非傳統安全指的是除了戰爭外其他會威脅到國家安全的議題，在全球化的局勢下這些議題的重要性與日俱增，然而文獻上少有對這個國際關係的第三大次領域系統性的整理，本文討論非傳統安全的三大重要主題—能源安全、環境議題、恐怖主義，以及其他議題如糧食安全、移民與難民議題、跨國犯罪、以及傳染病，除了回顧相關文獻並探討其趨勢外，本文認為非傳統安全的議題仍不斷在擴充中，並點出全球化下科技在這些議題中扮演的重要角色。
Non-traditional security (NTS) issues refer to any issues other than wars that will threaten national security. The importance of NTS issues has been increasing as globalization has accelerated. The literature, however, lacks a systematic review of NTS research, which is arguably the third largest subfield in international relations. This paper focuses on three major NTS issues—energy security, environmental issues, and terrorism, and also briefly discusses other NTS issues, including food security, migration and refugees, transnational crime, and pandemics. In addition to reviewing the relevant literature on each issue and pointing out the potential areas for future research, this paper argues that the scope of NTS issues keeps expanding and that technology plays a key role in these issue areas in the era of globalization.
國際系統的理論化是國際關係理論發展的關鍵階段之一，甚至有學者認為國際關係理論研究如同是(國際)系統理論化的傳統。國際關係學者從 1950、60 年代開始進行國際系統的理論化，嘗試建立科學研究的國際系統理論，不同的學者都嘗試藉由其他學科學者的系統理論(systems theory)提出不同的國際系統理論化途徑。國際關係歷史社會學學者歷經三階段的國際系統理論化途徑，第一階段引述歷史社會學學者的國際系統觀點，作為其國際系統理論化及批判新現實主義國際系統理論化的主張..
Theorization of the “international systems” is a critical stage in the development of International Relations Theory(IRT). Some IR scholars even thought that IRT is a tradition of(international)systems-theorization. Since the 1950s and 1960s, IR scholars began to theorize the “international systems” and build a scientific study on international systems theories. Many scholars tried to propose approaches in theorizing the “international systems” through system theories from other disciplines..
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..
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.