Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18027
標題: 印度和巴基斯坦互動之研究:以核武問題為中心
The Study of the Interaction between India and Pakistan: The Case of Nuclear Issue
作者: 游靜方
Yu, Ching-Fang
關鍵字: 印度;India;巴基斯坦;核武;喀什米爾;和平進程談判;Pakistan;nuclear weapons;Kashmir;the peace process negotiations
出版社: 國際政治研究所
引用: 一、中文部分 (一) 書籍 Basham, A.L.著(1999),《印度文化史》。北京:商務印書館。 Joshua S.Goldstein和Jon C.Pevehouse合著。歐信宏、胡祖慶譯(2007),《國際關係》。台北:雙葉書廊。 Betts, Richard K.,國防部史政編譯室譯(2004),《浮現中的核武危機:核武擴散、美國利益及全球秩序》。台北:國防部史政編譯室印。 王良能(2004),《印巴關係與南亞安全-中共的觀點》。台北:唐山。 史蒂芬‧辛巴拉(Stephen J Cimbala),楊紫函譯(2005),《軍事說服力》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 史蒂芬‧科恩(Stephen p.Cohen),國防部史政編譯室譯(2003),《印度:成型中的強權》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 史諾(Donald M. Snow),錢武南譯(1986),《動盪世界中的核子戰略》。台北:黎明出版社。 田民洲編(2002),《印度軍情內幕》。北京:新華出版社。 伊恩˙安東尼,中國國際問題研究所譯(2000),《防止武器擴散問題:不合作的多邊反應》。北京:世界知識出版社。 安德魯‧溫勒(Andrew C.Winner)和古原俊井(Toshi Yoshihara)合著,國防部史政編譯室譯(2004),《南亞核子穩定》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 周煦(2003),《冷戰後美國的南亞政策》。台北:生智出版社。 周煦(2003),《戰後美國的南亞政策》。台北:生智出版社。 芬克(Lila Finck)著,黃明譯(1994),《尼赫魯》。台北:鹿橋出版。 孫士海主編(2000),《印度的發展及其對外戰略》。北京:中國社會科學。 馬加力(2002),《關注印度—崛起中的大國》。天津:人民。 曹永勝(2002),《南亞大象-印度軍事戰略發展與現狀》。北京:解放軍出版社。 許勖(Uk Heo)和謝爾‧霍羅威茨(Shale A. Horowitz)編,周茂林譯(2008),《亞洲衝突:南北韓、台海、印巴》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 陳延琪(2003),《印巴分立:喀什米爾衝突的濫觴》。烏魯木齊:新疆人民。 傑克‧史賓瑟(Jack Spencer),國防部史政編譯室譯(2001),《彈道飛彈威脅手冊》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 湯瑪斯‧謝林(Thomas C Schelling),徐孟豪譯(2007),《武備的影響力》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 維特.烏托葛夫(Victor A. Utgoff),宜瑄、邱明瀚譯(2003),《浮現中的核武危機:核武擴散、美國利益及全球秩序》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 趙伯樂(2003),《當代南亞國際關係》。北京:中國社會科學。 趙蔚文(2003),《印美關係愛恨錄:半個多世紀的回顧與展望》。北京:時事出版社。 趙曉卓(2002),《南亞雄師-印度軍事力量透視》。上海:華東師範大學出版社。 劉必榮(2008),《國際關係的第一本書-看世界的方法》。台北:先覺出版社。 邁可(Michael Krepon)和克里斯‧甘涅(Chris Gagne)編,國防部史政編譯室譯(2002),《穩定與不穩並的矛盾:南亞的核武與邊緣策略》。台北:國防部史政編譯室。 (二) 論文期刊 方天賜(2002年),〈印度的巴基斯坦政策-在國會攻擊事件後採行強制外交的成效與侷限〉,《遠景基金會季刊》,第3卷第4期,頁69-96。 王東(2004年),〈印巴關係的變化與喀什米爾問題〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第2期,頁4-48。 伍幅佐(2002年),〈試析布希政府對印巴危機管理〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第4期,頁34-39。 伍福佐(2002),〈試析反恐對印美關係的建構〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第3期,頁33-38。 吳玉山(2002),〈仍是現實主義的傳統:九一一與布希主義〉,《政治科學論叢》,第17期,頁1-32。 吳雲賢(2002),〈伊斯蘭原教旨主義、宗教極端主義與國際恐怖主義辨析〉,《國外社會科學》,第一期,頁14-20。 宋德星(2002年),〈印巴安全兩難與中國的南亞政策〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第1期,頁13-19。 李小超(2009),〈對911後美國與巴基斯坦結盟原因的分析〉,《學理論》,第31期,頁174-6。 周瑾(2001年),〈911事件與國際反恐怖主義途徑分析〉,《教學與研究》,第11期,頁55-57。 拉吉‧萊(Cmde. Retd. Ranjit Rai)(1999年),〈印巴衝突獨家搜密喀什米爾之戰〉,《尖端科技》,頁100-105。 邵育群(2009),〈美國與印度的反恐合作:內容、問題與前景〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第1期,頁13-19。 邱永輝(2001年),〈911事件後印度的考量〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第4期,頁37-43。 邱永輝(2003年),〈印度教民族主義與印巴關係〉,《國際政治》,頁69-73。 原狄(2001年),〈美國、巴基斯坦、印度〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第4期,頁32-36。 馬加力(1995年),〈美國南亞政策的調整〉,《現代國際關係》,第7期,頁8-11。 馬加力(1998年),〈印巴核試驗及其對南亞安全態勢的影響〉,《現代國際關係》,第7期,頁20-22。 馬加力(2001年),〈淺析美、印、巴三角關係的變化〉,《現代國際關係》,第145期,頁32-35。 馬加力(2004年),〈印巴關係回暖的背後〉,《現代國際關係》,第2期,頁53-55。 馬加力,傅小強(1999年),〈印度瓦杰帕伊新政府的內外政策〉,《國際現代關係》,第11期,頁9-11。 張力(2001年),〈印度核試以來的中印關係〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第103期,頁39-48。 張力(2002),〈911事件後的印巴關係與南亞地區安全〉,《南亞研究季刊》,1期,頁42-48。 張敏謙(2000),〈美對印政策調整趨向、意圖與美印關係走勢〉,《現代國際關係》,126期,頁31-34。 張雅君(1998年),〈印度核子試爆與中共威脅論〉,《中國大陸研究》,第41卷第5期,頁1-2。 張雅君(2000年),〈印巴核武試爆後中共的南亞安全政策〉,《中國大陸研究》,第43卷第2期,頁15-35。 陳小萍(2010),〈印巴恢復和平進程:動因與制約〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第4期,頁9-14。 陳文賢(1999年),〈印度與巴基斯坦的核武競爭〉,《問題與研究》,第38卷第12期,頁1-16。 陳文賢(2004年),〈印度與巴基斯坦和平談判的展望〉,《中華歐亞基金會研究》第7卷第2期。 陳純如(2008年),〈印巴和平進程-1998-2004年〉,《問題與研究》,第47卷第1期,頁55-86。 陳純如(2009年),〈印巴「全面對話」復談協商過程之分析〉,《問題與研究》,第48卷第4期,頁153-188。 榮鷹(2010),〈印巴和平進程演變及前景〉,《當代世界》,第1期,頁54。 劉津坤(2004),〈印巴關係緩和初析〉,《國際問題研究》,第2期,頁59-62。 劉曉杰(2012),〈印度孟買恐怖攻擊事件評析〉,《輕兵器》,第2期,頁25-26。 蔡明彥(2011),〈台灣對兩岸軍事互信的研究與未來作法〉,《亞太研究論壇》,第52期,頁110-111。 鄭端耀(2000年),〈核不擴散建制的運作與發展〉,《問題與研究》,第39卷第4期,頁41-77。 羅祖棟(2001年),〈冷戰結束以來美國的南亞政策目標〉,《南亞研究季刊》,第4期,頁21-31。 (三) 未出版論文 吳志賢(2002年),《印度核武發展之研究》。台北:政治大學外交學系研究所碩士論文。 李育奇(1996年),《核武與印巴間形成恐怖平衡之可行性》。台北:台灣大學政治學系研究所碩士論文。 陳彥壯(2005年),《核子試爆後印度與巴基斯坦核子戰略研究》。台中:中興大學國際政治研究所碩士論文。 (四) 報章雜誌 世界日報 青年日報 中國時報 自由時報 聯合報 人民日報 (五) 網路資料 〈巴基斯坦〉,《維基百科網》(2011/10/2瀏覽),http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/巴基斯坦 〈喀什米爾〉,《維基百科網》(2011/10/2瀏覽),http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-tw/喀什米爾 聯合國安理會第29號決議文(瀏覽時間:2011/10/28),http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1948/scres48.htm 聯合國安理會1948號決議文(瀏覽時間:2011/10/30),http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1948/scres48.htm 聯合國安理會有關印巴衝突記錄(瀏覽時間:2011/11/02),http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/specpk.htm#reso 〈第1172(1998)號決議〉,《聯合國安全理事會》(2012/3/21瀏覽),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/98/s1172.htm 〈第1172(1998)號決議〉,《聯合國安全理事會》(2012/3/21瀏覽),http://www.un.org/chinese/aboutun/prinorgs/sc/sres/98/s1172.htm 〈穆沙拉夫表示如爆發戰爭不排除用核武〉,《2002年展望戰爭與和平》(2012/4/6),http://fungchiwood.com/India-Pakistan.htm. 〈和平巴士促和解 印巴正式恢復大使級外交關係〉,《中國網》(2012/4/6瀏覽),http://www.china.com.cn/chinese/2003/Jul/367057.htm 〈美耗資一億美元秘密援助巴基斯坦加強核武安全〉,《新華網》(2012/6/12瀏覽),http://big5.xinhuanet.com/gate/big5/news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2007-11/19/content_7102282.htm 二、外文部分 (一) 書籍 Bamzai, P.N.K. (1994), Culture and Political History of Kashmir, vol.3. New Delhi: M. D.Publications. Dixit, J. N. (2002), India-Pakistan in war & peace, New Delhi: Routledge. Fai (1992), Perspectives on Kashmir: the Roots and Conflict in South Asia Boulder : Westview Pr. Ganguly, Sumit (1986), The Origins of War in South Asia: Indo-Pakistani Conflicts since 1947. Boulder: Westview Press. Ganguly, Sumit (1999), India’s Pathway to Pokhran Ⅱ: The Prospects and Sources of New Delhi''s Nuclear Weapons Program. International Security. Ganguly, Sumit (1999), The Crisis in Kashmir: Portents of War, Hopes of Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harrison, Selig S. Kreisberg, Paul H. and Kux, Dennis (1999), India and Pakistan: the first fifty years. New York: Cambridge University Press and Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Jones, Gregory S. (2000), From Testing to Deploying Nuclear Forces: The Hard Choices Facing India and Pakistan. RAND IP-192.Washington, DC: RAND. Kapur, Ashok (1976), India’s Nuclear Option: Atomic Diplomacy and Decision Making. New York: Praeger Publishers. Lewis, John Wilson and Litai, Xue (1988), China Builds the Bomb. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Mishra, Rajan Kumar (1996), India and International Relations. New Delhi: Kanishka Publishers. Nehru, Jawaharlal (1946), The Discovery of India, New York: The John Day company. Parekh, Bhikhu (1989), Gandhi’s Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination. London: MacMillan Press. Perkovich, George (1999), India’s Nuclear Bomb:The Impact on Global Proliferation. University of California Press. Rose, Gideon (1997), A New U.S. Policy Toward India and Pakistan. New York: Council on Foreign Relations. Sagan, Scott D. and Waltz, Kenneth N. (1995), The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. New York: w. w. Norton&Company. Schaffer, Teresita, C. (2005), Kashmir: The Economics of Peace Building, CSIS South Asia Program with the Kashmir Study Group. Schlesinger Jr., Arthur M. (1965), A Thousand Days. Greenwich, Conn.: Mariner Books. Wirsing, Robert G. (1994), India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute: On Regional Conflict and Its Resolution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. (二) 專書論文 Arnett, Eric (1998), Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control in South Asia after the Test Ban. Oxford University Press. Banerji, Arun Kumar (1998), Security Issues in South Asia: Domestic and External Sources of Threats to Security. Calcutta, India: T.K. Mukherjee on behalf of Minerva Associates. Ganguly, Sumit and Greenwood, Ted (1999), Mending Fences: Confidence- and Security-Building Measures in South Asia. Colorado: Westview Press. Mukherjee, T. B. International Relations and Foreign Policy of India. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications. (三) 期刊論文 Abramson, Harold I.(2004), “Problem-Solving Advocacy in Mediations,” Disputes resolution Journal,Vol.59, No.3, pp.56. Ahmar, Moonis (2000), “Confidence-Building Measures Between India and Pakistan,” World Affairs, Vol.4, No.4, pp.34-37. Bajpai, K. Shankar (2003), ” Untangling India and Pakistan,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.82, No.3, pp.112-126. Bedi, Rahul (2000), “Kargil Report: More Questions Raised Than Answered,” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.35, No.17, pp.1429-31. Beg, Mirza Aslam (1999), “Nuclearization of South Asia: Rational Diffusion of Holocaust,” in UNESCO, LNCV & USPID, City Hall, Como, p. 5. Bray, John (1990), “China and Tibet: an End to Empire?” The World Today, Vol.46, No.12, pp.221-24. Bremmer, John S. (1999), “Bloodshed in Kashmir.” Peacekeeping & International Relations, Vol.28, No.5, pp.11-12. Diamond, Howard (1998), “India Conducts Nuclear Tests; Pakistan Follows Suit,” Arms Control Today, pp.23. Dittmer, Lowell (2001), “South Asia’s Security Dilemma,” Asian Survey, Vol.41, No.6 , pp.901-4. Evans, Alexander (2002), “India, Pakistan, and the Prospect of War,” Current History, Vol.101, No.654, pp.160-165. Frankel, Francine R. (1996), “Indo-U.S. Relations: The Future is Now,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol.19, No.4, pp.129. Ganguly, Sumit and Bringer, Kent L. (2001), “Nuclear Crisis Stability in South Asia,” Asian Survey, Vol.41, No.6 , pp.907-24. Goldstein, Avery (1992), “Robust and Affordable Security:Some Lessons From the Second-Ranking Powers During the cold War,” Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol.15, No.4, pp.494. Hathaway, Robert M. (2000), “Confrontation and Retreat: The U.S. Congress and the South Asian Nuclear Tests,” Arms Control Today, Vol.30, No.1, pp.7. Inderfurth, Karl F. (1998), “India-Pakistan Nuclear Tests,” U.S. Department of State Dispatch, Vol.9 Issue 5, pp.16. John, Wanis St. (1997), “The Mediating Role in the Kashmir Dispute between India and Pakistan,” The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol.21, No.1, pp. 173-195. Kabir, Bhuiah Md. Monoar (1998), “India and the Cold War,” Regional Studies, XVII:1, pp.108-119. Karim, Ahmad Tariq (2002), “Pakistan: Stalking Armageddon?” Contemporary South Asia, Vol.10, No.1, pp.131-149. Khan, Saira (2001), “A Nuclear South Asia: Resolving or Protracting the Protracted Conflict?” International Relations, Vol.15, No.4, pp.61-77. Kronstadt, K. Alan (2008), “Islamist Militancy in the Pakistan – Afghanistan Border Region and U.S.Policy,” CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL34763, pp.90. Makeig, Douglas C. (1987), “War, No-War, and the India-Pakistan Negotiating Process,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 60, No.2, pp.271-94. Malik, J. Mohan (1998), “India Goes Nuclear: Rationale, Benefits, Costs and Implications.” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.20, No.2, pp.194-198. Mandelbaum, Michael (1995), “Lessons of Next Nuclear War,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.74, No.2, pp.24-28. Mistry, Dinshaw (1999), “Diplomacy, Sanctions, and the U.S. Nonproliferation Dialogue with India and Pakistan,” Asian Survey, Vol.39, No.5, pp.753-71. Mohan, Malik, J. (1998), “India Goes Nuclear: Rationale, Benefits, Costs and Implications.” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.20, No.2, p.194. S Ahmed, amina (1999), “Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Program: Turning Points and Nuclear Choices,” International Security, Vol.23, No.4, pp.178-204. Samuel, Cherian (2007), “Indo-US Defence Cooperation andthe Emerging Strategic Relationship” , Strategic Analysis, Vol.31, No.2, pp.218. Schaffer, Teresita C. (2002), “Building a New Partnership with India.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol.25, No.2, pp.31-44. Shuja, Sharif M. (1999), “Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia,” Contemporary Review, 274:1601, pp.288. Singh, Jaswant (1998), “Against Nuclear Apartheid,” Foreign Affairs, Vol.77, No.5, pp.41-51. Tremblay, Reeta (1998), “Renewing UNMOGIP: The Persisting Problem of Kashmir” Peacekeeping & International Relations, Vol.27, No.6, pp.14-6. Unknow (2004), ”No shortcut to peace; India and Pakistan,” The Economist, Vol.373, No. 8403 pp.75. Yahya, Faizal (2004), “Pakistan, SAARC and ASEAN Relations,” Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol.26, No.2, pp.346-375. Zahra, Farah (1999), “Pakistan’s Road to a Minimum Nuclear Deterrent,” Arms Control Today, pp.10. (四) 報章雜誌 Asiaweek China News China Post New York Times Times Washington Post (五) 網路資料 Ayaz Ahmed Khan,”War in Kargil,” Global security(2012/02/01), http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kargil-99.htm Christina Ellington, Christiane Evans, Erik Jorgensen, and Akiko Tamura, “World Reaction to the Indian Nuclear Tests,” < http://cns.miis.edu/research/india/reaction.htm> Federation of American Scientists, “India’s Nuclear Weapon Program: The Beginning (1944-1960), <http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/India/IndiaOrigin.html> Kahn, “Backgruond of Indi-Pakstan Conflict,“ The First War(2002/12/05), http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nmonasch/pakistan-india%20conflict.html MOFA of India, “Annual Report-1999,”IMOFA (2012/02/01),http://www.mha.nic.in Subhash Kapila “PAKISTAN’S LESSONS FROM ITS KARGIL WAR (1999): An Analysis,” southasiaanalysis.( 2012/02/01), http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers13/paper1231.html Tim Healy and Arjuna Ranawana, “A Failure at the Top,” Asiaweek (2012/4/21), http://premium.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/98/0814/nat1.html. Unknow, “Kargil conflict timeline,” BBC NEWS(2012/04/02), http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/387702.stm Unknow, “Kargil War Heroes,” kashmir News Network (2012/04/01), http://ikashmir.net/kargilheroes/index.html Unknow, ”Kagril War,” Cyclopedia (2012/02/01), http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Kargil_War
摘要: 
在1998年的5月,印度在靠近巴基斯坦邊界的省分-拉賈斯坦進行的五次規模不同的核試爆,隨即巴基斯坦也於兩週後進行六回合的核試爆。因為印巴接連核武試爆,成為事實的核武國家,讓這個過去世界漠不關心和政治邊緣化的南亞,又再度讓世界注意並正視南亞核武擴散的問題。因此,本文藉由核武嚇阻理論來探討以下幾個問題:(一)瞭解1998年印巴核試後,兩國持續發展核武能否達到原先預期的嚇阻效果,讓兩國的衝突減少,關係趨於穩定化?(二)印巴兩國長期對峙是否可能透過「互信機制」進行談判,讓印巴降低戰爭的危機?(三)藉由以上幾個問題的釐清和研究,對印巴現況與未來作出進一步的判斷。
結果發現印巴兩國核試後,雙方均相當的克制不使衝突的層次提升及衝突的擴大,相較於1947、1965及1971年的衝突規模及傷亡,核武應該扮演了一個迫使雙方自治的重要因素。也因為這樣的情況,印巴雙方便開始一連串的和談及信心建立措施,尤其在2004年後進入全面對話期,雙方關係趨於穩定。最後,印巴近年來的關係持續好轉,少有大型衝突,在美國反恐戰事的大旗下,印巴反而越形親密,這個結果可以說是雙方在核競賽中所學習到大戰對誰都沒好處的反省,也可以說是領導人思維的改變,加上美國反恐戰爭的介入,改變了該地區的權力平衡關係。

In May 1998, five nuclear tests of different scales were conducted by India in the province of Rajasthan that is closely bordering Pakistan. Then, two weeks later, Pakistan conducted six rounds of similar tests in kind. A series of nuclear tests carried on by India and Pakistan has made the two countries become the nuclear weapons state de facto, and yet again called the world’s attention to South Asia,which in the past has long been slighted and politically marginalized. And of course, most importantly, it called up the world’s concern to the problem of nuclear proliferation in this area. Therefore, in this study, following subjects were discussed by virtue of nuclear deterrence theory:
1.To undersrand whether India and Pakistan, both continuing to develop the nuclear weapons even after the 1998 India-Pakistan nuclear tests, would achieve the originally anticipated deterrent effect, make the conflicts between the two countries get reduced, and the mutual relationship between them get stabilized.
2.Whether there to be any possibility, through a mechanism of mutual trust, to conduct negotiations between India and Pakistan to reduce the crisis of a war, even after a long-term stand-off.
3.To estimate the current and future situation between India and Pakistan by clarifying and studying these issues.
The results showed that, after India and Pakistan nuclear tests, both sides were considerable restraint not to raise the level of conflicts. Compared to the scale of the conflicts and casualties in 1947,1965 and 1971,〝nuclear weapons〞must have played an important role in forcing the two sides to respect each other with their autonomy and independence. Yet also because of such a situation, both India and Pakistan began a series of talks and confidence-building measures, especially with the comprehensive dialogue since 2004, has made the lateral relations between the two sides approach to stabilization.
Finally, the relationship between India and Pakistan has continued to improve in recent years. To the contrary with what they used to be, under the banner of the〝war against terrorism〞in the United States, They closed rank together more intimately. From this result we can conclude that, both sides had realized that, through the vicious circle of nuclear arms races, none of them could be benefited﹗It also proved that, for both sides, the leaders’ ideology has changed, coupled with the interventional U.S.〝war against terrorism〞, the balance of power relations of the region has changed.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18027
其他識別: U0005-0207201222300600
Appears in Collections:國際政治研究所

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.