在國際關係的研究領域中，不論是國家中心論或是以體系為主的體系理論，都以國家為研究的客體。伴隨著全球化浪潮，「全球治理」概念的出現，表明以國家為主的國際政治體系已無法解決國際環境的複雜變化，須藉助許多跨國性次級團體來共同治理。有鑑於此，新現實主義、新自由主義、 與建構主義中以國家為給定對象的國際關係主流理論，遇到解釋上的局限， 需要建構一套新的本體論與知識論，俾有效解釋在國際政治中逐漸呈現的多元行為體治理現象。本文認為國際關係理論面臨三個問題的挑戰:一、如何解..

Theories of international relations(IR), whether through state-centric or systemic approach, put states as centers of research objectives. With trending globalization, the advent of the global governance concepts manifests that a state-focused international political system without transnational sub-political groups has failed to respond to complex changes in the international environment. Accordingly, this challenges neo-realism, neo- liberalism, and constructivism, which focus on the state-centric approach and experience ex..

國際關係建構主義學者內部不同知識論的爭論或焦慮，尤其是現代建構主義與後現代建構主義的知識論爭議，因為後者根本反對有共同知識論與方法論的存在，影響了建構主義內部的建橋計畫，乃至整個國際關係理論建橋計畫的可能性，更明確地說，國際關係理論的綜合是否可能呢?遂有必要更為細緻與詳細的探討不同建構主義學者個別的觀點，藉以呈現國際關係理論研究的複雜性、多元性。本文以 Alexander Wendt、Jeffrey Checkel、Emanuel Adler 和 David..

The different epistemological assumptions or anxieties among constructivists, particularly, the epistemological debate between modernistic constructivists and postmodernistic constructivists, and it may not only have a profound impact on the bridge building project within constructivism but also on the bridge building projects in the International Relations Theory (IRT). Clearly and namely, can it be possible for the synthesis of IRT? It is necessary to conduct a more sophisticated and detailed research on constructivism&rsqu..