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.
當前國際關係理論研究現正面臨著「物質轉向」、「物質主義轉向」、「新物質主義轉向」及「複雜轉向」的風潮,重新掀起國際關係理論的「心-物」、「心-身」、「社會世界-自然世界」、「行為主體性-結構」的爭論,乃至「人類中心-非人類中心」的新爭論。國際關係學者藉由「新物質主義」的哲學觀點提供了實用的哲學基礎而使國際關係或國際系統的本體論爭議迴避或拒絕二元對立觀點,呈現出新的「中間道路」(via media)吸納雙方觀點發展出「不只人類」的觀點,以及物質性也不是僅僅無生..
The field of international relations is facing the fashions of “material turn”, “materialism turn,” “new materialism turn,” and “complexity turn,” which re- raises the new debates of ideal-material, mind-body, social world-natural world, agency-structure, and anthropocentrism-nonanthropocentrism in international relations. With the New Materialism offering a practical philosophical founda- tion, the ontological debates of international relations or international systems could av..
本文主旨在研究國際關係歷史社會學的興起與發展,反思其理論觀點,以及呈現此理論的優勢與未來,促使國內國際關係學者能關注此理論(或研究途徑)。因此,本文第壹部分說明國際關係歷史社會學的流行風潮,以顯現其近年所受到國際關係學者的重視,並約略說明國內相對的情形,以提醒國內國際關係學者關注此理論(或研究途徑)。第貳部分探討國際關係歷史社會學的理論(或研究途徑)發展過程,說明其經過三波的發展階段所關注的重點,尤其是批判主流理論的非歷史性或非歷史主義(ahistorici..
As a reminder for the domestic scholars in International Relations to acquaint to the International Historical Sociology(HIS), this paper aims at researching the development, reflections and prospects of IHS, while analyzing its strengths and future orientations. This paper presents a five-part analysis to reach these aims. The first part describes the popularity of IHS. Though more scholars have paid attentions to it in recent years, the trends in Taiwan have been opposite. This paper drafts a short review and call for Inter..
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.