它们采取进攻性行动，以加强其安全并确保其生存。^[21][22]

事实上，以无政府状态为特征的国际体系（缺乏一个能够执行规则和惩罚侵略者的中央当局）以及国家意图和现有进攻性军事能力的不确定性，导致各国不断相互恐惧，并诉诸自助（self-help）机制来维持生存为了减轻彼此对侵略的恐惧，各国总是寻求最大限度地发挥其在物质能力方面的相对力量^[23]。正如米尔斯海默所说：“他们寻找机会，通过以潜在对手为代价获得额外的权力增量来改变权力平衡”^[24]因为“一个国家比其他国家拥有的军事优势越大，越是安全”，^[25]“国家寻求增加军事力量，损害体系内其他国家的利益，霸权是国家体系中唯一的大国，是他们的最终目标。”^[26]

约翰·米尔斯海默将这一观点概括如下：“大国认识到，确保其安全的最佳途径是现在就实现霸权，从而消除另一大国挑战的任何可能性。只有一个被误导的国家才会放弃在这个体系中成为霸权的机会，因为它认为自己已经拥有足够的权力来生存。”^[27]因此，像米尔斯海默这样的进攻性新现实主义者认为，一个国家提高其相对权力以实现霸权的最佳战略是依靠进攻性战术。如果这些大国采取侵略行动是合理的，它们就可能奉行扩张主义政策，这将使它们更接近霸权。由于权力跨洋投射和报复势力的制约，全球霸权几乎不可能实现，各国希望达到的最佳结局状态是，一个地区霸主统治自己的地理区域。^[28][29]这种对权力的不懈追求，内在地产生了一种“持续的安全竞争，战争的可能性总是存在”的背景下，^[30]只有当地区霸权获得时，大国才会成为现状国家。

参见

• 大国政治的悲剧
• 离岸制衡

参考文献

1. Toft, Peter. John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power. Journal of International Relations and Development (Palgrave Macmillan). December 2005, 8 (4): 381–408 [2018-02-14]. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065. （原始内容存档于2018-06-13）.
2. Feng, Liu; Ruizhuan, Zhang. The typologies of realism. The Chinese Journal of International Politics (Oxford Journals). Summer 2006, 1 (1): 124 and 126. doi:10.1093/cjip/pol006.
3. Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited. International Security (MIT Press). Winter 2000–2001, 25 (3): 128–129 and 134. JSTOR 2626708. doi:10.1162/016228800560543.
4. Gerald Geunwook Lee, "To Be Long or Not to Be Long–That is the Question: The Contradiction of Time-Horizon in Offensive Realism", Security Studies 12:2 (2003): 196.
5. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2001).
6. Glenn H. Snyder, "Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay", International Security 27:1 (2002): 151.
7. Feng and Zheng, Typologies of Realism, 113–114.
8. Kaplan, Robert D. Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things). The Atlantic Magazine. 2012 [2018-02-14]. （原始内容存档于2012-07-20）.
9. Kenneth N. Waltz, "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory", Journal of International Affairs 44:1 (1990): 34.
10. Mearsheimer, J. (2005). Structural Realism, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki & S. Smith, International Relations Theory: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11. Mearsheimer, John J. "The false promise of international institutions." International Security 19, no. 3 (1994): 5–49.
12. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 30–31.
13. Eric J. Labs, "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims", Security Studies 6:4 (1997): 7–8.
14. Shiping Tang, "From Offensive to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China's Security Strategy", 148–149, in China's Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics, edited by Robert Ross and Zhu Feng. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008).
15. Taliaferro, Security Seeking, 134.
16. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 32–33.
17. Snyder, Mearsheimer's World, 153.
18. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 20.
19. Snyder, Mearsheimer's World,157–158.
20. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979): 126.
21. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 21.
22. ; Sten Rynning and Jens Ringsmose, "Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change", International Politics 45 (2008): 26.
23. John J. Mearsheimer, "China's Unpeaceful Rise", Current History 105: 690 (2006): 160.
24. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 34.
25. John J. Mearsheimer, "The False Promise of International Institutions", International Security 19:3 (1994–1995): 11–12.
26. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 21 and 29.
27. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 35.
28. Mearsheimer, China's Unpeaceful Rise, 160.
29. Mearsheimer, Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 141.
30. Mearsheimer, The False Promise, 12.

参考书目

• Feng, Liu; Ruizhuan, Zhang. The typologies of realism. The Chinese Journal of International Politics (Oxford Journals). Summer 2006, 1 (1): 109–134. doi:10.1093/cjip/pol006.
• Hendrickson, David C. "The Lion and the Lamb: Realism and Liberalism Reconsidered." World Policy Journal 20:1 (2003): 93–102.
• Kaplan, Robert D. Why John J. Mearsheimer Is Right (About Some Things). The Atlantic Magazine. 2012 [2018-02-14]. （原始内容存档于2012-07-20）.
• Kirshner, Jonathan. "The Tragedy of Offensive Realism: Classical Realism and the Rise of China." European Journal of International Relations 18:1 (2012): 53–75.
• Labs, Eric. "Beyond Victory: Offensive Realism and the Expansion of War Aims." Security Studies 6:4 (1997): 1–49.
• Lake, David A. "Two Cheers for Bargaining Theory: Assessing Rationalist Explanations of the Iraq War." International Security 35:3 (2010/11): 7–52.
• Layne, Christopher. "The Poster Child for Offensive Realism: America as a Global Hegemon." Security Studies 12:2 (2002/2003): 120–163. （页面存档备份，存于互联网档案馆）
• Lee, Gerald Geunwook. "To be Long or Not to Be Long—That is the Question: The Contradiction of Time-Horizon in Offensive Realism." Security Studies 12:2 (2002/2003): 196–217.
• Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson. "Balancing on Land and at Sea: Do States Ally Against the Leading Global Power?" International Security 35:1 (2010): 7–43.
• Lieber, Keir A. and Gerard Alexander. "Waiting for Balancing Why the World Is Not Pushing Back." International Security 30:1 (2005): 109–139.
• Lim, Y.-H. China's Naval Power, Surrey, New York, Ashgate, 2014, 234 p. (ISBN 9781409451846).
• Mearsheimer, John J. "The False Promise of International Institutions." International Security 19:3 (1994–1995): 5–49.
• Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, NY: W.W. Norton, 2001.
• Mearsheimer, John J. "China's Unpeaceful Rise." Current History 105:690 (2006): 160–162.
• Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. "Back to the Drawing Board: A Critique of Offensive Realism." International Relations 27:202 (2013): 202–225.
• Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. "Waltz, Mearsheimer and the Post-Cold War World: The Rise of America and the Fall of Structural Realism", International Politics 51:3 (2014): 295–315.
• Rynning, Sten and Jens Ringsmose. "Why Are Revisionist States Revisionist? Reviving Classical Realism as an Approach to Understanding International Change." International Politics 45 (2008): 19–39.
• Shiping Tang. "From Offensive to Defensive Realism: A Social Evolutionary Interpretation of China's Security Strategy." In China's Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future of International Politics, edited by Robert Ross and Zhu Feng, 141–162. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008.
• Snyder, Glenn H. "Mearsheimer's World—Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay." International Security 27:1 (2002): 149–173.
• Taliaferro, Jeffrey W. Security seeking under anarchy: defensive realism revisited. International Security (MIT Press). Winter 2000–2001, 25 (3): 128–161. JSTOR 2626708. doi:10.1162/016228800560543.
• Toft, Peter. John J. Mearsheimer: an offensive realist between geopolitics and power. Journal of International Relations and Development (Palgrave Macmillan). December 2005, 8 (4): 381–408 [2018-02-14]. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800065. （原始内容存档于2018-06-13）.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979).
• Waltz, Kenneth N. "Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory." Journal of International Affairs 44:1 (1990): 21–37.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. "International Politics Is Not Foreign Policy." Security Studies 6:1 (1996): 54–57.
• Wang, Yuan-Kang. "Offensive Realism and the Rise of China." Issues & Studies 40:1 (2004): 173–201.

扩展阅读

• Robert Giplin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
• Randall L. Schweller, "Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In", International Security 19 :1 (1994): 72–107.
• Fareed Zarkaria, From Wealth to Power: the Unusual Origins of America's World Role (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998).