簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
張英明 Michael Ying Ming Chang |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
中國的「近北極國家」認同：在北極治理論述中建構合法性 China’s “Near-Arctic State” Identity: Constructing Legitimacy in Arctic Governance Discourse |
| 指導教授： |
袁力強
Yuan, Li-Chiang 周茂林 Zhou, Mau-Lin 甯方璽 Ning, Fang-Shii |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
社會科學學院 - 亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS) International Master's Program in Asia-Pacific Studies(IMAS) |
| 論文出版年： | 2026 |
| 畢業學年度： | 114 |
| 語文別： | 英文 |
| 論文頁數： | 91 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 中國 、北極治理 、合法性 、建構主義 、批判論述分析 、承認 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | China, Arctic governance, Legitimacy, Constructivism, Critical Discourse Analysis, Recognition |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：6 下載：0 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
本研究探討中國如何透過官方話語，試圖將自身定位由北極地區之外的非北極國家，轉變為北極治理中的合法參與者，以及此一合法性主張在何種條件下獲得承認、受到保留，或遭遇質疑。研究以建構主義（Constructivism）與批判論述分析（Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA）為理論與方法基礎，將合法性視為一種透過社會互動與他者承認所建構的主體間（intersubjective）過程，而非僅由物質能力或單方面自我宣稱所取得的客觀地位。研究聚焦於中國官方北極論述，特別是《中國的北極政策》白皮書（2018），並分析俄羅斯與美國官方政策論述如何回應與詮釋中國的合法性主張。
本研究建構一套以北極治理核心規範為基礎的分析框架，包括尊重主權、遵守國際法、科學合作、環境保護、和平治理及多邊合作等原則。透過對官方政策文件、政府聲明與戰略報告進行質性論述分析，評估中國論述與上述規範的契合程度，以及其合法性主張如何受到主要北極強權的接受與評價。
研究發現，中國並非透過挑戰既有北極治理體系來追求合法性，而是採取一種規範適應（norm adaptation）的策略。中國官方論述持續強調合作、法治、科學貢獻及負責任的參與，藉此將自身塑造成符合現有治理秩序的利益相關者。然而，本研究亦發現，合法性無法僅透過自我描述而獲得。中國的合法性主張是否被接受，取決於其他行為者如何加以詮釋與承認，而此一過程受到治理論述與安全論述相互競爭的影響。俄羅斯大致對中國參與北極事務給予有限度的承認，特別是在符合俄羅斯經濟發展與戰略利益的情況下；相較之下，美國則日益透過戰略競爭與影響力投射的安全框架來解讀中國的北極活動。
本研究認為，中國已在北極治理中取得部分且具條件性的合法性（partial and conditional legitimacy）。此一結果並非源於中國未能符合北極治理規範，而是因為合法性本質上取決於他者承認，並受到一個具有層級性（hierarchical）的治理秩序所制約。在此治理秩序中，既有強權仍在相當程度上影響合法參與的界線。更廣泛而言，本研究顯示，在國際權力結構轉型的背景下，合法性、身份認同與治理參與資格正持續受到協商與重塑，並為理解新興大國如何尋求國際承認及國際秩序如何演變提供新的視角。
關鍵詞 : 中國、北極治理、合法性、建構主義、批判論述分析、承認
This thesis examines how China seeks to transform its status from a non-Arctic outsider into a legitimate participant in Arctic governance through official discourse, and under what conditions this claim is recognized, qualified, or contested by other actors. Drawing upon Constructivism and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the study conceptualizes legitimacy as an intersubjective process of recognition rather than an objective status secured through material capabilities or unilateral self-description. The research focuses on China’s official Arctic discourse, particularly the 2018 Arctic Policy White Paper, and analyses how China’s legitimacy claims are received and interpreted within the policy discourses of Russia and the United States.
The thesis develops an analytical framework based upon key Arctic governance norms, including respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law, scientific cooperation, environmental stewardship, peaceful governance, and multilateral engagement. Through qualitative discourse analysis of official policy documents, government statements, and strategic reports, the study evaluates the extent to which China aligns its discourse with these normative expectations and how such claims are subsequently interpreted by major Arctic powers.
The findings demonstrate that China pursues legitimacy through a strategy of norm adaptation rather than overt institutional revisionism. Chinese discourse consistently emphasizes cooperation, legality, scientific contribution, and responsible participation within existing governance structures. However, the study finds that legitimacy is not secured through self-description alone. Rather, recognition depends upon intersubjective processes of interpretation shaped by competing governance and security discourses. Russia generally provides qualified recognition of China’s participation, particularly where it aligns with Russian developmental and strategic interests, while the United States increasingly interprets Chinese Arctic activities through a security-oriented discourse emphasizing strategic competition and influence projection.
The thesis argues that China has achieved partial and conditional legitimacy within Arctic governance. This outcome reflects not a failure to align with Arctic governance norms, but the fact that legitimacy remains contingent upon recognition within a hierarchical governance order in which established powers continue to influence the boundaries of acceptable participation. More broadly, the study demonstrates how legitimacy, identity, and governance inclusion are negotiated under conditions of geopolitical transformation, offering new insights into the relationship between emerging powers, international recognition, and the evolving structure of international order.
Keywords: China; Arctic governance; legitimacy; constructivism; critical discourse analysis; recognition
Abstract ii
摘要 iii
Table of Contents iv
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Key Concepts 3
Chapter 2 - Literature Review and Theoretical Framework 7
2.1 Introduction to the Literature 7
2.1.1 Strategic and Geopolitical Perspectives 7
2.1.2 Economic and Polar Silk Road Perspectives 9
2.1.3 Governance and Legal Perspectives 11
2.1.4 Discursive and Identity-Based Approaches 13
2.1.5 Research Gap 16
2.2 Theoretical Framework 18
2.2.1 Introduction to the Theoretical Framework 18
2.2.2 Constructivism, Identity, and Social Interaction 18
2.2.3 Legitimacy as an Intersubjective Outcome 19
2.2.4 Legitimation and Discursive Strategies 19
2.2.5 Analytical Implications for the Study 21
Chapter 3 - Methodology 22
3.1 Purpose, Scope and Organisation 22
3.2 Research Design and Analytical Framework 22
3.3 Data, Case, Document and Time-Period Selection 23
3.4 Operationalising van Leeuwen’s Legitimation Categories 24
3.5 Reception Coding Criteria 26
3.6 Integrated CDA Analytical Procedure 26
3.7 Methodological Limitations 28
Chapter 4 - Empirical Analysis: Arctic Governance Norms, China’s
Legitimation, Russia & US Reception, and Critical Discourse Analysis 29
4.1 Arctic Governance Norms as Criteria 29
4.1.1 Arctic Governance as a Normative Order 30
4.1.2 Core Norms of Arctic Governance 30
4.1.3 Conditional Inclusion of Non-Arctic Actors 31
4.1.4 Arctic Governance Norms as Criteria for Legitimacy Assessment 32
4.2 China’s Legitimation Strategies 33
4.2.1 Constructing the “Near-Arctic State” Identity 33
4.2.2 Scientific Contribution as Rationalization 34
4.2.3 Legal Alignment and Authorization 35
4.2.4 Economic Cooperation and Mutual Benefit 36
4.2.5 Structured Legitimation and Its Limits 37
4.3 Reception by Russia and the United States 38
4.3.1 Sovereignty and Governance Authority 38
4.3.2 Scientific Cooperation and Knowledge Production 42
4.3.3 Economic Cooperation and Development 44
4.3.4 Comparative Legitimacy Outcomes 46
4.3.5 Reception Coding Outcomes (Table 4.0) 47
4.4 Critical Discourse Analysis and Discussion 48
4.4.1 China’s Partial and Conditional Legitimacy 49
4.4.2 Arctic Governance as Hierarchical Inclusion 53
4.4.3 Governance Discourse and Security Discourse 58
4.4.4 China as a Norm-Adaptive Governance Actor 64
4.4.5 Critical Synthesis and Overall Legitimacy Outcome 72
4.4.5.1 Defining Legitimacy Levels (Table 4.1) 74
4.4.5.2 Summary of Legitimacy Outcomes (Table 4.2) 75
4.4.5.3 Stages of Analysis and Findings (Table 4.3) 76
Chapter 5 - Conclusion 77
5.1 Revisiting the Research Question 77
5.2 Summary of Findings 78
5.3 Implications 79
5.3.1 Theoretical Implications 79
5.3.2 Broader Implications for Arctic Governance and International Order 80
5.3.3 Policy Implications and Recommendations 86
5.3.3.1 Preserving Arctic Governance Cooperation Amid Strategic Competition 86
5.3.3.2 Clarifying the Role of Non-Arctic Actors within Arctic Governance 87
5.3.3.3 Enhancing Transparency and Dialogue 87
5.4 Limitations and Future Research 88
5.5 Final Reflection 89
References 90
Brady, A.-M. (2017). China as a polar great power. Cambridge University Press.
Byers, M. (2013). International law and the Arctic. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, G. (2012). China’s emerging Arctic strategy. The Polar Journal, 2(2), 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2012.735039
Dodds, K. (2010). Flag planting and finger pointing: The law of the sea, the Arctic and the political geographies of the outer continental shelf. Political Geography, 29(2), 63–73.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
Huebert, R. (2009). Canadian Arctic sovereignty and security in a transforming circumpolar world (Foreign Policy for Canada’s Tomorrow No. 4). Canadian International Council.
Humpert, M., & Raspotnik, A. (2012). The future of Arctic shipping along the Transpolar Sea Route. Arctic Yearbook, 281–307.
Jakobson, L., & Peng, J. (2012). China’s Arctic aspirations (SIPRI Policy Paper No. 34). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Keil, K. (2014). The Arctic: A new region of conflict? The case of oil and gas. Cooperation and Conflict, 49(2), 162–190.
Koivurova, T. (2010). Limits and possibilities of the Arctic Council in a rapidly changing scene of Arctic governance. Polar Record, 46(2), 146–156.
Lanteigne, M. (2014). China’s emerging Arctic strategies: Economics and institutions. University of Iceland Press.
Lanteigne, M. (2017). ‘Have you entered the storehouses of the snow?’ China as a norm entrepreneur in the Arctic. Polar Record, 53(2), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247416000759
Lasserre, F. (2014). Case studies of shipping along Arctic routes: Analysis and profitability perspectives for the container sector. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 66, 144–161.
Ma, X. (2019). China’s Arctic policy on the basis of international law: Identification, goals, principles and positions. Marine Policy, 100, 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.027
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2023, March 21). Joint statement of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation on deepening the comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era. https://www.mfa.gov.cn/ziliao_674904/zt_674979/ywzt_675099/2023nzt/xjpdelsjxgsfw/zxxx/202303/t20230322_11046188.shtml
Onuf, N. G. (1989). World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. University of South Carolina Press.
Pompeo, M. R. (2019, May 6). Looking North: Sharpening America’s Arctic focus. U.S. Department of State. https://2017-2021.state.gov/looking-north-sharpening-americas-arctic-focus/
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). SAGE.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
Rosenau, J. N. (1992). Governance, order, and change in world politics. In J. N. Rosenau & E.-O. Czempiel (Eds.), Governance without government: Order and change in world politics (pp. 1–29). Cambridge University Press.
Russian Federation. (2020a). Basic principles of state policy of the Russian Federation in the Arctic to 2035 (Presidential Decree No. 164, March 5, 2020).
Russian Federation. (2020b). Strategy for the development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and ensuring national security to 2035 (Presidential Decree No. 645, October 26, 2020).
Sheng, E. L. (2022). Arctic opportunities and challenges: China, Russia and the US cooperation and competition. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1246-7
Sørensen, C. T. N., & Klimenko, E. (2017). Emerging Chinese–Russian cooperation in the Arctic (SIPRI Policy Paper No. 46). Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2018, January 26). China’s Arctic policy. https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/white_paper/2018/01/26/content_281476026660336.htm
Sun, K. (2013). China and the Arctic: China’s interests and participation in the region (East Asia-Arctic Relations Paper No. 2). Centre for International Governance Innovation. https://www.cigionline.org/publications/china-and-arctic-chinas-interests-and-participation-region/
U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). Report to Congress: Department of Defense Arctic strategy. https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jun/06/2002141657/-1/-1/1/2019-DOD-ARCTIC-STRATEGY.PDF
U.S. Department of State. (2022). National strategy for the Arctic region. U.S. Department of State. https://2021-2025.state.gov/national-strategy-for-the-arctic-region-nsar/
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication, 1(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Young, O. R. (2016). The Arctic Council at twenty: How to remain effective in a rapidly changing environment. UC Irvine Law Review, 6(1), 99–119.
