當代中國政治領導人及公共知識分子努力營造中國是一個「負責任的大國」形象。雖然他們審慎地觀察外界如何期待中國,但是他們卻又未必願意滿足外界對於所謂「負責任」的定義。在全球化時代,外界總是關心中國是否能夠參與解決、減緩或預防各種全球治理問題。不過,不論是古典的或當代的中國政治思想,往往強調反躬自省,因此中國政府在體現對自身的世界責任時,幾乎無例外的都以中國能妥善處理與全球治理相關的內部問題為目標,以確保中國自己不成為全球問題為職志。相較於歐美發達國家勇於標舉全球治理的實質責任,北京領導人更關心如何分攤全球治理的責任,尤其在意全球治理不能侵犯各國的國家主權。這種防禦心態有其歷史背景,但是必須回溯中國的當代思想史脈絡,才能夠充分掌握中國政府對全球治理的消極情感及其相應主張。更符合中國思想史的全球治理,應該是全球「自」理。 這樣思維一旦養成,就超越了單純是為了擺脫強權干涉中國的動機,而進一步對當代全球治理的方法論形成挑戰。
Both the political leaders and intellectuals in China want to present the image of her being a responsible country in the world. Their understandings of responsibility are not directed at an external audience, although they closely watch what the latter expects of China. In the global age, the expectation is always about China’s contribution to conflict resolutions, and alleviation and prevention of global problems, whatever it may be. The Chinese political thoughts, classic as well as modern, are so grounded in their cultural and ideological background that their introspective nature determines that Chinese narratives on their nation’s duty in the world unanimously point to China’s responsibility for handling its domestic problems well enough to avoid causing global troubles. Xi Jinping’s widely circulated quote during his trip to Mexico in 2008 reveals a deep mutual misperception between Chinese narrators and China’s criticizers. For Xi Jinping and his colleagues, China has no intention to lead the world, or to provide the world any philosophical guidance regarding their future, or even to participate in initiating problem- solving regimes. The Chinese care more about the mode and process of global governance than any substantive value and goal of global governance. Specifically, the Chinese want to make sure that global governance does not infringe upon the national sovereignty of China. This defensive mentality which has a root in Chinese history of political thoughts prepares China’s unique style of global governance through self-governance. While this is a style meant to avoid rendering any excuse to other major powers seeking opportunities to intervene in China, once on track, its political thought underpinning inevitably challenges the prevailing liberalistic methodology of global governance.
本文的主要目的在瞭解台灣學者如何研究中國的多邊外交,研究成果展現了哪些特色,以及與國際學術界研究此一議題的連結。有關台灣學者研究成果收錄的範疇,則主要以2012年之後的著作為主。本文首先就中國官方及學術界,以及國際學術社群,針對中國多邊外交概念及理論架構的研究,以及政策與執行層面的分析,作一整理爬梳。接下來則探討台灣學者對中國多邊外交的總體性研究,作出了何種貢獻,其與國際關係中多邊外交分析傳統的關聯性如何。此外,本文也針對中國多邊外交的個案,探討台灣學者研究成果與國際學術界研究取向之異同..
The purposes of this study are to understand the approaches adopted by the Taiwanese scholars to research on China’s multilateral diplomacy, major characteristics of research results, and the linkages with the international academic society. The scope of analysis is limited to research publications after 2012. This paper first explores major theoretical concepts adopted by international and mainland Chinese academics on China’s multilateral diplomacy, followed by the analysis of research outputs on policy implementation and prac..
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..
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.