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、不列顛學派學者偏好以「全球政治經濟學」(Global Political Economy)取代「國際政治經濟學」(International Political Economy)作為學科名稱，‘Global’和 ‘International’到底有何不同?僅涉及世界經濟生產方式的改變?還是包括研究議題與研究方法上的變遷?三、不列顛學派亦被稱為「批判的國際政治經濟學」(Critical IPE)，‘Critical’的意涵為何?其和國際關係批判理論 (Critical Theory of International Relations)有何異同?經由這三組問題的討論，冀望可以對國政經不列顛學派有較充分的理解。
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 Economy(GPE)“instead of “International Political Economy.” Thus, what is the underlying meaning of “Global?” Does it require the use of different research methodology? Thirdly, the British School is often viewed as the “Critical International Political Economy(Critical IPE)”. What does “Critical” represent here? What are the differences and similarities of the Critical IPE and the Critical Theory of International Relations? The author hopes that the discussion of these three dimensions could help us further understand the British School of IPE.
自 90 年代中期以來，學界對於恐怖主義的研究正日益深化，反恐措施也推陳出新。不過，恐怖主義攻擊卻未因此減少，反而從過去盛行的中東地區和發展中國家蔓延到威權的前蘇聯各國以及已開發國家。參與者也從過去的反殖民建國訴求者，擴大為宗教和其他激進運動的獻身者;手段上更普遍地採取自殺攻擊，而不在乎組織形象聲名狼藉和人員的損失。似乎強大的國家，其安全與反擊措施越嚴厲，越激發攻擊者的鬥志。這種「越挫越奮」的異常現象，對傳統的國關理論構成了不小的挑戰。
National security is traditionally comprehended in terms of the rationalist approach, of which the physical boundaries and the static “Self” of nation states are taken for granted. The concept of “security dilemma” is accordingly understood as the conflicting tendency between nations in the process of defense build-up. However, this article argues that another type of “security dilemma” should not be ignored: the more the units increase its physical capabilities, the less secure they are, d..
Please enter the journal title, keywords, and author-related information you want to query.