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..

近年來國際關係理論面臨可能終結的危機，國際關係理論的三大典範：現實主義、自由主義與建構主義的發展呈現停滯的狀態，理論與政策應用之間的鴻溝也逐漸加深，以中程理論為導向的經驗研究逐漸取代了傳統國際關係理論強調通則化與系統性的分析架構。儘管國際關係理論仍有其重要性，但不論現實主義、自由主義與建構主義皆沒有預測到中國的崛起對國際政治所造成的變化，美國學界也開始反思過去對華交往政策的國際關係理論基礎。就臺灣的研究者而言，隨著從事中國大陸研究的限制增加，研究中國外交是否還能像過去那樣地依賴國際關係理..

In recent years, international relations theory has faced a potential crisis of obsolescence. The development of the three major paradigms—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—has stagnated, and the gap between theory and policy implications has widened. Empirical research guided by middle-range theories are replacing traditional international relations theory that emphasize generalization and systematic frameworks. Although international relations theory remains important, neither realism, liberalism, nor constructivism have..