第二意象影響（second image effects）近來在國際關係研究中已不再受到廣泛關注，儘管它們仍經常被用來詮釋因果關係，例如部分專家對俄烏戰爭的解釋。本論文旨在重新聚焦相關文獻，強調政體類型對國家行為的實質影響，並在分析中納入其他常見的第三層次變數，例如國力與國際秩序。本文採用雙邊時間序列橫斷面（dyadic time-series cross-sectional, TSCS）研究設計，分析1945年至2019年間的雙邊國家年度資料，主要以民主多樣性計畫（Varieties of Democracy, V-Dem）作為衡量政體類型的依據，並以克萊恩中心歷史鳳凰事件資料（Cline Center Historical Phoenix Event Data）衡量國家行為。研究結果對於「不同類型的民主國家本質上更具合作性且較少衝突」的假設呈現混合的支持程度。

Second image effects have recently escaped popularity in International Relations research, although they are frequently used in causal explanations, such as some pundits’ explanation on the Russo-Ukrainian war. This thesis aims to refocus the literature to pay greater theoretical and empirical attention to the actual effects of regime type on state behavior, accounting for other commonly used third image variables, such as power and the international order. Using a dyadic time-series cross-sectional (TSCS) research design to analyze dyadic country-year data (1945-2019), based primarily on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project to measure regime types and the Cline Center Historical Phoenix Event Data to measure state behavior, this thesis finds mixed results for the hypothesis that varying types of democracies are inherently more cooperative and less conflictual.

Acharya, A. (2018). Constructing global order: Agency and change in world politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316756768
Althaus, S., Bajjalieh, J., Carter, J. F., Peyton, B., & Shalmon, D. A. (2020a). Cline Center Historical Phoenix event data variable descriptions (Version 1.3.0) [Data documentation]. Cline Center for Advanced Social Research, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-0647142_V3
Althaus, S., Bajjalieh, J., Carter, J. F., Peyton, B., & Shalmon, D. A. (2020b). Cline Center Historical Phoenix event data (Version 1.3.0) [Data set]. Cline Center for Advanced Social Research, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. https://doi.org/10.13012/B2IDB-0647142_V3
Azar, E. E. (1980). The Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) project. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278002400106
Baldwin, D. A. (2013). Power and international relations. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (2nd ed., pp. 273-297). Sage Publications.
Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(01). https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818305050010
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2015). Explaining Fixed effects: random effects modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and panel data. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(1), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.7
Blackwill, R. D., & Zelikow, P. (2021). The United States, China, and Taiwan: A Strategy to Prevent War. Council Special Report, 90, Council on Foreign Relations.
Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential Power and Power Use: An Investigation of Structure and Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. https://doi.org/10.2307/256588
Bueno de Mesquita, B., Smith, A., Siverson, R. M., & Morrow, J. D. (2003). The logic of political survival. In The MIT Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4292.001.0001
Bull, H. (2012). The anarchical society: A study of order in world politics (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (2024). A new cold war?: The case for a general concept. International Politics, 61(2), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00559-8
Choi, S. (2011). The Democratic Peace through an Interaction of Domestic Institutions and Norms. Armed Forces & Society, 39(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327x11418323.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Angiolillo, F., Bernhard, M., Cornell, A., Fish, M. S., Fox, L., Gastaldi, L., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., God, A. G., Grahn, S., Hicken, A., Kinzelbach, K., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., Neundorf, A., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., von Römer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J., Sundström, A., Tannenberg, M., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-T., Wiebrecht, F., Wig, T., & Ziblatt, D. (2025). V-Dem codebook v15. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project.
Coppedge, M., Gerring, J., Knutsen, C. H., Lindberg, S. I., Teorell, J., Altman, D., Angiolillo, F., Bernhard, M., Cornell, A., Fish, M. S., Gastaldi, L., Gjerløw, H., Glynn, A., Grahn, S., Hicken, A., Ilchenko, N., Krusell, J., Lührmann, A., Marquardt, K. L., McMann, K., Mechkova, V., Medzihorsky, J., Paxton, P., Pemstein, D., von Römer, J., Seim, B., Sigman, R., Skaaning, S.-E., Staton, J., Sundström, A., Tzelgov, E., Wang, Y.-T., Wig, T., Wilson, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2025). V-Dem [Country–Year] Dataset v15. Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. https://doi.org/10.23696/vdemds25
Correlates of War Project. (2021). National Material Capabilities (NMC) Data, version 6.0. Retrieved [March 4, 2025], from https://correlatesofwar.org/data-sets/national-material-capabilities/
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral science, 2(3), 201-215.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy. Yale University Press.
Degner, H., & Leuffen, D. (2018). Franco-German cooperation and the rescuing of the Eurozone. European Union Politics, 20(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116518811076
East, M. A. (1973). Size and foreign Policy Behavior: a test of two models. World Politics, 25(4), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009952
Fariss, C., Anders, T., Markowitz, J., & Barnum, M. (2021). Replication data for: New estimates of over 500 years of historic GDP and population data [Data set]. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DC0ING
Flint, C. (2022). Introduction to Geopolitics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003138549
Frantz, E., Kendall-Taylor, A., Nietsche, C., & Wright, J. (2021). How personalist politics is changing democracies. Journal of Democracy, 32(3), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2021.0036
Gasiorowski, M. J. (1996). An overview of the political regime change dataset. Comparative Political Studies, 29(4), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414096029004004
Geddes, B., Wright, J., & Frantz, E. (2014). Autocratic breakdown and regime transitions: a new data set. Perspectives on Politics, 12(2), 313–331. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714000851
Goldstein, J. S. (1992). A Conflict-Cooperation scale for WEIS Events data. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(2), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002792036002007
Gowa, J., & Mansfield, E. D. (1993). Power politics and international trade. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939050
Hegre, H. (2008). Gravitating toward War. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(4), 566–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002708316738
Hlavac, M. (2022). stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables (Version 5.2.3) [R package]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer
Hudson, V. M., & Day, B. S. (2019). Foreign Policy analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Hunziker, R. (2023, December 1). Hypocrisy sours COP28 - CounterPunch.org. CounterPunch.org. https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/12/01/hypocrisy-sours-cop28/
Johnson, R. (2022). Dysfunctional warfare: The Russian invasion of Ukraine. The US Army War College Quarterly Parameters, 52(2), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.3149
Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300018920
Lake, D. A., Martin, L. L., & Risse, T. (2021). Challenges to the liberal order: Reflections on International Organization. International Organization, 75(2), 225–257. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000636
Layne, C. (1994). Kant or Cant: The myth of the Democratic Peace. International Security, 19(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539195
Linz, J. J. (2000). Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. In Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781685850043
Leeds, B. A., & Davis, D. R. (1999). Beneath the Surface: Regime Type and International Interaction, 1953-78. Journal of Peace Research, 36(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343399036001001
Leeds, B. A., & Savun, B. (2007). Terminating alliances: Why do states abrogate agreements? The Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1118–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00612.x
Leeds, B. A., Mattes, M., & Vogel, J. S. (2009). Interests, institutions, and the reliability of international commitments. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00381.x
Lynch, A. (2016). The influence of regime type on Russian foreign policy toward “the West,” 1992–2015. Communist and Post-communist Studies, 49(1), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.004
Lührmann, A., Tannenberg, M., & Lindberg, S. I. (2018). Regimes of the World (ROW): Opening new avenues for the comparative study of political regimes. Politics and Governance, 6(1), 60–77. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i1.1214
Marshall, M. G., Gurr, T., & Jaggers, K. (2018). Polity5 Project Data (2018 version) [Dataset]. Center for Systemic Peace. https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity5.htm
Mattes, M., Leeds, B. A., & Carroll, R. (2014). Leadership turnover and foreign policy change: societal interests, domestic institutions, and voting in the United Nations. International Studies Quarterly, 59(2), 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/isqu.12175
Maull, H. W. (2018). Introduction: The International Order: A Framework for Analysis. In H. W. Maull (Ed.), The Rise and Decline of the Post-Cold War International Order (pp. 1–22). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198828945.003.0001
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2019). Bound to fail: the rise and fall of the liberal international order. International Security, 43(4), 7–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00342
Miller, S. (2022). peacesciencer: An R package for quantitative peace science research. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 39(6), 755–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/07388942221077926
Müller, H. (2004). The antinomy of democratic peace. International Politics, 41(4), 494–520. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800089
Nathan, A. J. (2020). The puzzle of authoritarian legitimacy. Journal of Democracy, 31(1), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2020.0013
Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power and American foreign policy. Political Science Quarterly, 119(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/20202345
Oxford English Dictionary. (2024, March). Behaviour | behavior (n.). https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5943371974
Qiu, Y. (2024). showtext: Using fonts more easily in R graphs (Version 0.9-7) [R package]. https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.showtext
Ramirez, C. H. (2025). The Post-War evolution of Globalisation and International Order: From liberal to neoliberal international order. Global Society, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2025.2470838
Reich, G. (2002). Categorizing Political Regimes: New data for old problems. Democratization, 9(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000289
Rosato, S. (2003). The flawed logic of democratic peace theory. American Political Science Review, 97(4), 585–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055403000893
Rummel, R.J. (1979). Understanding Conflict and War: Vol. 4: War, Power, Peace. Sage Publications. https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE13.HTM
Schrodt, P., & Yonamine, J. (2013). A guide to event data: past, present, and future. All Azimuth a Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 2(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.167312
Shirk, S. L. (2022). Overreach: How China Derailed Its Peaceful Rise. Oxford University Press.
Steinberg, R. H. (2002). In the Shadow of Law or Power? Consensus-Based Bargaining and Outcomes in the GATT/WTO. International Organization, 56(2), 339–374. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081802320005504
Stinnett, D. M., Tir, J., Schafer, P., Diehl, P. F., & Gochman, C. (2002). The Correlates of War Project direct contiguity data, version 3. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 19(2), 58–66.
Tourinho, M. (2021). The co-constitution of order. International Organization, 75(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000466
Wang, H., & Lu, Y. (2008). The Conception of Soft Power and its Policy Implications: a comparative study of China and Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary China, 17(56), 425–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670560802000191
Waltz, K.N.. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Weeks, J. L. P. (2012). Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian regimes and the initiation of international conflict. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 326–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055412000111
Weil, S., Gottwald, J. C., & Taube, M. (2024). The European Union. Taiwan, and the Silicon Shield argument: a conceptual assessment through the lens of grand theories. European Politics and Society, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2024.2417028
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818300027764
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511612183
Weyland, K. (2017). Autocratic diffusion and cooperation: the impact of interests vs. ideology. Democratization, 24(7), 1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2017.1307823
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag.
Womack, B. (2016). Asymmetry and international relationships. Cambridge University Press.
Yang, Y., & Chen, X. (2021). Globalism or nationalism? The paradox of Chinese official discourse in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 26(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-020-09697-1