在過去的二十年以來,理論辯論成為寬廣的國際關係理論領域中日益顯著的部份。如果我們需要使用一組可信而適當的理論,來回答關於在特定條件下國際關係理論分歧的向題,則現有理論無法提供一個滿意的答案。
本文嘗試提出一個整體的觀點,來理解國際關係中的研究途徑與理論概念現存的分歧情形。基此目的,本研究的目標,在於藉由統攝概念的運動,以建立 一個國際關係理論分歧現象的分析架構,來理解那些主理論分歧的現象。
本文的討論並未解決那些現存理論分歧的問題,只是嘗試說明一個理論的爭議將會如何予以解決。
Over the last 20 years, theoretical debates have become an increasingly conspicuous part in the broader field of international Relations Theory. If we are in need of an adequate theory that provides a set of plausible and testable answers to questions about theoretical diversity under specified conditions, the existing theory, in term, does not suffice.
This paper attempts to provide a comprehensive perspective to understand the existing diversity of research approaches and theoretical concepts of international relations. To this end, the objective of this study is to establish an analytical framework for the theoretical diversity of international relations by the unifying concept to understand the phenomenon theoretical diversity.
None of these discussed can be resolved through existing diversity, but only attempting to describe a theoretical debate that could be resolved in the future.
國際政治經濟學(簡稱國政經)自 70 年代開始發展以來,不僅呈現出理論(自由主義、重商主義與馬克思主義)與研究途徑(理性主義與反思主 義)的競逐,同時也有美國(American School)與不列顛學派(British School)間關於學科定位、研究議題與方法論上的差別。本文主要目的在於從三個面向來介紹及探討國政經的不列顛學派:一、為何該學派被稱為 British School?與國際關係英國學派(English School)有何差別?二、不列顛學派..
Since the 1970s, the International Political Economy(IPE)has explored various research methodologies and methods. However, the disciplinary boundary of IPE is still controversial. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the British School of IPE from three dimensions. First, why is this school called “British?” Are there differences between the British School and the English School of international relations? Secondly, British School scholars prefer to call this new discipline the” Global Political Ec..
請輸入想查詢的期刊標題、關鍵字、作者相關資訊. Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.