自冷戰結束以來，東亞地區政治與經濟呈現大幅背離，以致安全困境始 終未能有效緩解。本文從Barry Buzan 無政府狀態論述，指出其背景在於自 二次大戰結束以來東亞日漸形成以主權國家為核心之無政府秩序形態，東亞 國家習於以權力平衡確保主權與安全，以致東亞區域結構緊張，相互依賴的 安全溢出作用受限。冷戰結束以來，中國崛起過於快速導致東亞國家間實力 不對稱性擴大，反而深化東亞總體關係由於國家類型、意識形態和領土因素 綜合呈現之敵意性，中國睦鄰外交實踐的友善效應更因而被稀釋，安全建制 亦因而無法在促進東亞安全困境緩解上發揮明確效益。

Current increasing tensions in the Korean Peninsula and South China Sea show that political and economic dimensions in East Asia diverge drastically and security dilemma remains acute. This article will re-examine the basic security dilemma hypothesis, which presumes an anarchical status of international community. Neo-realist, neo-liberalist and constructionist schools agree that an anarchical status does not mean chaotic orderlessness. Barry Buzan indicates that international anarchy will evolve itself into a more mature phase and thereby alleviate tension caused by security dilemma. Interdependence is widely regarded as an effective variable enabling this evolution. The problem then is that interdependence is not free from the constraint of real-political power logics. This constraint deepens as the contemporary nation-state system of world politics expands, and as the interaction between security structures of various regions exposes their differences. This article argues that the difficulty in alleviating tension in East Asian security dilemma is inherited from the regional anarchy based on the nationstate system since the end of WWII, and complicated by the balance of power East Asian states were accustomed to in insuring security during the Cold War. After the end of Cold War, China’s rise deepens this dilemma and thus constrains the evolution of East Asian anarchy to maturity. China’s swift rise apparently expands asymmetry of national strengths within the region, manifests animosity caused by differences in statehood, ideologies and territorial disputes, and thereby worsens the sense of insecurity in the region, including China itself. More importantly, China’s rise cancels some effects of its alleged policy of amity towards its neighbors, leading to another dilemma in security strategic choices in the future.