| Summary: | 博士 === 中國文化大學 === 政治學系 === 100 === This work studies the maritime disputes among five States along the Arctic sea－namely the United State of American, Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway－based on Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of Structural Realism (hereinafter referred to as “Waltz’s Theory”). The author further reviews and comments on the limitations of Waltz’s Theory based on the “Levels of Analysis Approach” and on some “blind spots” found in the basic assumption of Waltz’s Theory.
In order to explain the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle, this Paper uses three independent variables which are “Island Sovereignty,” “Sovereign Rights” and “Navigation Usage” to explain the stability of the Arctic subsystem, the dependent variable. On the application of Waltz’s Theory, the following three main steps are taken to verify that Waltz’s Theory has the effectiveness in explaining the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle. The first step is to construct the Arctic subsystem as a multi-polar system. The second step is to verify that actors (states) have the tendency to seek “maximum power” under the international law on events of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle. The third step is through “sea boundary delimitation” and “cooperation agreement” cases to verify that Waltz Theory’s assumption on “balance of power” does in fact have a positive effect on keeping of stability in the Arctic subsystem. According to the aforementioned steps, this Paper reaches the definition that Waltz’s Theory is capable to explain the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle.
From studying of reviewing and commenting on Waltz’s Theory, the author comments on the limitations of Waltz’s Theory based on the “Levels of Analysis Approach” and finds that the Waltz’s Theory has blind spots which excludes “ideal factor” and “non state actors” as part of it’s basic assumption. Hence, in order to enable Waltz’s Theory to better explain the phenomenon of maritime disputes in the Arctic Circle, this study suggests adopting the “cross-level analysis approach” to address the failure of Waltz Theory’s “system-level approach”. This study further suggests including “international law” and “international organizations” factors as additional components to stabilize the Arctic subsystem as well as to resolve the blind spots found in Waltz Theory’s basic assumption.
|
|---|
