國家行為者面臨體系變動時的策略反應，乃國際政治領域理論研究的重要核心主題。特別是以Waltz為代表的結構現實主義權力平衡理論為主軸，相關平衡理論與其批判，構成現代國際政治理論的重要基礎。有趣的是，源出於歷史觀察而以解釋、預測社會歷史變動的諸平衡理論，卻在不同程度上都出現了理論解釋與預測無法與真實歷史事件相符的理論闕漏。用以佐證特定理論的歷史案例，也往往被其他學者用來批判甚至是否證該特定理論的依據。已然發生的歷史不可能出錯，唯有可能是研究者對於歷史事件的變動在認識上不充足。基於對諸平衡理論的反省，本文透過對於國際歷史上重要衝突案例的檢視，提出一待進一步檢驗的平衡理論―危險平衡理論。危險平衡理論的主要內容，即在將國家行為者的策略動機區分為「趨利」與「避禍」雙軌，並提出下列假說：如國家行為者抱持「趨利」動機，在面臨低度風險時，將採取「依附」策略；在面臨中度風險時，將採取「觀望」策略；在面臨高度風險時，將採取「平衡」策略。如抱持「避禍」動機，則在面臨低度危險時，將採取「躲避」策略；在面臨中度危險時，將採取「屈從」策略；在面臨高度危險時，將採取「對抗」策略。

The strategic reactions of state-actors in the systemic turmoil is one of the core research themes of the discipline of International Politics. Balance of power theories represented by Kenneth N. Waltz’s version and critics hens becomes the important foundation of the theoretical debates. Interestingly, relevant theories in discussing state-actors’ strategic reactions, usually originated from historical observations and designated to explain or even predict certain social historical events, are all in certain degree having the difficulty in explaining or predicting the actual outcomes of other historical events. The things that have already come to pass cannot be wrong, but the insufficient knowledge to them can be. Base on the reflection of the relevant theories, the author attempts boldly in asserting a revisionist balance theory based on the re-examination of important events in the international history. The major assertions of the theory proposed by this article are as follows: while with the motive of profit-seeking, state-actors will take the Bandwagoning strategy in facing a low degree of risk, will take the Spectating strategy in facing a medium degree of risk, and will take the Balancing strategy in facing a high degree of risk; while with the motive of damage-avoiding, states-actors will take the Hiding strategy in facing a low degree of danger, will take the Capitulating strategy in facing a medium degree of danger, and will take the Confronting strategy in facing a high degree of danger.