1648 年西發里亞條約簽訂後,「領土律令」成為主權國家的一項基本原理。 可是,像泰國這樣的東南亞國家,在劃定政治空間以後,卻未能完全地控制邊界。在邊界地帶,中央政府的政治權力相當虛弱,而且,容易遭遇挑戰。冷戰時期,泰國政府因認知到共產主義威脅,而將邊界地帶的高山民族納入國家統合的議程中。為有效地對邊界地帶的高山民族進行統治,且主張統治的正當性,泰國官方創造出一套關於高山民族的論述體系,使得「山民」成為泰國北部高山民族的一種身分織別的負面標籤。泰國政府持續地把焦點放在「山民問題」的解決,使得這種負面的刻板印象深植在泰國社會中。然而,隨著共產主義威脅的消褪,泰國政治邁向民主化發展,跨境區域經濟合作的興起,這些轉變對國家和高山民族的關係有何影響呢?本文認為,像泰國這樣的開發中國家, 因為市民社會尚未完全成熟,高山民族參與政治活動的機會仍遭受嚴重限制,即使官方展現出朝向多元文化主義發展的趨勢,因為支配國家的主體族群,仍掌握論述創造、政策制定及立法等相關權力,從而在國家和高山民族的關條上,依然占據著優勢的地位。
Since 1648, territorial imperative has become a basic principle of the modern sovereign nation-state system. With the emergence of modern nation-states in peninsular Southeast Asia in the post-colonial era, however, those states' writ still fails to extend to the borderland. During the Cold War period, the central government of Thailand perceived Communism as a threat to Southeast Asia, thus necessary to integrate the highlanders into a territorially bounded nation. For effective ruling, the term chao khao (hill tribe peoples ) was used by the Thai government to refer to the minority ethnic groups in Northern Thailand. Within the discourse of chao khao, there are several negative and stereotypical images towards minority ethnic groups, such as “forest destroyers",“migrants of the mountains",“opium producers", etc. Can the state exert control over the borderlands as globalization prevails since the early 1980s? This article examines the changing relations between the state and the minority ethnic groups in Thailand. We argue that even though the Thai government has recognized the politics of diversity, the state still has dominated the state- minority ethnic groups relations because the state authorized its power over discourse-constructing, policy-making, and law-making.
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..
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.