近代日本思想界總是企圖避免採用會凸顯日本的概念,一方面是對日本身在世界面前缺乏信心,二方面是身在亞洲面前會引發鄰國的猜忌。然而,在日本無法整合亞洲,但又對歐美強權追求和平的誠意與能力感到不足的時候,以日本作為一種有別於西方的和平主義身分,並不會引起亞洲的反彈或西方的排斥。本文以下刻意違反日本思想史習慣而提出的日本主義,其內涵是繞過亞洲,直接以日本作為世界性的國家,貢獻於世界性的形成,並以日本是世界上最有資格談和平與中立的民族,來反思西方、亞洲乃至於中國所代表的意義。日本主義不是任何學派提出的具體思想立場,而是尋求以日本直接面對世界的一種思維態勢,其背景在於歐洲接受日本為平等之一員,但歐洲不能充分提供完成世界性與普遍性理想的制度或政策出路,因此日本可以有獨特的貢獻,並且可以充滿信心的積極貢獻。本文蒐羅這種思想取向的各種蛛絲馬跡,名之為日本主義。
Modern history of Japanese thought always avoids the notion of “Japan” as thinkers do not consider Japan a valid identity to be presented to the world led by European civilizations. If Japan were to participate, it could only participate with confidence in the name of Asia. However, this Asia approach resulted in notorious expansionist war in history. After Cold War was over, Japan’s equal partnership in the world alongside European countries has appeared certain. On the other hand, Europeanness has not achieved the spirit of universal humanism. This provides the background for the emergence of a Japan that could participate in and contribute to the enrichment of such a spirit. The following discussion collects those nascent, sporadic pieces of evidence to suggest a possible rise of Japanism, embedded in peace-making, anti-nuclear movement, neutrality as well as human security. This is the first time in the Japanese thought history that Japan stands along in front of the world as a direct participant in the making of universal humanism.
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 400 年來的歐洲,是主權國家平等的「西發里亞體系」,以權力平衡維繫國際秩序;近 600 年以來的東亞,則是中國為天朝而四方小國臣服的「朝貢體系」,是上下層級的國際秩序。為何會有「朝貢體系」?它為何能運作?從現實主義式的觀點來看,「朝貢體系」只是一個包裝過的權力政治,骨子裡仍是物質上的利害與效益計算,中國霸權之下區域國家抵抗無望,不得不臣服。但是,從建構主義式的觀點來看,之所以會有「朝貢體系」的國際秩序,並不只是因為中國的強大,也是因為區域國家認同中國的..
For nearly four centuries, Europe had the so-called Westphalian System of sovereign states, in which balance of power was the basis of international order. In contrast, for nearly six centuries, East Asia had the so-called “tribute system,” a hierarchical order where China was the supreme leader. Why? From a realist perspective, the tribute system was just a wrapper over power politics based on material calculations of interest and benefit: East Asian countries had no choice but submission to China’s hegemon..
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.