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.
做為國際關係學門當中安全研究重要項目之一的「歐洲安全」,在經由冷戰時期與後冷戰時期的理論辯證與政策實踐進程,已成為相關領域的重要範例。本文將有系統的以區域安全、國際關係、全球體系三個不同層次面向理論當中各自所屬的理性主義與非理性主義做為理論架構,檢驗歐洲安全分別在冷戰與後冷戰時期的發展,以了解各理論的解釋效度與適用性。由本研究對於歐洲安全的交叉檢驗可以發現,冷戰時期以權力為安全關係核心,形成了長期區域集團對抗的國際雙極體系,因此,上述三個層次的理論當中的理性..
The dynamic development of European security in both theoretical debate and policy practice has made its research a momentous model in the field of security studies. This article aims at exploring various theoretical structures of European security by systematically examining both rationalism and non-rationalism in regional security, international relations theories, and global systems. Core issues of focus are allocated at three levels. The article applies a theoretical basis to the volatile evolution of European security du..
國際關係歷史社會學承諾要打破主流國際關係學界中的歐洲中心論 (Eurocentrism),但至今為止很少有人從事具體的歷史社會學經驗研究來兌 現這個承諾。許田波(Victoria Tin-Bor Hui)對近代早期歐洲與上古中國的國家形成做出具有開創性的比較研究是少數的例外,她探索的主要問題是何以歐洲國家間的軍事競爭會維持一種競爭性的多國體系,而中國的戰國體系最終卻匯歸為一統帝國?她認為秦國能統一中國主要是因為它進行了自強型的改革,而歐洲國家則多半採取了自弱..
Historical sociology in international relations promises to undermine the Eurocentrism that is characteristic of mainstream international relations theories. To date, however, few empirical studies in historical sociology have been carried out to deliver on that promise. Victoria Tin-Bor Hui’s ground- breaking comparative study of state formations in early modern Europe and ancient China is a rare exception. The main question she addresses in her work is why under similar pressure of military competition, Europe continu..
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.