欧洲一体化启动阶段的美国因素分析
|
摘要
西欧国家在上个世纪50年代末开启一体化建设是具有标志性意义的事件,是对国际政治理论的研究范式是一个重大的突破。自此以后相关的欧洲一体化理论成为学术界研究的热点问题。但是,传统的欧洲一体化理论如联邦主义、功能主义、政府间主义在研究方法上由于只关注于欧洲地区内部因素对一体化的影响,存在明显的不足。西欧国家启动一体化建设并不完全是西欧国家自身决定的,启动一体化建设与西欧所处的特殊时代有着不可割舍的关系。从这个意义上说,西欧启动一体化建设就不能不考虑美国因素的作用。二战结束后,美国成为名副其实的霸权国,国际关系格局呈现出两极对立的特征,美国与西欧盟国的利益相关度处于高位状态,并且两者之间的力量对比悬殊,西欧启动一体化正是这些因素综合作用的结果。
基于此,本论文将研究焦点定位于1945—1958年西欧启动一体化建设的起点上主要运用霸权的有关理论分析西欧启动一体化。在国际政治理论中霸权是指一个国家或政府所具备的领导、权威或影响并且由此形成的在一个时空范围内的政治支配地位。而霸权国就是指具有超群实力并对整个体系或其他国家处于支配和领导地位的国家。霸权与非霸权国关系类型可以分为制衡战略、追随战略和不介入战略,每一种关系类型都有其逻辑起点。三种战略在理论上的延展受制于三种关系的制约：国际体系结构、霸权国与非霸权国的利益相关度和霸权国与非霸权国的力量对比。三种战略也是在这三种关系的背景下理论化的,而这三类因素是霸权国与非霸权国互动时呈现出的各种行为的根源。
霸权国与特定地区的关系类型也主要分为支持战略、反对战略和不介入战略三种形式。不同的战略同样有不同的逻辑起点。不同战略在理论上的延展也受制于三种关系的制约：国际体系结构、霸权国与特定地区的利益相关度和霸权国与特定地区的力量对比。支持战略、反对战略和不介入战略战略也是在这三种关系的背景下理论化的。
在此理论分析的基础上,本论文假定如果某一特定的地区内缺乏公认的起主导作用的国家且该地区是实现域外霸权国核心国家利益的关键,那么域外霸权国必然会对该地区的发展趋势产生决定性的影响；第二,霸权国与非霸权国和特定地区的行为关系受制于当时的国际体系、它们之间的利益相关度和力量对比关系的制约。西欧启动一体化建设可以用霸权的相关理论进行分析并且验证这一假定。二战后西欧经济遭受严重创伤,西欧面临着经济重建的迫切任务,用“共同体”的方法实现西欧的经济复兴是战后西欧各国政治领导人的共识,并且二战后西欧各国已经进行了很多有益的尝试。但是,西欧真正启动一体化建设却是在美国介入之后开始的。出于对当时国际关系格局、美国与西欧各国利益相关度和两者力量对比的思考,美国在经济上制定了马歇尔计划,并且提出了西欧各国接受援助的基本原则即一体化原则。面对西欧国家对一体化原则阳奉阴违的态度,美国的立场毫不妥协,迫使西欧国家按一体化原则行事。美国对一体化原则的执著和坚持是西欧启动经济一体化的关键。
出于对当时国际关系格局、美国与西欧各国利益相关度和两者力量对比的思考,美国从政治上制定了大西洋联盟的战略。但是建立大西洋联盟也不是一帆风顺的。这突出地表现在意大利的成员国资格和德国的成员国资格问题上。在意大利的成员国资格上分歧主要是美国内部,涉及到成立的联盟的性质问题：是建立大西洋联盟还是地中海联盟还是两个联盟同时建立,对于联盟性质的不同理解直接影响到西欧政治军事一体化的发展走向,最后美国决定建立大西洋联盟并同意意大利加入北约,这实际上承认了意大利在西欧的地位问题,对于后来西欧的政治经济一体化建设具有重要的意义；在德国的成员国资格问题上,美国坚持重新武装德国并将德国纳入大西洋框架的设计之中,虽然法国坚决反对,但美国通过为西欧提供长久的军事保护的方法迫使法国放弃了先前的反对态度,使德国问题顺利解决,美国大西洋联盟的政治设计对于西欧的政治军事一体化建设的意义是不言而喻的。
同样,美国在联邦主义思想的影响下发展出了以联邦制治国的思想。在二战后美国也想将此思想应用到西欧的政治建设中,想将西欧建设成为联邦制的西欧。美国的联邦主义思想对于西欧走向联合的支持主要体现在美国对西欧各国基督教民主党上台执政的支持上。美国通过对基督教民主党的基本纲领的支持增强了西欧在基督教民主党领导下走向联合的意志和能力。
研究历史的学术价值在于帮助学者理解现实问题。当今东亚的一体化建设在探索了十多年后仍处于起步阶段。但是,这不能泯灭国内外学者对于研究东亚一体化的热情。许多国内外学者将东亚的一体化建设与西欧的一体化建设作对比研究,希望从中找出东亚进行一体化建设的途径。但是,很多论文或者文献是从已有的西欧一体化的结果出发研究,而忽视了西欧一体化建设的起步阶段。在一体化建设问题上可以说现在的亚洲正处于1945—1958年的欧洲时期。在进行欧洲和亚洲的一体化建设的起点研究时,我们发现两者最大的相似性在于同样受到美国的影响,这一点是任何研究东亚经济一体化的学者都不可忽视的。美国对东亚经济一体化的影响同样受制于上面我们分析到的国际体系、利益相关度和力量对比三大因素的制约,这三大因素是促使美国插手东亚事务的最为重要的原因。
但与西欧开启一体化时不同的是,美国在西欧一体化建设的开启之际起了积极的推动作用。但是,恰恰与美国在西欧的作用相反,在当今的东亚一体化建设在一超多强的单极霸权格局、高度的利益相关性和悬殊的力量对比三重因素的造就下,美国霸权对东亚经济一体化却起了消极的阻碍作用。一方面美国霸权利用东亚各国自身的不足,进一步分化东亚各国一体化建设的意愿和能力；另一方面由于美国与东亚之间的关系是非对称的相互依赖,美国采取了分化东亚的全球战略和地区战略,并企图主导东亚经济一体化的进程,所以说在美国的影响下东亚的经济一体化建设仍存在很多变数与困难。
Starting the integration of the countries in Western Europe in the late1950s is not only an event of symbolic significance, but also a major breakthrough in the research paradigm of the theories of international politics. Since then the relevant theories of European integration become academic research hotspots. However, traditional theories of European integration, such as federalism, functionalism, intergovernalism, have obvious shortcomings because they only focus on the impact the internal factors have on integration in the research method in Europe. Starting the integration in Western European countries was not fully decided by the European countries themselves, but it has inalienable relationship with the special times of Europe. In this sense, starting the integration in Western Europe must take the American factors into consideration. After the Second World War ended, the United States became the genuine hegemony, and the pattern of international relationships showed characteristics of polar opposites. The interests between the United States and its Western European allies were in a state of high correlations and there were great power disparities between them. So the integration in Western Europe was the result of the combined effects of these factors.
Based on this, this paper will focus on the starting point of the integration in Western Europe in1945-1958, primarily using the hegemony theories to analyze the integration in Western Europe. In the theories of international politics, hegemony refers to a state or government's leadership, authority or influences and the accompanying political dominance in the area. A hegemony country refers to a country that has super power and is in a dominant and leading position in the entire system. The relationship between hegemony and non-hegemony countries can be classified into three types, that is, balance of power strategy, bandwagon strategy and non-interventional strategy, each having its logical starting point. At the level of theory extension, the three kinds of strategies are subject to three aspects, that is, the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast between hegemony and non-hegemony countries. These three kinds of strategies have become theorized under the background of the above-mentioned three aspects which are the sources of all kinds of behaviors of hegemony and non-hegemony countries when they interact.
The relationship between hegemony countries and certain regions can also be classified into three types, that is, supporting strategy, opposing strategy and non-interventional strategy, each having its different logical starting point. At the level of theory extension, the three kinds of strategies are subject to three aspects, that is, the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast between hegemony countries and certain regions. These three kinds of strategies have become theorized under the background of the above-mentioned three aspects.
On the basis of such theoretical analysis, this paper has made two theory assumptions. One is that if there is no dominant recognized country in a certain region and this region is the key factor to achieving the core national interests of an outside hegemony country, then the hegemony country is bound to have a decisive impact on the region's development trends. The other is the relationships between hegemony countries, non-hegemony countries and certain regions are subject to the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast among them. The assumption of European integration can be analyzed and validated using the hegemony theories. The economy of Western Europe suffered seriously after the Second World War and economic reconstruction was an urgent task faced by Western Europe. It was the consensus view of the political leaders of the post-war Western European countries to use the method of "community" to realize the economic revival and the Western European countries had made many beneficial attempts after the Second World War. But it was only after the interference of the United States that Europe really started the integration. Considering the pattern of the international relationships, the interest correlation and the power contrast between the United States and Western European countries, the United States formulated the Marshall Plan on economics and put forward the principle of integration which was the basic principle for Western European countries to accept the aids. Against the Western European countries'passive resistance to the principle of integration, the United States forced Western European countries to act according to the principle of integration without compromise. It was the United States'persistence and insistence to the principle of integration that critically prompted Western Europe to start integration.
Considering the pattern of the international relationships, the interest correlation and the power contrast between the United States and Western European countries, the United States developed the Atlantic Alliance Strategy on politics. But establishing the Atlantic alliance was not going smoothly, especially concerning the qualifications of Italy and Germany as member states.
As to Italy's qualification as member state, the differences mainly existed inside the United States and it involved the nature of the alliance:to establish the Atlantic Alliance, the Mediterranean Alliance or both. Different understandings of the nature of the alliance directly influenced the development trends of European political and military integration. Finally, the United States decided to establish the Atlantic Alliance and agreed Italy's entry into the NATO which meant that the United States had acknowledged Italy's position in Western Europe. This had great significance for the political and economic integration in Western Europe. As to Germany's qualification as member state, the United States insisted on rearming Germany and bringing it into the Atlantic framework design. Although France was firmly opposed to this, the United States forced France to abandon its previous objections by adopting the method of providing long-term military protection for Western Europe and then smoothly solved this issue. The United States'political design of the Atlantic Alliance had great significance on the political and military integration in Western Europe.
Similarly, the United States had developed the ideology of rule by federalism under the influence of the ideas of federalism. The United States wanted to apply this ideology to the political construction in Western Europe after the Second World War and turn Western Europe into a federal one. The support of the United States'ideology of federalism on the integration of Western Europe was mainly reflected in the United States'support on the Christian Democratic Party in power in Western Europe countries. The fact that the United States was in support of the basic programme of the Christian Democratic Party strengthened the will and ability of Western Europe to move towards integration under the leadership of the Christian Democratic Party.
The academic value of history research is to help scholars understand the reality problems. Now the integration of East Asia is still at the initial stage after ten years' exploration, but this cannot cool the enthusiasm of the scholars at home and abroad for the study of integration of East Asia. Many domestic and foreign scholars have made a comparative study on the integration of East Asia and that of Western Europe, and hope to find the approach for Asia to carry out the integration. But many papers or literature studied only the existing results of the integration of Western Europe and ignored its starting stage. On the issue of integration, Asia is now at a stage where Europe was during1945to1958. To study the starting point of the integration of East Asia and the integration of Western Europe, we find that the great similarity between them is that they were both influenced by the United States, which cannot be overlooked by any scholars who study the integration of East Asian economy. The influences of the United States on the integration of East Asian economy are equally subject to the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast which are the main causes of the United States'meddling in East Asian affairs.
Contrary to the fact that the United States had played a positive improving role in the starting stage of the integration of Western Europe, the United States has now played a negative impeding role in the integration of East Asian economy under the influences of the unipolar hegemony pattern, the deep interest correlation and the great disparity in power. On the one hand, the American hegemony further disintegrates the will and ability of East Asian countries to carry out the integration making use of their own shortcomings. On the other hand, because of the asymmetrical interdependence relationship between the United States and East Asia, the United States has adopted the global strategy and regional strategy to split up East Asia and then lead the integration process of East Asian economy. So the integration of East Asian economy will still meet with many variables and difficulties under the influences of the United States.
基于此,本论文将研究焦点定位于1945—1958年西欧启动一体化建设的起点上主要运用霸权的有关理论分析西欧启动一体化。在国际政治理论中霸权是指一个国家或政府所具备的领导、权威或影响并且由此形成的在一个时空范围内的政治支配地位。而霸权国就是指具有超群实力并对整个体系或其他国家处于支配和领导地位的国家。霸权与非霸权国关系类型可以分为制衡战略、追随战略和不介入战略,每一种关系类型都有其逻辑起点。三种战略在理论上的延展受制于三种关系的制约：国际体系结构、霸权国与非霸权国的利益相关度和霸权国与非霸权国的力量对比。三种战略也是在这三种关系的背景下理论化的,而这三类因素是霸权国与非霸权国互动时呈现出的各种行为的根源。
霸权国与特定地区的关系类型也主要分为支持战略、反对战略和不介入战略三种形式。不同的战略同样有不同的逻辑起点。不同战略在理论上的延展也受制于三种关系的制约：国际体系结构、霸权国与特定地区的利益相关度和霸权国与特定地区的力量对比。支持战略、反对战略和不介入战略战略也是在这三种关系的背景下理论化的。
在此理论分析的基础上,本论文假定如果某一特定的地区内缺乏公认的起主导作用的国家且该地区是实现域外霸权国核心国家利益的关键,那么域外霸权国必然会对该地区的发展趋势产生决定性的影响；第二,霸权国与非霸权国和特定地区的行为关系受制于当时的国际体系、它们之间的利益相关度和力量对比关系的制约。西欧启动一体化建设可以用霸权的相关理论进行分析并且验证这一假定。二战后西欧经济遭受严重创伤,西欧面临着经济重建的迫切任务,用“共同体”的方法实现西欧的经济复兴是战后西欧各国政治领导人的共识,并且二战后西欧各国已经进行了很多有益的尝试。但是,西欧真正启动一体化建设却是在美国介入之后开始的。出于对当时国际关系格局、美国与西欧各国利益相关度和两者力量对比的思考,美国在经济上制定了马歇尔计划,并且提出了西欧各国接受援助的基本原则即一体化原则。面对西欧国家对一体化原则阳奉阴违的态度,美国的立场毫不妥协,迫使西欧国家按一体化原则行事。美国对一体化原则的执著和坚持是西欧启动经济一体化的关键。
出于对当时国际关系格局、美国与西欧各国利益相关度和两者力量对比的思考,美国从政治上制定了大西洋联盟的战略。但是建立大西洋联盟也不是一帆风顺的。这突出地表现在意大利的成员国资格和德国的成员国资格问题上。在意大利的成员国资格上分歧主要是美国内部,涉及到成立的联盟的性质问题：是建立大西洋联盟还是地中海联盟还是两个联盟同时建立,对于联盟性质的不同理解直接影响到西欧政治军事一体化的发展走向,最后美国决定建立大西洋联盟并同意意大利加入北约,这实际上承认了意大利在西欧的地位问题,对于后来西欧的政治经济一体化建设具有重要的意义；在德国的成员国资格问题上,美国坚持重新武装德国并将德国纳入大西洋框架的设计之中,虽然法国坚决反对,但美国通过为西欧提供长久的军事保护的方法迫使法国放弃了先前的反对态度,使德国问题顺利解决,美国大西洋联盟的政治设计对于西欧的政治军事一体化建设的意义是不言而喻的。
同样,美国在联邦主义思想的影响下发展出了以联邦制治国的思想。在二战后美国也想将此思想应用到西欧的政治建设中,想将西欧建设成为联邦制的西欧。美国的联邦主义思想对于西欧走向联合的支持主要体现在美国对西欧各国基督教民主党上台执政的支持上。美国通过对基督教民主党的基本纲领的支持增强了西欧在基督教民主党领导下走向联合的意志和能力。
研究历史的学术价值在于帮助学者理解现实问题。当今东亚的一体化建设在探索了十多年后仍处于起步阶段。但是,这不能泯灭国内外学者对于研究东亚一体化的热情。许多国内外学者将东亚的一体化建设与西欧的一体化建设作对比研究,希望从中找出东亚进行一体化建设的途径。但是,很多论文或者文献是从已有的西欧一体化的结果出发研究,而忽视了西欧一体化建设的起步阶段。在一体化建设问题上可以说现在的亚洲正处于1945—1958年的欧洲时期。在进行欧洲和亚洲的一体化建设的起点研究时,我们发现两者最大的相似性在于同样受到美国的影响,这一点是任何研究东亚经济一体化的学者都不可忽视的。美国对东亚经济一体化的影响同样受制于上面我们分析到的国际体系、利益相关度和力量对比三大因素的制约,这三大因素是促使美国插手东亚事务的最为重要的原因。
但与西欧开启一体化时不同的是,美国在西欧一体化建设的开启之际起了积极的推动作用。但是,恰恰与美国在西欧的作用相反,在当今的东亚一体化建设在一超多强的单极霸权格局、高度的利益相关性和悬殊的力量对比三重因素的造就下,美国霸权对东亚经济一体化却起了消极的阻碍作用。一方面美国霸权利用东亚各国自身的不足,进一步分化东亚各国一体化建设的意愿和能力；另一方面由于美国与东亚之间的关系是非对称的相互依赖,美国采取了分化东亚的全球战略和地区战略,并企图主导东亚经济一体化的进程,所以说在美国的影响下东亚的经济一体化建设仍存在很多变数与困难。
Starting the integration of the countries in Western Europe in the late1950s is not only an event of symbolic significance, but also a major breakthrough in the research paradigm of the theories of international politics. Since then the relevant theories of European integration become academic research hotspots. However, traditional theories of European integration, such as federalism, functionalism, intergovernalism, have obvious shortcomings because they only focus on the impact the internal factors have on integration in the research method in Europe. Starting the integration in Western European countries was not fully decided by the European countries themselves, but it has inalienable relationship with the special times of Europe. In this sense, starting the integration in Western Europe must take the American factors into consideration. After the Second World War ended, the United States became the genuine hegemony, and the pattern of international relationships showed characteristics of polar opposites. The interests between the United States and its Western European allies were in a state of high correlations and there were great power disparities between them. So the integration in Western Europe was the result of the combined effects of these factors.
Based on this, this paper will focus on the starting point of the integration in Western Europe in1945-1958, primarily using the hegemony theories to analyze the integration in Western Europe. In the theories of international politics, hegemony refers to a state or government's leadership, authority or influences and the accompanying political dominance in the area. A hegemony country refers to a country that has super power and is in a dominant and leading position in the entire system. The relationship between hegemony and non-hegemony countries can be classified into three types, that is, balance of power strategy, bandwagon strategy and non-interventional strategy, each having its logical starting point. At the level of theory extension, the three kinds of strategies are subject to three aspects, that is, the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast between hegemony and non-hegemony countries. These three kinds of strategies have become theorized under the background of the above-mentioned three aspects which are the sources of all kinds of behaviors of hegemony and non-hegemony countries when they interact.
The relationship between hegemony countries and certain regions can also be classified into three types, that is, supporting strategy, opposing strategy and non-interventional strategy, each having its different logical starting point. At the level of theory extension, the three kinds of strategies are subject to three aspects, that is, the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast between hegemony countries and certain regions. These three kinds of strategies have become theorized under the background of the above-mentioned three aspects.
On the basis of such theoretical analysis, this paper has made two theory assumptions. One is that if there is no dominant recognized country in a certain region and this region is the key factor to achieving the core national interests of an outside hegemony country, then the hegemony country is bound to have a decisive impact on the region's development trends. The other is the relationships between hegemony countries, non-hegemony countries and certain regions are subject to the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast among them. The assumption of European integration can be analyzed and validated using the hegemony theories. The economy of Western Europe suffered seriously after the Second World War and economic reconstruction was an urgent task faced by Western Europe. It was the consensus view of the political leaders of the post-war Western European countries to use the method of "community" to realize the economic revival and the Western European countries had made many beneficial attempts after the Second World War. But it was only after the interference of the United States that Europe really started the integration. Considering the pattern of the international relationships, the interest correlation and the power contrast between the United States and Western European countries, the United States formulated the Marshall Plan on economics and put forward the principle of integration which was the basic principle for Western European countries to accept the aids. Against the Western European countries'passive resistance to the principle of integration, the United States forced Western European countries to act according to the principle of integration without compromise. It was the United States'persistence and insistence to the principle of integration that critically prompted Western Europe to start integration.
Considering the pattern of the international relationships, the interest correlation and the power contrast between the United States and Western European countries, the United States developed the Atlantic Alliance Strategy on politics. But establishing the Atlantic alliance was not going smoothly, especially concerning the qualifications of Italy and Germany as member states.
As to Italy's qualification as member state, the differences mainly existed inside the United States and it involved the nature of the alliance:to establish the Atlantic Alliance, the Mediterranean Alliance or both. Different understandings of the nature of the alliance directly influenced the development trends of European political and military integration. Finally, the United States decided to establish the Atlantic Alliance and agreed Italy's entry into the NATO which meant that the United States had acknowledged Italy's position in Western Europe. This had great significance for the political and economic integration in Western Europe. As to Germany's qualification as member state, the United States insisted on rearming Germany and bringing it into the Atlantic framework design. Although France was firmly opposed to this, the United States forced France to abandon its previous objections by adopting the method of providing long-term military protection for Western Europe and then smoothly solved this issue. The United States'political design of the Atlantic Alliance had great significance on the political and military integration in Western Europe.
Similarly, the United States had developed the ideology of rule by federalism under the influence of the ideas of federalism. The United States wanted to apply this ideology to the political construction in Western Europe after the Second World War and turn Western Europe into a federal one. The support of the United States'ideology of federalism on the integration of Western Europe was mainly reflected in the United States'support on the Christian Democratic Party in power in Western Europe countries. The fact that the United States was in support of the basic programme of the Christian Democratic Party strengthened the will and ability of Western Europe to move towards integration under the leadership of the Christian Democratic Party.
The academic value of history research is to help scholars understand the reality problems. Now the integration of East Asia is still at the initial stage after ten years' exploration, but this cannot cool the enthusiasm of the scholars at home and abroad for the study of integration of East Asia. Many domestic and foreign scholars have made a comparative study on the integration of East Asia and that of Western Europe, and hope to find the approach for Asia to carry out the integration. But many papers or literature studied only the existing results of the integration of Western Europe and ignored its starting stage. On the issue of integration, Asia is now at a stage where Europe was during1945to1958. To study the starting point of the integration of East Asia and the integration of Western Europe, we find that the great similarity between them is that they were both influenced by the United States, which cannot be overlooked by any scholars who study the integration of East Asian economy. The influences of the United States on the integration of East Asian economy are equally subject to the international system, the interest correlation and the power contrast which are the main causes of the United States'meddling in East Asian affairs.
Contrary to the fact that the United States had played a positive improving role in the starting stage of the integration of Western Europe, the United States has now played a negative impeding role in the integration of East Asian economy under the influences of the unipolar hegemony pattern, the deep interest correlation and the great disparity in power. On the one hand, the American hegemony further disintegrates the will and ability of East Asian countries to carry out the integration making use of their own shortcomings. On the other hand, because of the asymmetrical interdependence relationship between the United States and East Asia, the United States has adopted the global strategy and regional strategy to split up East Asia and then lead the integration process of East Asian economy. So the integration of East Asian economy will still meet with many variables and difficulties under the influences of the United States.
引文
①陈乐民：《战后西欧国际关系史》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1987年。
②洪邮生：《英国对西欧一体化政策的起源和演变》,南京：南京大学出版社,2001年。
③严双伍：《第二次世界大战与欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004年。
④胡瑾、郇庆治、宋全成：《欧洲早期一体化思想与实践研究》,山东：山东大民出版社,2002年。
⑤门洪华：《霸权之翼——美国国际制度战略》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
⑥叶江：《解读美欧—欧洲一体化进程中的美欧关系》,上海：上海三联出版社,1999年。
①王正毅、张岩贵：《国际政治经济学——理论范式与现实经验研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2003年。
②朱文莉：《国际政治经济学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2004年。
③朱立群：《欧洲地区安全机制的百年演变》,载《外交学院报》,1999年,第1期。
④吴弦：《欧洲经济一体化产生的历史渊源和条件》,载《欧洲》,1997年,第2期。
①赵怀普：《美国缘何支持欧洲一体化》,载《世界历史》,1999年,第2期。
②张福财：《试论战后美欧关系发展演变及欧洲联合一体化问题》,载《北方论从》,2002年,第1期。
①吴金平、陈奕平：《美国与东亚合作》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年；朱立群、王帆：《东亚地区合作与中美关系》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年。
②王辑思、倪峰、余万里：《美国在东亚的作用：观点、政策及影响》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
③何志工、安小平：《东北亚区域合作通向东亚共同体之路》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
④黄大慧：《变化中的东亚与芙国——东亚的崛起及其秩序建构》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
⑤刘学成：《东亚共同体构想与美国的东亚战略》,载《亚非纵横》,2009年,第6期。
⑥李东屹：《东亚区域化如何处理与美国的关系》,载《外交评论》,2010年,第2期。
⑦林利民：《美国与东亚一体化的关系析论》,载《现代国际关系》,2007年,第11期。
⑧吴心伯：《美国与东亚一体化》,载《国际问题研究》,2007年,第5期。
⑨秦亚青：《东亚共同体建设进程和美国的作用》,载《外交评论》,2005年,第6期。
①刘昌明：《双边同盟体系制约下的东亚地区主义：困境与趋向》,栽《当代世界社会主义问题》,2011年,第1期。
②杨鲁慧：《东亚合作进程中的中国软实力战略》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第2期。
③Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System Ⅱ:Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy 1600-1750, New York:Academic Press,1980.
④(美)罗们特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学：解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光,杨炯译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年。
⑤(美)罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后：世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,(苏长和译),上海：上海人民出版社,2006年。
① Jeffry A. Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, Pekimg:Pekimg University Press,2003.
② Wilber W. Caldwell, American Narcissism:The Myth of National Superiority, New York:Algora Publishing,200 6.
③ Christopher Layne and Bradley A. Thayer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2006.
④Phillip Margulies, America's Role in the World, New York:Infobase Publishing,2009.
⑤ Marc Trachtenberg, Between Empire and Alliance:America and Europe during the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
①Mark Gilbert,Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945,Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,2009.
② Geir Lundestad,The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation to Transatlantic Drift,New York:Oxford Press,2005.
③Jean-Christophe Agnew and Roy Rosenzweig,A Companion to post-1945 America,Malden:Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.,2002.
④M.J.Hogan,The Marshall Plan:America,Britain and the Reconstructing of.Western Europ 1947-1952,Cambrla ge:Cambridge Press,1987.
⑤Mcobarl J.Hogan,Marshall Plan and West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europea Recove ry Program,New York:Cambridge University Press,1991.
①A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen.Milward,1984.
② Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007.
①Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000. London and New York: Routledge,2000.; Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998.
② Alan Milward, The Reconstruction of Europe, London and New York:Routledge,1992.
①The Asia Foundation, America's Role in Asian:Asian and American Views Recommendations for U.S. Policy fro m both Sides of the Pacific, California:The Asia Foundation,2008.
②(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年。
③ Charles A. Kupchan, "After Pax Americana:Benign Power:Regional Integration and the Sourse of Stable Multi-polarity", International Security, Vol.23, No.2,1998, pp.40-79.
④ Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, pp.80-84.
⑤ Claude Baifield, "The United States, China and the Rise of Asian Regionalism", American Enterprise Institute, P aper Delivered at the Western Economics Association Annual Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, June 29,200 4.
① Jeffry A.Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, P eking:Peking University,2003, pp.133-134.
①王学玉：《通过一体化实现安全共同体》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年第5期,第18页。
①牛津高阶英汉双解词典,商务印书馆,2009年,第7版,第952页。
②Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, New York:Dorset&Baber,1979, p.841.
① Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929-1939, London:The Penguin Press,1973, p.305.
②(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《国际关系政治经济学》,(杨宇光译),北京：经济科学出版社,1992年,第93-94页；(美)罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,(苏长和等译),上海：上海世纪出版社,2006年,第31页。
③Immanuel M Wallerstein, The Modern World-System Ⅱ:Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European Worl d-Economy 1600-1750, New York:Academic Press,1980, p.38.
④ Immanuel M Wallerstein, The Politics of the World-Economy:The States, the Movements and the Civilizations, N ew York:Cambridge University Press,1984, p.41.
⑤ Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S Ney, Power and Interdependence:World Politics in Transition, Boston:Little Brown,1977, p.44.
①王辑思：《美国霸权的逻辑》,载《美国研究》,2003年第3期。
②王逸舟：《霸权、秩序、规则》,载《美国研究》,1995年,第2期,第46页。
③桊亚青：《霸权体系与国际冲突：美国在国际武装冲突中的支持行为》,上海：上海人民出版社,1999年,第22页。
④Jeffry A.Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, Peking:Peking University,2003, pp.133-134.
① T. V. Paul et al. Balance of Power:Theory and Practice in the 2 1 s t Century, California:Stanford Press,2004, p.4.
②(美)华尔斯·沃尔兹：《国际政治理论》,(信强译),北京：北京大学出版社,2002年,第126-127页。
① T. V. Paul et al., Balance of Power:Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, California:Stanford Press,200 4, p.8.
② Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929-1939, London:The Penguin Press,1973, p.305.
③ Andreas Hasenclever et al., Theories of International Regimes, London:Cambridge University Press,1997, p.86.
④ Stephen D.Krasner, "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences:Regimes as Intervening Variables", Internationa l Organization, Vol.36, No.2,1982, p.186.
⑤ Robert Cox, "Social Forces, State and World Order:Beyond International Relations Theory", in Keohane ed., Ne orealism and Its Critic, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, pp.217-248.
① A.F.K.Organcik, World Politics, New York:Knopf,1968, p.295.
② Robert Gilpin, Globle Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001, p.93-95; Joseph Joffee, "Eu rope's American Pacifer", Foreign Policy, Vol.14, No.1,1984, pp.64-82. For a discussion of different versions of th e theory and their criticisms, see Duncan Snidal,"The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory", International Organiz ation, Vol.39, No.2,1985, pp.579-614.
①王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第17页。
① Barry Buzan and Ole Woever, Region and Power:the Structure of International Security, New York:Cambridge niversity Press,2003, p.55.
②转引自(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社社,2007年,第10页。原文出自"What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Soci al Constructivist Challenge." In Peter J.Katzenstein, Robert O.Keohane, and Stephen D.Kransner, eds., Exploration a nd Contestation in the Study of World Politics, Cambridge:MIT Press,1999, pp.215-45.
③ Michelle Pace, The Politics of Regional Identity:Meddiling with the Mediteranean, London and New York:Routl edge,2006, p.1
①王学玉：《通过一体化实现安全共同体》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年,第5期,第18页。
①(瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年,第1期,第66页。
③王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第18页。
①(瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年,第1期,第69页。
②王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第18页。
1(英)赫德利·布尔：《无政府社会》,(张小明译),北京：世界知识出版社,2003年,第165页。
①秦亚青：《权势霸权、制度霸权与美国的地位》,载《现代国际关系》,2004年,第3期,第6页。
① Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.6.
②彼得·卡赞斯坦在《地区构成的世界：美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》一书中运用的是“帝权”的概念,但是从作者对这一概念的描述中可以看出作者对帝权的界定与本论文对霸权的界定足一致的。因此,可以将作者的帝权理解为霸权。(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界：美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年,第4页。
③(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年,第5-6页。
①Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.16.
①(美)约翰·鲁杰主编：《多边主义》,(苏长和等译),浙江：浙江人民出版社,2003年,第12页。
②储昭根：《单边主义足美国外交的一种传统》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第1期,第76页。
③转引自潘振强,吕有生：《对美国国家安全战略的思考》,载《美国问题研究》,2008年,第1期,第5页。原文出自《美国国家防御战略》,2005年3月,第4页。The U.S. National Defence Strategy, March 2005, p.4.
①(美)约翰·伊肯伯里：《大战胜利之后》,(门洪华译),北京：北京大学出版社,2008年,第150页。
①Richard Mayne, The Recory of Europe, New York:Harper&Row,1970, pp.9-37.
① Alan Milward, The Reconstruction of Europe, London and New York:Routledge,1992, pp.28-29.
① Klaus Larres, A Companion to Europe since 1945, West Sussex:A John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.,2009, p.97
② Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefiel d Publishers, Inc.,2009, p.17.
①资料来源于U.S. Government Printing Office Washington:1947, The Development of the Foreign Reconstruction Policy of the United States, pp.2-3.
①FRUS,1948, Vol.IV, p.222. FRUS的全称为Foreign Relations of the Unitied States,是美国对外关系文件。
① Mcobarl J.Hogan, Marshall Plan and Germany West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europe a Recovery Program, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.117.
① FRUS,1948, Vol.VIII, p.224.
②资料来源于Office Memorandum the United States Government May 20,1947, p.6.
①FRUS,1947, Vol.VIII, p.224.
①John Agnew and J. Nicholas Entrikin, The Marshall Plan:Today Model and Metaphor, London and New York: Routledge,2004, p.222.
② Ibid., p.223.
① FRUS,1947, Vol.Ⅷ, p.232.
②资料来源于国务卿马歇尔1947年6月15日在哈佛大学的演讲,题目为《欧洲发挥主动性对经济复兴是必要的》The Essential Initiative to The Economic Recovery.
① FRUS,1947, Vol. Ⅷ, p.236.
② B. Whelan, Ireland and the Marshall Plan, Dublin:Four Courts Press,2000, p.362.
① FRUS,1947,Vol.Ⅷ, pp.268-293.
② David Gowl et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945 on the Sidelines, London and New York:Routle dge,2009, p.20.
①David Gowl et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945 on the Sidelines, London and New York:Routle dge,2009, p.24.
② Irvin M. Wall, The United States and the Making of Postwar France 1945-54, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.76.
①Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.11.
① M.J.Hogan, The Marshall Plan:America, Britain and the Reconstructing of Western Europe 1947-1952, New Yor k:Cambridge Press,1987, p.23.
② A.Escobar, Encountering Development:The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton:Princeton Univ ersity Press,1995, p.3
③ A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen. Mil ward,1984, pp.235-250.
①资料来源于Foreign Office Memorandum,by Bevin, January 12,1948.
②资料来源于Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series Ⅱ, No.52, London:HMSO.NA., May 8,1950.
①http://www.weu.int/History.htm。
② Arie Bloed and Ramses A.Wessel, The Changing Functions of the Western Union:Introduction and Basic Docum ents, Martinus:Nijhoff Publisher,1994, pp.XV-XVI.
①Michael Sutton, France and the Construction of Europe:The Geopolital Imperative 1945-2007, New York:Bergh abnbooks,2001, p.66.
②Ibid., p.66.
① Martin J. Dedman, The Origin and Development of the European Union:The History of the European Integratio n, London andNew York:Routledge,2010, p.71.
① Alan.P.Dobson and Steve Marsh, U.S. Foreign since 1945, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.23.
②周建明,王成至：《美国国家安全战略解密文献选编1945—1972》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年,第3-4页。
③同上,第15页。
①同上,第18页。
② Jan S. Prybyla, The American Way of Peace, Columbia and London:University of Missouri Press,2005, p.33.
③ Allan M.Winkler, The Cold War:A History in Documents, New York:Oxford University Press,2005, p.38.
④ Ibid., p.39.
①Robert A. Divine, Eisenhower and the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,1981, p.106.
①Anton W Deporle, Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance, London:Yale University Press,1986, p.3.
①Anton W Deporle, Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance, London:Yale University Press,19 86, p.3.
② Walter La Feber, A merica, Russian and the Cold War 1945-92, New York:McGrawHill,1993, p.13.
① Robert Endicott Osgood, NATD:The Entangling Alliance, Chicgo:University of Chicago Press,1962, p.34.
② John Baylis, The Deplomacy of Pragmatism:Britain and the Formation of NATO 1942-49, London:Macmillan, 1993, p.127.
①资料来源于Shape在1952年3月向国务院所作关于北约的报告,Rebort on Shape, Mar 16,1952.
① FRUS,1948,Vol.Ⅲ, p.225.
② FRUS,1948,Vol.Ⅲ, p.285.
③ Smith E Timothy, The United States, Italy and NATO 1947-52, Hampshire:Macmillan Academic and Professional, Ltd.,1965, p.66.
④ Ibid., p.81.
①Reid and Escort, Time of Fear and Hope:The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty 1947-49, Toronto:McClellan d&Stewart,1977, pp.206-208.
①FRUS,1949,Vol.Ⅳ,p.282.
① Andreas Wenger et al., Transforming NATO in the Cold War:Challenge beyond the Deterrence in the 1960, Lon don and New York:Routledge,2006, p.17.
①资料来源于Meeting of the general Eisenhower with the president and the cabinet.Wednesday January 31,1951.
(奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年,第8页。
① Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.13.
② Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998, p.60.
③(奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年,第58页。
④ H.S.Reiss, Kant Political Writings,康德政治著作选,剑桥政治思想史原著系列(影印本),北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003,p.118.
①(美)基辛格：《大外交》,(金灿荣译),海南：海南出版社,1998年,第38页。
②同上,第39页。
③Heikki Mikkli, Europe as an Idea and an Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998, p.21.
①Colin Ward, Anarchism:A Very Short Introduction, New York:Oxford University Press,2004, p.2.
②(意)萨尔沃·马斯泰罗内：《欧洲民主史：从孟德斯鸠到凯尔森》,(黄华光译),北京：社会科学文献出版社,1990年,第109页。
③Robert D.Schulzinger, U.S. Diplomacy since 1900, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.108.
①转引自Jean Monnet, Memoirs.原文出自Michael Burgess,Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York:Routledge,2000, p.33.
② Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.34.
①李魏、王学玉：《欧洲一体化理论’与文献选读》,山东：山东大学出版社,2001,第22-23页。
② Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.33.
③ Ibid., p.45.
① Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefiel d Publishers, Inc.,2009, p.30.
①(美)基辛格：《大外交》,(金灿荣译),海南：海南出版社,1998年,第43页。
① J.F.V.Keiger. France and the World since 1870, Arnold:Hodder Headline Group,2001, p.121.
② Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.12.
③ Duncan Watts, The Europe Union, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2008, p.6.
④ David F.Patton, Cold War Politics in Postwar Germany, New York:St.Martin's Press,2001, p.19.
①Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007, pp.164-165.
①Michael Burgess, Comparative Federalism:Theory and Practice, London and New York:Routledge,2006, p.42.
②Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.15.
① William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy:The Soul of Containment, New York:Cambridge Univ ersity Press,2008, p.107.
②Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007, pp.164-165.
① Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New York:Routle dge,2003, p.4.
② Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New York:Routle dge,2003, p.16.
① http://baike.baidu.com/view/1155578.htm.
② S.Hoffmann, "Reflections on the nation-state in Western Europe today", in S.Hoffrnann(ed.) The European siyphus: Essays on Europe,1964-1994, Oxford:Westview Press,1995, p.223. Reprinted from the Journal of Common Marke t Studies,21(1-2), September/December,1982. pp.21-37.
①陈乐民：《战后西欧国际关系》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1987年,第156页。
② W. Diebold Jr., The Schuman Plan:A slowly in Economic Cooperatiom 1950-1959, New York:F.A.Praeger,1959, p.664.
① http://milex.data.sipri.org/result.php4.
② Robert Keohane, After Hegemony:Corporation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1984, p.65.
③ Joseph S Ney, Power in a Global Age:From Realism to Globalizatio, New York:Routledge,2004. p.90.
①江涌：《论美国的新金融霸权与经济繁荣》,载《经济评论》,2003年,第3期,第107-110页。
①(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学——解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光等译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年,第218页。
①(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学——解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光等译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年,第21页。
①资料来源于Masahisa Fujita et al., Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatialand Neoclassical Economics, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008. pp.24-25.
①资料来源于Masahisa Fujita et al., Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatialand Neoclassical Economics, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008. p.26.
② Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, p.80.
③ Ibid., p.82.
④ Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, p.84.
①(美)莱斯特·瑟罗：《资本主义的未来》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998年,第121页。
① Sorayod Kumbunlue, Economic Development and Integration in Southeast Asia Economic Convergen:Distribution and Integration, Mannheim:Mannheim Press,2005, p.136.
② The most important NGO is the ASEAN Chamber of Commerce (ASEAN CCI) established in 1972. The ASEA N CCI serves as a cooperation-link between the Government and the private sectors. It furthermore, has brought ab out efcient and effectiveness in the economic cooperation between both bodies.
③Sin and Du-Chel, ASEAN und die EU:Eine Vergleichen de Analyse der Rregionalen Integrations prozesse, Frank ffurt am Main:Bruxelles,2000, pp.238-239.
①(美)安德鲁·克劳莫奇克：《东亚一体化有什么特殊之处》,(师小芹译),载《国际政治研究》,2011年,第1期,第4页。
② Etzioni and Amitai, Political Unification:A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces, New York:Holt, Rinehart &Winsto,1965, p.131.
①Masahisa Fujita, Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatial and Neoclassical Economics, Mass achusetts:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008, pp.107-108.
② http://www.Defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/qdr2001.pdf, p.10.
① Colin Powell, Roundtable with Japanese Journalists, Washington, D. C., August 12,2004, http://www.state.gov/se cretary/former/powell/remarks/35204.htm.
② http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0803/ijpe/pj81 zoellick.htm.
① Geri Lundestad, The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation toTransatlantic Drift, New York:Oxford Press,2005.
[1]门洪华：《霸权之翼——美国国际制度战略》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
[2]王正毅、张岩贵：《国际政治经济学——理论范式与现实经验研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2003年。
[3]王学玉：《地区政治与国际关系研究》,载《世界经济与政治》,2010年,第4期。
[4]王学玉：《论地区主义及其对国际关系的影响》,载《现代国际关系》,2002年,第8期。
[5]王学玉：《国际关系研究的地区主义视角》,载《当代世界社会主义问题》,2004年,第3期。
[6]王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析的框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期
[7]王学玉：《实现国家安全：地区安全建设的视角——以欧洲为例的分析》,载《外交评论》,2007年,第6期。
[8]王学玉：《通过地区一体化实现安全共同体：一个分析的框架》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年,第5期。
[9]王学玉：《新地区主义：在国家与全球化之间架起桥梁》,载《世界经济与政治》,2004年,第1期。
[10]王缉思、倪峰、余万里：《美国在东亚的作用：观点、政策及影响》,北京：时事出版社,2006年。
[11]王缉思：《国际政治的理性思考》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年。
[12]韦宗友：《霸权阴影下的战略选择》,载《国际政治科学》,2005年,第4期。
[13]叶江：《解读美欧—欧洲一体化进程中的美欧关系》,上海：上海三联出版社,1999年。
[14](奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年。
[15]刘学成：《东亚共同体构想与美国的东亚战略》,载《亚非纵横》,2009年,第6期。
[16]刘昌明、郭或：《美国的不完全霸权与东亚地区秩序的转型》,载《东北亚论坛》, 2008年,第3期。
[17]刘昌明：《双边同盟体系制约下的东亚地区主义：困境与趋向》,载《当代世界社会主义问题》,2011年,第1期。
[18](美)安德鲁·克劳莫奇克：《东亚一体化有什么特殊之处》,(师小芹译),载《国际政治研究》,2011年,第1期。
[19]朱文莉：《国际政治经济学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2004年。
[20]朱立群、王帆：《东亚地区合作与中美关系》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年。
[21]朱立群：《欧洲一体化理论：研究问题、路径与特点》,载《国际政治研究》,2008年,第4期。
[22]朱立群：《欧洲地区安全机制的百年演变》,载《外交学院报》,1999年,第1期。
[23]江涌：《论美国的新金融霸权与经济繁荣》,载《经济评论》,2003年,第3期,
[24](美)约翰·鲁杰主编：《多边主义》,(苏长和等译),浙江：浙江人民出版社,2003年。
[25](美)约翰·伊肯伯里：《大战胜利之后》,(门洪华译),北京：北京大学出版社,2008年。
[26]严双伍：《第二次世界大战与欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004年。
[27](美)亨利·基辛格：《大外交》,(顾淑馨、林添贵译),海南：海南出版社,2012年
[28]何志工、安小平：《东北亚区域合作通向东亚共同体之路》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
[29]吴心伯：《美国与东亚一体化》,载《国际问题研究》,2007年,第5期。
[30]吴弦：《欧洲经济一体化产生的历史渊源和条件》,载《欧洲》,1997年,第2期。
[31]吴金平、陈奕平：《美国与东亚合作》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年;
[32]张福财：《试论战后美欧关系发展演变及欧洲联合一体化问题》,载《北方论丛》,2002年,第1期。
[33]李东屹：《东亚区域化如何处理与美国的关系》,载《外交评论》,2010年,第2期。
[34]李魏、王学玉：《欧洲一体化理论与文献选读》,山东：山东大学出版社,2001年。
[35]杨鲁慧等：《亚太发展研究》,第五卷,山东：山东大学出版社,2010年。
[36]杨鲁慧等：《亚太发展研究》,第四卷,山东：山东大学出版社,2006年。
[37]杨鲁慧、杨光：《当代东亚政治》,山东：山东大学出版社,2010年。
[38]杨鲁慧：《东亚合作进程中的中国软实力战略》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第2期。
[39]陈乐民：《战后西欧国际关系》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1987年。
[40]周弘：《民族建设、国家转型与欧洲一体化》,载《欧洲研究》,2007年,第5期。
[41]周建明、王成至：《美国国家安全战略解密文献选编(195—1972)》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
[42](美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年。
[43]林利民：《美国与东亚一体化的关系析论》,载《现代国际关系》,2007年,第11期。
[44]洪邮生：《英国对西欧一体化政策的起源和演变》,南京：南京大学出版社,2001年。
[45]胡谨、郇庆治：《欧洲早期一体化思想与实践研究(1945—1967)》,山东：山东大学出版社,2000年。
[46]赵怀普：《美国缘何支持欧洲一体化》,载《世界历史》,1999年,第2期。
[47]秦亚青：《东亚共同体建设进程和美国的作用》,载《外交评论》,2005年,第6期。
[48](意)萨尔沃·马斯泰罗内：《欧洲民主史：从孟德斯鸠到凯尔森》,(黄华光译),北京：社会科学文献出版社,1990年。
[49]黄大慧：《变化中的东亚与美国——东亚的崛起及其秩序建构》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
[50]储昭根：《单边主义是美国外交的一种传统》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第1期
[51](瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年。
[52]潘振强、吕有生：《对美国国家安全战略的思考》,载《美国问题研究》,2008年。
[1]A. Escobar, Encountering Development:The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1995.
[2]A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen. Milward,1984.
[3]A.F.K.Organcik,World Politics,New York:Knopf,1968.
[4]Alan Milward,The Reconstruction of Europe,London and New York:Routledge,1992.
[5]Alan P.Dobson and Steve Marsh,U.S. Foreign Fdicy since 1945,London and New York: Routledge,2007.
[6]Allan M.Winkler, The Cold War:A History in Documents,New York:Oxford University Press,2005.
[7]Anderson and Malcolm,States and Nationalism in Europe since 1945:Making of the Contemporary World,London and New York:Routledge,2000.
[8]Andreas Wenger et al.,Transforming NATO in the Cold War:Challenge beyond the Deterrence in the 1960s,London and New York:Routledge,2006.
[9]Anton W Deporle,Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance,London: Yale University Press,1986.
[10]Arie Bloed and Ramses A.Wessel,The Changing Functions of the Western Union: Introduction and Basic Documents,Martinus:Nijhoff Publisher,1994.
[11]Asle Toje,America,the EU and Strategic Culture Renegotiatin:The Transatlantic Bargain,London and New York:Routledge,2008.
[12]Barry Buzan and Ole Woever,Region and Power:The Structure of International Security,New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[13]Bela Balas,The Theory of Economic Integration,London:Allenand Unwin Press,1961.
[14]Ben Rosamond,Theories of European Integration ,New York:Oxford University Press, 2000.
[15]Bruce L.Brager,The Iron Curtain The Cold War in Europe,Chicago:Chelsea House Publishers,2004.
[16]Chris Brown,Political Restructuring in Europe:Ethical Perspectives,London and New York:Routledge,1994.
[17]Christopher B.Whitney and David Shambaugh,Soft Power in Asia:Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion,Chicago:The Council on Global Affairs,2008.
[18]Christopher Harvie,The Rise of Regional Europe,London and New York:Routledge, 2005.
[19]Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer,American Empire,London and New York: Routledge,2007.
[20]Colin Ward,Anarchism:A Very Short Introduction,New York:Oxford University Press, 2004.
[21]Dan Diner and Madison,Cataclysms:A History of the Twentieth Century from Europe's Edge, Madison:Wisconsis University Press,2008.
[22]David F. Patton, Cold War Politics in Postwar Germany, New York:St. Martin's Press, 2001.
[23]David Gowland et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945:On the Sidelines, New York:Routledge,2010.
[24]Dimitris N. Chryssochoou, Theorizing European Integration, London:Sage Publications, Ltd,2001.
[25]Duncan Snidal,"The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory", International Organization, Vol.39, No.2,1985.
[26]Duncan Watts, The Europe Union, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2008.
[27]Ernst Hass, Beyond the Nation-State:Functionalism and International Organizations, California:Stanford university Press,1964
[28]Etzioni and Amitai, Political Unification:A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces, New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winsto,1965.
[29]Filippo et al., Globalisation, Regionalism and Economic Interdependence, New York: Cambridge University Press,2009.
[30]Foreign Office Memorandum by Bevin, January 12,1948.
[31]FRUS,1947,Vol,Ⅷ.
[32]FRUS,1948, Vol,Ⅲ.
[33]FRUS,1948, Vol,Ⅳ.
[34]FRUS,1948,Vol,Ⅷ.
[35]FRUS,1949, Vol,Ⅵ.
[36]FRUS,1952-4, Vol.Ⅴ.
[37]G. John Lkenberry, After Victory:Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Building of Order after Major Wars, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[38]Geri Lundestad, The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation toTransatlantic Drift, New York:Oxford Press,2005.
[39]Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1998.
[40]Irvin M. Wall, The United States and the Making of Postwar France 1945-54 New York: Cambridge University Press,1991.
[41]Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies, The Federal Nation Perspectives on American Federalism, London:University of London,2008.
[42]J.F.V.Keiger, France and the World since 1870, Arnold:Hodder Headline Group,2001.
[43]Jan S. Prybyla, The American Way of Peace, Columbia and London:University of Missouri Press,2005.
[44]John A Gnew J. and Nichols Entrikin, The Marshall Plan:Today Model and Metaphor, London and New York:Routledge,2004.
[45]John Baylis, The Deplomacy of Pragmatism:Britain and the Formation of NATO 1942-49, London:Macmillan,1993.
[46]John G. Younger, Imperium and Cosmos, Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press, 2007.
[47]John Gillingham, Coal, Steel, and the Rebirth of Europe 1945-1955:The Germans and Frenchrom Ruhr Conflict to Economic Community, New York:Cambridge University Press,2002.
[48]John Gillingham, Design for a New Europe, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[49]John Gillingham, European Integration 1950-2003:Superstate or New Market Economy? New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[50]Joseph F. Zimmerman, Contemporary American Federalism:The Growth of National Power, Albany:State University of New York Press,2008.
[51]Joseph Joffee, "Europe's American Pacifer", Foreign Policy, Vol.14, No.1,1984.
[52]Joseph S Ney, Power in a Global Age:From Realism to Globalizatio, New York: Routledge,2004.
[53]Kenneth N.Waltz, "The Emerging Structure of International Politics," International Security, Vol.18, No.2,1993.
[54]Klaus Larres, A Companion to Europe since 1945, West Sussex:A John Wiley&Sons Ltd., Publication,2009.
[55]M.J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan:America, Britain and the Reconstructing of Western Europe 1947-1952, New York:Cambridge Press,1987.
[56]Marc Trachtenberg, Between Empire and Alliance:America and Europe during the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
[57]Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,2009.
[58]Mark Rupert, Producing Hegemony:The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
[59]Martin Holmes, European Integration:Scope and Limits, New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2001.
[60]Martin J. Dedman, The Origin and Development of the European Union:The History of the European Integration, London and New York:Routledge,2010.
[61]Martin P. C. Schaad, Bullying Bonn:Anglo-German Diplomacy on European Integration 1955-61, New York:St. Martin's Press,2008.
[62]Mary Farrell et al., Global Politics of Regionaliam:Theory and Practice, London:Pluto Press,2005.
[63]Mary Fulbrook, Europe since 1945, New York:Oxford Press,2001.
[64]Masahisa Fujita, Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatial and Neoclassical Economics, Massachusetts:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008.
[65]Mcobarl J.Hogan, Marshall Plan and Germany West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europea Recovery Program, New York:Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[66]Meeting of the parliamentary party on March 18,1958, Translated from Hans-Peter
[67]Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York:Routledge,2000.
[68]Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kalser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New Y ork:Routledge,2003.
[69]Michael O'Neill, The Politics of European Integration, London and New York: Routledge,2000.
[70]Michael Sutton, France and The Construction of Europe:the Geopolital Imperative 1945-2007, New York:Berghabnbooks,2001.
[71]Michelle Pace, The Politics of Regional Identity:Meddiling with the Mediteranean, London and New York:Routledge,2006.
[72]Peter Grose, Continuing the Inquiry:The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, New York:Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.,2006.
[73]Peter Rietbergen, Europe:A Cultural History, London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[74]Philip M. Coupl, Britannia, Europa and Christendom:British Christians and European Integration, New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2006.
[75]R. Gerald Hughes, Britain, Germany and the Cold War:The Search for a European Detente 1949-1967, London and New York:Routledge,2007.
[76]Reid and Escort, Time of Fear and Hope:The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty 1947-49, Toronto:McClelland&Stewart,1977.
[77]Richard Mayne, The Recory of Europe, New York:Harper&Row,1970.
[78]Robert A. Divine, Eisenhower and the Cold War, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1981.
[79]Robert Cox, "Social Forces, State and World Order:Beyond International Relations Theory", in Keohane ed., Neorealism and Its Critic, New York:Columbia University Press,1986,
[80]Robert D.Schulzinger, U.S. Diplomacy since 1900, New York:Oxford University Press, 2002.
[81]Robert Endicott Osgood, NATD:The Entangling Alliance, Chicgo:University of Chicago Press,1962.
[82]Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002. Robert Gilpin, Globle Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[83]Sin and Du-Chel, ASEAN und die EU', Eine Vergleichen de Analyse der Regionalen Integrations Prozesse, Frankfurt am Main:Bruxelles,2000.
[84]Smith E Timothy, The United States, Italy and NATO 1947-52, Hampshire:Macmillan Academic and Professional, Ltd.,1965.
[85]Sorayod Kumbunlue, Economic Development and Integration in Southeast Asia: Economic Convergence, Distribution and Integration, Mannheim:Mannheim press, 2005.
[86]Stephen D.Krasner, "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences:Regimes as Intervening Variables", International Organization, Vol.36, No.2,1982.
[87]T. Jeremy Gunn, Spiritual Weapons:The Cold War and the Forging of an American National Religion, Westport:Praeger Publishers,2009.
[88]Thomas J.Christensen and Jack Snyder, "Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks:Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity," International Organization, Vol.44, No.2,1990.
[89]Tony Judt, Postwar:A History of Europe since 1945, New York:The Penguin Press 2005.
[90]Tsophie Meunier and Kathleen R. Mcnamara, The State of the European Union Making History:European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty, New York:Oxford Press,2007.
[91]U.S.Government Printing Office Washington,1947. The Development of the Foreign Reconstruction Policy of the United States.
[92]Walter La Feber, America, Russian and the Cold War 1945-92, New York:Mc GrawHill, 1993.
[93]Walter St. Jones, The Logic of International Relations, Addiso:Wesley Educational Publisners, 1997.
[94]Whelan B, Ireland and the Marshall Plan, Dublin:Four Courts Press,2000.
[95]Wilfried Loth, Europe, Cold War and Coexistence 1953-1965, London:Frank Cass Publishers,2005.
[96]William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy:The Soul of Containment, New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[97]William W. Buzbee, Preemption Choice:The Theory, Law and Reality of Federalism s Core Question, New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[98]Wolferam Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York: Cambridge University Press,2002.
②洪邮生：《英国对西欧一体化政策的起源和演变》,南京：南京大学出版社,2001年。
③严双伍：《第二次世界大战与欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004年。
④胡瑾、郇庆治、宋全成：《欧洲早期一体化思想与实践研究》,山东：山东大民出版社,2002年。
⑤门洪华：《霸权之翼——美国国际制度战略》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
⑥叶江：《解读美欧—欧洲一体化进程中的美欧关系》,上海：上海三联出版社,1999年。
①王正毅、张岩贵：《国际政治经济学——理论范式与现实经验研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2003年。
②朱文莉：《国际政治经济学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2004年。
③朱立群：《欧洲地区安全机制的百年演变》,载《外交学院报》,1999年,第1期。
④吴弦：《欧洲经济一体化产生的历史渊源和条件》,载《欧洲》,1997年,第2期。
①赵怀普：《美国缘何支持欧洲一体化》,载《世界历史》,1999年,第2期。
②张福财：《试论战后美欧关系发展演变及欧洲联合一体化问题》,载《北方论从》,2002年,第1期。
①吴金平、陈奕平：《美国与东亚合作》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年；朱立群、王帆：《东亚地区合作与中美关系》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年。
②王辑思、倪峰、余万里：《美国在东亚的作用：观点、政策及影响》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
③何志工、安小平：《东北亚区域合作通向东亚共同体之路》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
④黄大慧：《变化中的东亚与芙国——东亚的崛起及其秩序建构》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
⑤刘学成：《东亚共同体构想与美国的东亚战略》,载《亚非纵横》,2009年,第6期。
⑥李东屹：《东亚区域化如何处理与美国的关系》,载《外交评论》,2010年,第2期。
⑦林利民：《美国与东亚一体化的关系析论》,载《现代国际关系》,2007年,第11期。
⑧吴心伯：《美国与东亚一体化》,载《国际问题研究》,2007年,第5期。
⑨秦亚青：《东亚共同体建设进程和美国的作用》,载《外交评论》,2005年,第6期。
①刘昌明：《双边同盟体系制约下的东亚地区主义：困境与趋向》,栽《当代世界社会主义问题》,2011年,第1期。
②杨鲁慧：《东亚合作进程中的中国软实力战略》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第2期。
③Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World-System Ⅱ:Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World-Economy 1600-1750, New York:Academic Press,1980.
④(美)罗们特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学：解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光,杨炯译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年。
⑤(美)罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后：世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,(苏长和译),上海：上海人民出版社,2006年。
① Jeffry A. Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, Pekimg:Pekimg University Press,2003.
② Wilber W. Caldwell, American Narcissism:The Myth of National Superiority, New York:Algora Publishing,200 6.
③ Christopher Layne and Bradley A. Thayer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2006.
④Phillip Margulies, America's Role in the World, New York:Infobase Publishing,2009.
⑤ Marc Trachtenberg, Between Empire and Alliance:America and Europe during the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
①Mark Gilbert,Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945,Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefield Publishers,Inc.,2009.
② Geir Lundestad,The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation to Transatlantic Drift,New York:Oxford Press,2005.
③Jean-Christophe Agnew and Roy Rosenzweig,A Companion to post-1945 America,Malden:Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.,2002.
④M.J.Hogan,The Marshall Plan:America,Britain and the Reconstructing of.Western Europ 1947-1952,Cambrla ge:Cambridge Press,1987.
⑤Mcobarl J.Hogan,Marshall Plan and West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europea Recove ry Program,New York:Cambridge University Press,1991.
①A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen.Milward,1984.
② Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007.
①Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000. London and New York: Routledge,2000.; Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998.
② Alan Milward, The Reconstruction of Europe, London and New York:Routledge,1992.
①The Asia Foundation, America's Role in Asian:Asian and American Views Recommendations for U.S. Policy fro m both Sides of the Pacific, California:The Asia Foundation,2008.
②(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年。
③ Charles A. Kupchan, "After Pax Americana:Benign Power:Regional Integration and the Sourse of Stable Multi-polarity", International Security, Vol.23, No.2,1998, pp.40-79.
④ Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, pp.80-84.
⑤ Claude Baifield, "The United States, China and the Rise of Asian Regionalism", American Enterprise Institute, P aper Delivered at the Western Economics Association Annual Conference Vancouver, British Columbia, June 29,200 4.
① Jeffry A.Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, P eking:Peking University,2003, pp.133-134.
①王学玉：《通过一体化实现安全共同体》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年第5期,第18页。
①牛津高阶英汉双解词典,商务印书馆,2009年,第7版,第952页。
②Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, New York:Dorset&Baber,1979, p.841.
① Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929-1939, London:The Penguin Press,1973, p.305.
②(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《国际关系政治经济学》,(杨宇光译),北京：经济科学出版社,1992年,第93-94页；(美)罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,(苏长和等译),上海：上海世纪出版社,2006年,第31页。
③Immanuel M Wallerstein, The Modern World-System Ⅱ:Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European Worl d-Economy 1600-1750, New York:Academic Press,1980, p.38.
④ Immanuel M Wallerstein, The Politics of the World-Economy:The States, the Movements and the Civilizations, N ew York:Cambridge University Press,1984, p.41.
⑤ Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S Ney, Power and Interdependence:World Politics in Transition, Boston:Little Brown,1977, p.44.
①王辑思：《美国霸权的逻辑》,载《美国研究》,2003年第3期。
②王逸舟：《霸权、秩序、规则》,载《美国研究》,1995年,第2期,第46页。
③桊亚青：《霸权体系与国际冲突：美国在国际武装冲突中的支持行为》,上海：上海人民出版社,1999年,第22页。
④Jeffry A.Frieden and David A.Lake, International Political Economy:Perspectives on Global Power and Wealth, Peking:Peking University,2003, pp.133-134.
① T. V. Paul et al. Balance of Power:Theory and Practice in the 2 1 s t Century, California:Stanford Press,2004, p.4.
②(美)华尔斯·沃尔兹：《国际政治理论》,(信强译),北京：北京大学出版社,2002年,第126-127页。
① T. V. Paul et al., Balance of Power:Theory and Practice in the 21st Century, California:Stanford Press,200 4, p.8.
② Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929-1939, London:The Penguin Press,1973, p.305.
③ Andreas Hasenclever et al., Theories of International Regimes, London:Cambridge University Press,1997, p.86.
④ Stephen D.Krasner, "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences:Regimes as Intervening Variables", Internationa l Organization, Vol.36, No.2,1982, p.186.
⑤ Robert Cox, "Social Forces, State and World Order:Beyond International Relations Theory", in Keohane ed., Ne orealism and Its Critic, New York:Columbia University Press,1986, pp.217-248.
① A.F.K.Organcik, World Politics, New York:Knopf,1968, p.295.
② Robert Gilpin, Globle Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001, p.93-95; Joseph Joffee, "Eu rope's American Pacifer", Foreign Policy, Vol.14, No.1,1984, pp.64-82. For a discussion of different versions of th e theory and their criticisms, see Duncan Snidal,"The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory", International Organiz ation, Vol.39, No.2,1985, pp.579-614.
①王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第17页。
① Barry Buzan and Ole Woever, Region and Power:the Structure of International Security, New York:Cambridge niversity Press,2003, p.55.
②转引自(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社社,2007年,第10页。原文出自"What Makes the World Hang Together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Soci al Constructivist Challenge." In Peter J.Katzenstein, Robert O.Keohane, and Stephen D.Kransner, eds., Exploration a nd Contestation in the Study of World Politics, Cambridge:MIT Press,1999, pp.215-45.
③ Michelle Pace, The Politics of Regional Identity:Meddiling with the Mediteranean, London and New York:Routl edge,2006, p.1
①王学玉：《通过一体化实现安全共同体》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年,第5期,第18页。
①(瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年,第1期,第66页。
③王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第18页。
①(瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年,第1期,第69页。
②王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期,第18页。
1(英)赫德利·布尔：《无政府社会》,(张小明译),北京：世界知识出版社,2003年,第165页。
①秦亚青：《权势霸权、制度霸权与美国的地位》,载《现代国际关系》,2004年,第3期,第6页。
① Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.6.
②彼得·卡赞斯坦在《地区构成的世界：美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》一书中运用的是“帝权”的概念,但是从作者对这一概念的描述中可以看出作者对帝权的界定与本论文对霸权的界定足一致的。因此,可以将作者的帝权理解为霸权。(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界：美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年,第4页。
③(美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年,第5-6页。
①Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer, American Empire, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.16.
①(美)约翰·鲁杰主编：《多边主义》,(苏长和等译),浙江：浙江人民出版社,2003年,第12页。
②储昭根：《单边主义足美国外交的一种传统》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第1期,第76页。
③转引自潘振强,吕有生：《对美国国家安全战略的思考》,载《美国问题研究》,2008年,第1期,第5页。原文出自《美国国家防御战略》,2005年3月,第4页。The U.S. National Defence Strategy, March 2005, p.4.
①(美)约翰·伊肯伯里：《大战胜利之后》,(门洪华译),北京：北京大学出版社,2008年,第150页。
①Richard Mayne, The Recory of Europe, New York:Harper&Row,1970, pp.9-37.
① Alan Milward, The Reconstruction of Europe, London and New York:Routledge,1992, pp.28-29.
① Klaus Larres, A Companion to Europe since 1945, West Sussex:A John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.,2009, p.97
② Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefiel d Publishers, Inc.,2009, p.17.
①资料来源于U.S. Government Printing Office Washington:1947, The Development of the Foreign Reconstruction Policy of the United States, pp.2-3.
①FRUS,1948, Vol.IV, p.222. FRUS的全称为Foreign Relations of the Unitied States,是美国对外关系文件。
① Mcobarl J.Hogan, Marshall Plan and Germany West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europe a Recovery Program, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.117.
① FRUS,1948, Vol.VIII, p.224.
②资料来源于Office Memorandum the United States Government May 20,1947, p.6.
①FRUS,1947, Vol.VIII, p.224.
①John Agnew and J. Nicholas Entrikin, The Marshall Plan:Today Model and Metaphor, London and New York: Routledge,2004, p.222.
② Ibid., p.223.
① FRUS,1947, Vol.Ⅷ, p.232.
②资料来源于国务卿马歇尔1947年6月15日在哈佛大学的演讲,题目为《欧洲发挥主动性对经济复兴是必要的》The Essential Initiative to The Economic Recovery.
① FRUS,1947, Vol. Ⅷ, p.236.
② B. Whelan, Ireland and the Marshall Plan, Dublin:Four Courts Press,2000, p.362.
① FRUS,1947,Vol.Ⅷ, pp.268-293.
② David Gowl et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945 on the Sidelines, London and New York:Routle dge,2009, p.20.
①David Gowl et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945 on the Sidelines, London and New York:Routle dge,2009, p.24.
② Irvin M. Wall, The United States and the Making of Postwar France 1945-54, New York:Cambridge University Press,1991, p.76.
①Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.11.
① M.J.Hogan, The Marshall Plan:America, Britain and the Reconstructing of Western Europe 1947-1952, New Yor k:Cambridge Press,1987, p.23.
② A.Escobar, Encountering Development:The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton:Princeton Univ ersity Press,1995, p.3
③ A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen. Mil ward,1984, pp.235-250.
①资料来源于Foreign Office Memorandum,by Bevin, January 12,1948.
②资料来源于Documents on British Policy Overseas, Series Ⅱ, No.52, London:HMSO.NA., May 8,1950.
①http://www.weu.int/History.htm。
② Arie Bloed and Ramses A.Wessel, The Changing Functions of the Western Union:Introduction and Basic Docum ents, Martinus:Nijhoff Publisher,1994, pp.XV-XVI.
①Michael Sutton, France and the Construction of Europe:The Geopolital Imperative 1945-2007, New York:Bergh abnbooks,2001, p.66.
②Ibid., p.66.
① Martin J. Dedman, The Origin and Development of the European Union:The History of the European Integratio n, London andNew York:Routledge,2010, p.71.
① Alan.P.Dobson and Steve Marsh, U.S. Foreign since 1945, London and New York:Routledge,2007, p.23.
②周建明,王成至：《美国国家安全战略解密文献选编1945—1972》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2011年,第3-4页。
③同上,第15页。
①同上,第18页。
② Jan S. Prybyla, The American Way of Peace, Columbia and London:University of Missouri Press,2005, p.33.
③ Allan M.Winkler, The Cold War:A History in Documents, New York:Oxford University Press,2005, p.38.
④ Ibid., p.39.
①Robert A. Divine, Eisenhower and the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,1981, p.106.
①Anton W Deporle, Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance, London:Yale University Press,1986, p.3.
①Anton W Deporle, Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance, London:Yale University Press,19 86, p.3.
② Walter La Feber, A merica, Russian and the Cold War 1945-92, New York:McGrawHill,1993, p.13.
① Robert Endicott Osgood, NATD:The Entangling Alliance, Chicgo:University of Chicago Press,1962, p.34.
② John Baylis, The Deplomacy of Pragmatism:Britain and the Formation of NATO 1942-49, London:Macmillan, 1993, p.127.
①资料来源于Shape在1952年3月向国务院所作关于北约的报告,Rebort on Shape, Mar 16,1952.
① FRUS,1948,Vol.Ⅲ, p.225.
② FRUS,1948,Vol.Ⅲ, p.285.
③ Smith E Timothy, The United States, Italy and NATO 1947-52, Hampshire:Macmillan Academic and Professional, Ltd.,1965, p.66.
④ Ibid., p.81.
①Reid and Escort, Time of Fear and Hope:The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty 1947-49, Toronto:McClellan d&Stewart,1977, pp.206-208.
①FRUS,1949,Vol.Ⅳ,p.282.
① Andreas Wenger et al., Transforming NATO in the Cold War:Challenge beyond the Deterrence in the 1960, Lon don and New York:Routledge,2006, p.17.
①资料来源于Meeting of the general Eisenhower with the president and the cabinet.Wednesday January 31,1951.
(奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年,第8页。
① Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.13.
② Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998, p.60.
③(奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年,第58页。
④ H.S.Reiss, Kant Political Writings,康德政治著作选,剑桥政治思想史原著系列(影印本),北京：中国政法大学出版社,2003,p.118.
①(美)基辛格：《大外交》,(金灿荣译),海南：海南出版社,1998年,第38页。
②同上,第39页。
③Heikki Mikkli, Europe as an Idea and an Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc.,1998, p.21.
①Colin Ward, Anarchism:A Very Short Introduction, New York:Oxford University Press,2004, p.2.
②(意)萨尔沃·马斯泰罗内：《欧洲民主史：从孟德斯鸠到凯尔森》,(黄华光译),北京：社会科学文献出版社,1990年,第109页。
③Robert D.Schulzinger, U.S. Diplomacy since 1900, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.108.
①转引自Jean Monnet, Memoirs.原文出自Michael Burgess,Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York:Routledge,2000, p.33.
② Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.34.
①李魏、王学玉：《欧洲一体化理论’与文献选读》,山东：山东大学出版社,2001,第22-23页。
② Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.33.
③ Ibid., p.45.
① Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefiel d Publishers, Inc.,2009, p.30.
①(美)基辛格：《大外交》,(金灿荣译),海南：海南出版社,1998年,第43页。
① J.F.V.Keiger. France and the World since 1870, Arnold:Hodder Headline Group,2001, p.121.
② Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002, p.12.
③ Duncan Watts, The Europe Union, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2008, p.6.
④ David F.Patton, Cold War Politics in Postwar Germany, New York:St.Martin's Press,2001, p.19.
①Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007, pp.164-165.
①Michael Burgess, Comparative Federalism:Theory and Practice, London and New York:Routledge,2006, p.42.
②Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York: Routledge,2000, p.15.
① William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy:The Soul of Containment, New York:Cambridge Univ ersity Press,2008, p.107.
②Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York:Cambridge University Pre ss,2007, pp.164-165.
① Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New York:Routle dge,2003, p.4.
② Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kaiser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New York:Routle dge,2003, p.16.
① http://baike.baidu.com/view/1155578.htm.
② S.Hoffmann, "Reflections on the nation-state in Western Europe today", in S.Hoffrnann(ed.) The European siyphus: Essays on Europe,1964-1994, Oxford:Westview Press,1995, p.223. Reprinted from the Journal of Common Marke t Studies,21(1-2), September/December,1982. pp.21-37.
①陈乐民：《战后西欧国际关系》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1987年,第156页。
② W. Diebold Jr., The Schuman Plan:A slowly in Economic Cooperatiom 1950-1959, New York:F.A.Praeger,1959, p.664.
① http://milex.data.sipri.org/result.php4.
② Robert Keohane, After Hegemony:Corporation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1984, p.65.
③ Joseph S Ney, Power in a Global Age:From Realism to Globalizatio, New York:Routledge,2004. p.90.
①江涌：《论美国的新金融霸权与经济繁荣》,载《经济评论》,2003年,第3期,第107-110页。
①(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学——解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光等译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年,第218页。
①(美)罗伯特·吉尔平：《全球政治经济学——解读国际经济秩序》,(杨宇光等译),上海：上海人民出版社,2003年,第21页。
①资料来源于Masahisa Fujita et al., Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatialand Neoclassical Economics, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008. pp.24-25.
①资料来源于Masahisa Fujita et al., Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatialand Neoclassical Economics, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008. p.26.
② Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, p.80.
③ Ibid., p.82.
④ Richard Rosecrance and Gu Guoliang, Power and Restraint:A Sharp Vision for the US-China Relationship, New York:Publicaffairs,2009, p.84.
①(美)莱斯特·瑟罗：《资本主义的未来》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998年,第121页。
① Sorayod Kumbunlue, Economic Development and Integration in Southeast Asia Economic Convergen:Distribution and Integration, Mannheim:Mannheim Press,2005, p.136.
② The most important NGO is the ASEAN Chamber of Commerce (ASEAN CCI) established in 1972. The ASEA N CCI serves as a cooperation-link between the Government and the private sectors. It furthermore, has brought ab out efcient and effectiveness in the economic cooperation between both bodies.
③Sin and Du-Chel, ASEAN und die EU:Eine Vergleichen de Analyse der Rregionalen Integrations prozesse, Frank ffurt am Main:Bruxelles,2000, pp.238-239.
①(美)安德鲁·克劳莫奇克：《东亚一体化有什么特殊之处》,(师小芹译),载《国际政治研究》,2011年,第1期,第4页。
② Etzioni and Amitai, Political Unification:A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces, New York:Holt, Rinehart &Winsto,1965, p.131.
①Masahisa Fujita, Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatial and Neoclassical Economics, Mass achusetts:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008, pp.107-108.
② http://www.Defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/qdr2001.pdf, p.10.
① Colin Powell, Roundtable with Japanese Journalists, Washington, D. C., August 12,2004, http://www.state.gov/se cretary/former/powell/remarks/35204.htm.
② http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0803/ijpe/pj81 zoellick.htm.
① Geri Lundestad, The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation toTransatlantic Drift, New York:Oxford Press,2005.
[1]门洪华：《霸权之翼——美国国际制度战略》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
[2]王正毅、张岩贵：《国际政治经济学——理论范式与现实经验研究》,北京：商务印书馆,2003年。
[3]王学玉：《地区政治与国际关系研究》,载《世界经济与政治》,2010年,第4期。
[4]王学玉：《论地区主义及其对国际关系的影响》,载《现代国际关系》,2002年,第8期。
[5]王学玉：《国际关系研究的地区主义视角》,载《当代世界社会主义问题》,2004年,第3期。
[6]王学玉：《国际安全的地区化：一个分析的框架》,载《世界经济与政治》,2003年,第2期
[7]王学玉：《实现国家安全：地区安全建设的视角——以欧洲为例的分析》,载《外交评论》,2007年,第6期。
[8]王学玉：《通过地区一体化实现安全共同体：一个分析的框架》,载《欧洲研究》,2003年,第5期。
[9]王学玉：《新地区主义：在国家与全球化之间架起桥梁》,载《世界经济与政治》,2004年,第1期。
[10]王缉思、倪峰、余万里：《美国在东亚的作用：观点、政策及影响》,北京：时事出版社,2006年。
[11]王缉思：《国际政治的理性思考》,北京：北京大学出版社,2006年。
[12]韦宗友：《霸权阴影下的战略选择》,载《国际政治科学》,2005年,第4期。
[13]叶江：《解读美欧—欧洲一体化进程中的美欧关系》,上海：上海三联出版社,1999年。
[14](奥)弗里德里希·希尔：《欧洲思想史》,(赵复三译),香港：香港中文大学出版社,2003年。
[15]刘学成：《东亚共同体构想与美国的东亚战略》,载《亚非纵横》,2009年,第6期。
[16]刘昌明、郭或：《美国的不完全霸权与东亚地区秩序的转型》,载《东北亚论坛》, 2008年,第3期。
[17]刘昌明：《双边同盟体系制约下的东亚地区主义：困境与趋向》,载《当代世界社会主义问题》,2011年,第1期。
[18](美)安德鲁·克劳莫奇克：《东亚一体化有什么特殊之处》,(师小芹译),载《国际政治研究》,2011年,第1期。
[19]朱文莉：《国际政治经济学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2004年。
[20]朱立群、王帆：《东亚地区合作与中美关系》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年。
[21]朱立群：《欧洲一体化理论：研究问题、路径与特点》,载《国际政治研究》,2008年,第4期。
[22]朱立群：《欧洲地区安全机制的百年演变》,载《外交学院报》,1999年,第1期。
[23]江涌：《论美国的新金融霸权与经济繁荣》,载《经济评论》,2003年,第3期,
[24](美)约翰·鲁杰主编：《多边主义》,(苏长和等译),浙江：浙江人民出版社,2003年。
[25](美)约翰·伊肯伯里：《大战胜利之后》,(门洪华译),北京：北京大学出版社,2008年。
[26]严双伍：《第二次世界大战与欧洲一体化起源研究》,武汉：武汉大学出版社,2004年。
[27](美)亨利·基辛格：《大外交》,(顾淑馨、林添贵译),海南：海南出版社,2012年
[28]何志工、安小平：《东北亚区域合作通向东亚共同体之路》,北京：时事出版社,2008年。
[29]吴心伯：《美国与东亚一体化》,载《国际问题研究》,2007年,第5期。
[30]吴弦：《欧洲经济一体化产生的历史渊源和条件》,载《欧洲》,1997年,第2期。
[31]吴金平、陈奕平：《美国与东亚合作》,北京：世界知识出版社,2006年;
[32]张福财：《试论战后美欧关系发展演变及欧洲联合一体化问题》,载《北方论丛》,2002年,第1期。
[33]李东屹：《东亚区域化如何处理与美国的关系》,载《外交评论》,2010年,第2期。
[34]李魏、王学玉：《欧洲一体化理论与文献选读》,山东：山东大学出版社,2001年。
[35]杨鲁慧等：《亚太发展研究》,第五卷,山东：山东大学出版社,2010年。
[36]杨鲁慧等：《亚太发展研究》,第四卷,山东：山东大学出版社,2006年。
[37]杨鲁慧、杨光：《当代东亚政治》,山东：山东大学出版社,2010年。
[38]杨鲁慧：《东亚合作进程中的中国软实力战略》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第2期。
[39]陈乐民：《战后西欧国际关系》,北京：中国社会科学出版社,1987年。
[40]周弘：《民族建设、国家转型与欧洲一体化》,载《欧洲研究》,2007年,第5期。
[41]周建明、王成至：《美国国家安全战略解密文献选编(195—1972)》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
[42](美)彼得·卡赞斯坦：《地区构成的世界美国帝权中的亚洲和欧洲》,(秦亚青、魏玲译),北京：北京大学出版社,2007年。
[43]林利民：《美国与东亚一体化的关系析论》,载《现代国际关系》,2007年,第11期。
[44]洪邮生：《英国对西欧一体化政策的起源和演变》,南京：南京大学出版社,2001年。
[45]胡谨、郇庆治：《欧洲早期一体化思想与实践研究(1945—1967)》,山东：山东大学出版社,2000年。
[46]赵怀普：《美国缘何支持欧洲一体化》,载《世界历史》,1999年,第2期。
[47]秦亚青：《东亚共同体建设进程和美国的作用》,载《外交评论》,2005年,第6期。
[48](意)萨尔沃·马斯泰罗内：《欧洲民主史：从孟德斯鸠到凯尔森》,(黄华光译),北京：社会科学文献出版社,1990年。
[49]黄大慧：《变化中的东亚与美国——东亚的崛起及其秩序建构》,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2010年。
[50]储昭根：《单边主义是美国外交的一种传统》,载《国际论坛》,2008年,第1期
[51](瑞典)赫特、桑德鲍姆：《地区主义崛起的理论阐释》,(袁正清译),载《世界经济与政治》,2000年。
[52]潘振强、吕有生：《对美国国家安全战略的思考》,载《美国问题研究》,2008年。
[1]A. Escobar, Encountering Development:The Making and Unmaking of the Third World, Princeton:Princeton University Press,1995.
[2]A. Milward, The Reconstruction of Western Europe 1945-1951, London:Methuen. Milward,1984.
[3]A.F.K.Organcik,World Politics,New York:Knopf,1968.
[4]Alan Milward,The Reconstruction of Europe,London and New York:Routledge,1992.
[5]Alan P.Dobson and Steve Marsh,U.S. Foreign Fdicy since 1945,London and New York: Routledge,2007.
[6]Allan M.Winkler, The Cold War:A History in Documents,New York:Oxford University Press,2005.
[7]Anderson and Malcolm,States and Nationalism in Europe since 1945:Making of the Contemporary World,London and New York:Routledge,2000.
[8]Andreas Wenger et al.,Transforming NATO in the Cold War:Challenge beyond the Deterrence in the 1960s,London and New York:Routledge,2006.
[9]Anton W Deporle,Europe between the Super Powers:The Enduring Balance,London: Yale University Press,1986.
[10]Arie Bloed and Ramses A.Wessel,The Changing Functions of the Western Union: Introduction and Basic Documents,Martinus:Nijhoff Publisher,1994.
[11]Asle Toje,America,the EU and Strategic Culture Renegotiatin:The Transatlantic Bargain,London and New York:Routledge,2008.
[12]Barry Buzan and Ole Woever,Region and Power:The Structure of International Security,New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[13]Bela Balas,The Theory of Economic Integration,London:Allenand Unwin Press,1961.
[14]Ben Rosamond,Theories of European Integration ,New York:Oxford University Press, 2000.
[15]Bruce L.Brager,The Iron Curtain The Cold War in Europe,Chicago:Chelsea House Publishers,2004.
[16]Chris Brown,Political Restructuring in Europe:Ethical Perspectives,London and New York:Routledge,1994.
[17]Christopher B.Whitney and David Shambaugh,Soft Power in Asia:Results of a 2008 Multinational Survey of Public Opinion,Chicago:The Council on Global Affairs,2008.
[18]Christopher Harvie,The Rise of Regional Europe,London and New York:Routledge, 2005.
[19]Christopher Layne and Bradleya A.Tharer,American Empire,London and New York: Routledge,2007.
[20]Colin Ward,Anarchism:A Very Short Introduction,New York:Oxford University Press, 2004.
[21]Dan Diner and Madison,Cataclysms:A History of the Twentieth Century from Europe's Edge, Madison:Wisconsis University Press,2008.
[22]David F. Patton, Cold War Politics in Postwar Germany, New York:St. Martin's Press, 2001.
[23]David Gowland et al., Britain and European Integration since 1945:On the Sidelines, New York:Routledge,2010.
[24]Dimitris N. Chryssochoou, Theorizing European Integration, London:Sage Publications, Ltd,2001.
[25]Duncan Snidal,"The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory", International Organization, Vol.39, No.2,1985.
[26]Duncan Watts, The Europe Union, Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,2008.
[27]Ernst Hass, Beyond the Nation-State:Functionalism and International Organizations, California:Stanford university Press,1964
[28]Etzioni and Amitai, Political Unification:A Comparative Study of Leaders and Forces, New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winsto,1965.
[29]Filippo et al., Globalisation, Regionalism and Economic Interdependence, New York: Cambridge University Press,2009.
[30]Foreign Office Memorandum by Bevin, January 12,1948.
[31]FRUS,1947,Vol,Ⅷ.
[32]FRUS,1948, Vol,Ⅲ.
[33]FRUS,1948, Vol,Ⅳ.
[34]FRUS,1948,Vol,Ⅷ.
[35]FRUS,1949, Vol,Ⅵ.
[36]FRUS,1952-4, Vol.Ⅴ.
[37]G. John Lkenberry, After Victory:Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Building of Order after Major Wars, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[38]Geri Lundestad, The United States and Western Europe since 1945:From "Empire" by Invitation toTransatlantic Drift, New York:Oxford Press,2005.
[39]Heikki Mikkeli, Europe as an Idea and Identity, New York:St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1998.
[40]Irvin M. Wall, The United States and the Making of Postwar France 1945-54 New York: Cambridge University Press,1991.
[41]Iwan W. Morgan and Philip J. Davies, The Federal Nation Perspectives on American Federalism, London:University of London,2008.
[42]J.F.V.Keiger, France and the World since 1870, Arnold:Hodder Headline Group,2001.
[43]Jan S. Prybyla, The American Way of Peace, Columbia and London:University of Missouri Press,2005.
[44]John A Gnew J. and Nichols Entrikin, The Marshall Plan:Today Model and Metaphor, London and New York:Routledge,2004.
[45]John Baylis, The Deplomacy of Pragmatism:Britain and the Formation of NATO 1942-49, London:Macmillan,1993.
[46]John G. Younger, Imperium and Cosmos, Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press, 2007.
[47]John Gillingham, Coal, Steel, and the Rebirth of Europe 1945-1955:The Germans and Frenchrom Ruhr Conflict to Economic Community, New York:Cambridge University Press,2002.
[48]John Gillingham, Design for a New Europe, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2006.
[49]John Gillingham, European Integration 1950-2003:Superstate or New Market Economy? New York:Cambridge University Press,2003.
[50]Joseph F. Zimmerman, Contemporary American Federalism:The Growth of National Power, Albany:State University of New York Press,2008.
[51]Joseph Joffee, "Europe's American Pacifer", Foreign Policy, Vol.14, No.1,1984.
[52]Joseph S Ney, Power in a Global Age:From Realism to Globalizatio, New York: Routledge,2004.
[53]Kenneth N.Waltz, "The Emerging Structure of International Politics," International Security, Vol.18, No.2,1993.
[54]Klaus Larres, A Companion to Europe since 1945, West Sussex:A John Wiley&Sons Ltd., Publication,2009.
[55]M.J. Hogan, The Marshall Plan:America, Britain and the Reconstructing of Western Europe 1947-1952, New York:Cambridge Press,1987.
[56]Marc Trachtenberg, Between Empire and Alliance:America and Europe during the Cold War, New York:Oxford University Press,2003.
[57]Mark Gilbert, Surpassing Realism:The Politics of European Integration since 1945, Lanham:Rowmana&Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,2009.
[58]Mark Rupert, Producing Hegemony:The Politics of Mass Production and American Global Power, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1995.
[59]Martin Holmes, European Integration:Scope and Limits, New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2001.
[60]Martin J. Dedman, The Origin and Development of the European Union:The History of the European Integration, London and New York:Routledge,2010.
[61]Martin P. C. Schaad, Bullying Bonn:Anglo-German Diplomacy on European Integration 1955-61, New York:St. Martin's Press,2008.
[62]Mary Farrell et al., Global Politics of Regionaliam:Theory and Practice, London:Pluto Press,2005.
[63]Mary Fulbrook, Europe since 1945, New York:Oxford Press,2001.
[64]Masahisa Fujita, Economic Integration in East Asia:Perspectives from Spatial and Neoclassical Economics, Massachusetts:Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,2008.
[65]Mcobarl J.Hogan, Marshall Plan and Germany West German Development within the Frame Work of the Europea Recovery Program, New York:Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[66]Meeting of the parliamentary party on March 18,1958, Translated from Hans-Peter
[67]Michael Burgess, Federalism and European Union:The Building of Europe 1950-2000, London and New York:Routledge,2000.
[68]Michael Gehler and Wolfram Kalser, Christian Democracy in Europe since 1945, London and New Y ork:Routledge,2003.
[69]Michael O'Neill, The Politics of European Integration, London and New York: Routledge,2000.
[70]Michael Sutton, France and The Construction of Europe:the Geopolital Imperative 1945-2007, New York:Berghabnbooks,2001.
[71]Michelle Pace, The Politics of Regional Identity:Meddiling with the Mediteranean, London and New York:Routledge,2006.
[72]Peter Grose, Continuing the Inquiry:The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, New York:Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.,2006.
[73]Peter Rietbergen, Europe:A Cultural History, London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[74]Philip M. Coupl, Britannia, Europa and Christendom:British Christians and European Integration, New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2006.
[75]R. Gerald Hughes, Britain, Germany and the Cold War:The Search for a European Detente 1949-1967, London and New York:Routledge,2007.
[76]Reid and Escort, Time of Fear and Hope:The Making of the North Atlantic Treaty 1947-49, Toronto:McClelland&Stewart,1977.
[77]Richard Mayne, The Recory of Europe, New York:Harper&Row,1970.
[78]Robert A. Divine, Eisenhower and the Cold War, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1981.
[79]Robert Cox, "Social Forces, State and World Order:Beyond International Relations Theory", in Keohane ed., Neorealism and Its Critic, New York:Columbia University Press,1986,
[80]Robert D.Schulzinger, U.S. Diplomacy since 1900, New York:Oxford University Press, 2002.
[81]Robert Endicott Osgood, NATD:The Entangling Alliance, Chicgo:University of Chicago Press,1962.
[82]Robert Gildea, France since 1945, New York:Oxford University Press,2002. Robert Gilpin, Globle Political Economy, Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[83]Sin and Du-Chel, ASEAN und die EU', Eine Vergleichen de Analyse der Regionalen Integrations Prozesse, Frankfurt am Main:Bruxelles,2000.
[84]Smith E Timothy, The United States, Italy and NATO 1947-52, Hampshire:Macmillan Academic and Professional, Ltd.,1965.
[85]Sorayod Kumbunlue, Economic Development and Integration in Southeast Asia: Economic Convergence, Distribution and Integration, Mannheim:Mannheim press, 2005.
[86]Stephen D.Krasner, "Structural Causes and Regime Consequences:Regimes as Intervening Variables", International Organization, Vol.36, No.2,1982.
[87]T. Jeremy Gunn, Spiritual Weapons:The Cold War and the Forging of an American National Religion, Westport:Praeger Publishers,2009.
[88]Thomas J.Christensen and Jack Snyder, "Chain Gangs and Passed Bucks:Predicting Alliance Patterns in Multipolarity," International Organization, Vol.44, No.2,1990.
[89]Tony Judt, Postwar:A History of Europe since 1945, New York:The Penguin Press 2005.
[90]Tsophie Meunier and Kathleen R. Mcnamara, The State of the European Union Making History:European Integration and Institutional Change at Fifty, New York:Oxford Press,2007.
[91]U.S.Government Printing Office Washington,1947. The Development of the Foreign Reconstruction Policy of the United States.
[92]Walter La Feber, America, Russian and the Cold War 1945-92, New York:Mc GrawHill, 1993.
[93]Walter St. Jones, The Logic of International Relations, Addiso:Wesley Educational Publisners, 1997.
[94]Whelan B, Ireland and the Marshall Plan, Dublin:Four Courts Press,2000.
[95]Wilfried Loth, Europe, Cold War and Coexistence 1953-1965, London:Frank Cass Publishers,2005.
[96]William Inboden, Religion and American Foreign Policy:The Soul of Containment, New York:Cambridge University Press,2008.
[97]William W. Buzbee, Preemption Choice:The Theory, Law and Reality of Federalism s Core Question, New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[98]Wolferam Kaiser, Christian Democracy and the Origins of European Union, New York: Cambridge University Press,2002.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |