冷戰結束，對現今世界政治局勢發展有何影響？請講解。

蘇聯解體，冷戰結束，美國成為世界上主要的超級大國。


蘇聯的行動促使十二個西方國家於1949年4月組成“北大



西洋公約組織”(the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ，

簡稱“北約”，藉以阻止蘇聯的擴張，最後，蘇聯被迫於

同年5月解除對柏林的封鎖。

　

柏林危機導致德國分裂為東、西德。德國於1990年10月3日重新統一，結束了持續達41年的分裂局面。
http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=7007041403836
在冷戰後期，歷史學家們開始尋求一種後修正主義的解答。到冷戰結束後，這一派觀點已經佔了上風。這派歷史學家並不認為兩個超級大國中的任何一國應該為冷戰負全責，而是歸咎於雙方的誤解與反應，兩方都應對冷戰負責。後修正主義學者追隨了現實主義國際關係的看法，認為美國在歐洲的政策，如1947年對希臘的援助和馬歇爾計劃是必要的。


根據這種觀點，「共產主義運動」並不是西歐困境的根源。相反，在經濟、政治方面的全面戰爭，以及歐洲的社會結構才是其根源。而馬歇爾計劃重建了一個良好的歐洲經濟體系，從而減少了極左勢力在西歐的吸引力。對歐洲來説，經濟援助結束了資金短缺，刺激了對戰後重建的投資。對美國來説，該計劃解決了生產過剩的問題，增加了美國對外出口。北約組織則將西歐國家納入共同防禦體系，從而避免了共產主義的擴張。後修正主義學派不認為共產主義具有擴張性，企圖推翻「自由世界」，但是他們同時認為美國在歐洲的政策在確保歐洲的穩定方面是必要的，從而避免權力向蘇聯傾斜，最終危及到西方的經濟、政治制度。
http://hk.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/?qid=7006121704377

I believe what you are asking about after the cold war, so the previous answer, which look at the Marshall plan is quite irrelevant.

I think there are 2 major schools of thought which consider your question and yield quite different answer.

The first one is the liberalist. Scholars like Fukuyama had once famously addressed that the collapse of the USSR signified the victory of liberal democracy against communism- “the end of history ”and “a world made up of liberal democracies should have much less incentive for war.” Hence, all countries would (and should) now move towards democracy. This can be used as a justification for the US invasion of Iraq, as it is a mission to establish democracy. In short, if you are a liberalist, this will mean all countries will eventually become democracies.

The other school of thought is the realist (eg Waltz). They do not think peace has anything to do with democracy (or vice versa). They believe the key to peace is the balance of power is they see the international stage as an anarchy. Thus, the collapse of USSR means that balance no longer exist and the US is free to do whatever it wants until a new balance is established (eg the EU or China.) This can be used to analyse the war in Iraq as well as it can be seen as US trying to benefit from the oil as it is the only super power.


Those 2 are only very broad overviews. There are a lot more to those theories (even the liberalist have many branches) and I hope, they can help you for now.