新西兰代写作业：亚太地区国际关系的理论观点
新西兰代写作业：亚太地区国际关系的理论观点
下表描述了与理解亚太地区国际关系相关的理论观点。理论视角包括古典现实主义、新现实主义、自由主义、新自由制度主义和建构主义。直到冷战结束，现实主义者关于亚洲国际关系的论述都是与古典意义上的现实主义密切相关的，而不是肯尼斯·华尔兹后来发展起来的新现实主义，强调权力分配存在因果影响(Wan, 2007)。这已经被冷战的结束所修正，拼写也是两极到结束。现实主义者认为国际关系体系是一种无政府状态，其中国家是主要的国际关系参与者，主要通过权力考虑和国家利益来引导(Algappa, 2003)。IR是一个零和博弈，其中国家更关注相对利润而不是绝对利润。与权力相关的无情竞争和影响使得冲突不仅不可避免，而且会导致全球机构在大权力边缘的反复无常和反复无常中不合作(Yan, 2003, p. 31)。
新西兰代写作业：亚太地区国际关系的理论观点
相反，全球秩序从来都不是永久的，它是通过权力平衡来维持的，而权力的定义主要是军事和经济方面的。Kenneth Waltz后来对现实主义有了一个新的定义，称之为新现实主义，强调国际体系的结构属性，尤其是权力分配，对于塑造冲突和秩序的重要性(Fiedberg, 1998)。这就导致了对人性或国际关系、国内政治影响的淡化。然而，最近的现实主义内部辩论描绘了防御性现实主义者和进攻性现实主义者之间的对比。像米尔斯海默这样的进攻性现实主义者认为，国家是那些有能力将权力最大化的行动者，因此他们会竭尽所能，最终的目标是霸权(米尔斯海默2001，第40页)。另一方面，罗伯特·杰维斯和许多像他这样的防御性现实主义者认为，一般来说，如果国家的个人安全没有受到威胁，那么国家就会对现状感到满意，因此国家关注的是维持权力平衡。
新西兰代写作业：亚太地区国际关系的理论观点
The following table describes the theoretical perspectives related to understanding International relations in the Asian Pacific region. The theoretical perspectives include classical realism, neo-realism, liberalism and neo-liberal institutionalism and constructivism.Until cold war ended, the arguments of realists on Asian International Relationships were closely related to realism in its classical sense instead of neo-realism which Kenneth Waltz developed later on, stressing on the fact that there is causal influence of power distribution (Wan, 2007). This has been modified by Cold war end, spelling also bipolarity to end. Realists consider a system of IR to be a sort of anarchy wherein states are main international relations actors guided mainly through power consideration and the interest of the nation (Algappa, 2003). IR is a game of zero sums wherein states have more focus on relative profits instead of absolute profits. Power related relentless competition and influence result in making conflict not only inevitable but also non-cooperative wherein global institutes operate over great power margin whims and caprice (Yan, 2003, p. 31).
新西兰代写作业：亚太地区国际关系的理论观点
Global order on the contrary is never permanent and is maintained through power balance manipulation with power mainly defined as per terms of military and economy. Kenneth Waltz developed a later definition of realism and termed it neo-realism stressing the significance of international systems structural properties particularly the power distribution, to shape conflict and order (Fiedberg, 1998). This henceforth leads to downplaying the influence of human nature or international relations domestic politics. Intra-realist debates, most recently however have depicted the contrast lying between defensive realists and offensive ones. Offensive realists such as Mearsheimer have argued that the states are those actors that have the ability to maximize power and therefore they go for everything they can obtain with the ultimate goal lying in hegemony (Mearsheimer 2001, p. 40). On the other hand, Robert Jervis and many like this defensive realist argue that generally states obtain satisfaction with their status quo if there is no threat to their personal security and therefore states focus on maintenance of power balance.
