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..

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..

從 1950、60 年代受到政治學「行為主義革命」的影響，國際關係理論 開始嘗試建立科學的研究，「科學派」遂以「體系論」(system theory)進行 國際關係的理論化，國際關係的理論化也就成為國際體系的理論化。歷經 1960 年代只有少數國際關係學者關注國際體系理論的「相當低度發展的階 段」，1970 年代起逐漸有較多不同的學者都嘗試藉由其他學科(例如社會 學、生物學、控制學)學者的體系理論提出不同的「國際體系」理論化途 徑，1980 年代由新現實主義..

Following the behavioralism revolution of political science in the 1950– 60s, attempts for international relations(IR)theory to become scientific began with the theorization of IR through systems theory that engendered the theorization of international systems. Through an underdeveloped stage involved with only a few scholars in the 1960s, a contending stage with various approaches proposed in the 1970s, a dominated stage of neorealism in the 1980s, and to an opposite stage of constructivism and international historical..

要探究國際關係建構主義理論的學術貢獻與影響，實有必要回歸到其肇 始之初的系絡，即是 Nicholas Onuf 與 Friedrich Kratochwil 的學術生涯發展之 中，由於 Onuf 和 Kratochwil 所受的國際法與國際關係學術訓練，致使他們 致力於以社會理論連結國際關係理論與國際法。國際關係建構主義理論也就 是肇始於他們兩人的此連結當中，進而逐漸擴展成為國際關係重要的理論或 研究途徑。 本文的主旨在比較分析 Onu..

To explore contributions and influences of constructivism, we should trace back to the career developments of Nicholas Onuf and Friedrich Kratochwil. Due to their trainings of International Law ( IL ) and International Relations(IR), they have focused on linking IR and IL with constructivism as a social theory. Constructivism originated from this linkage and had become an important theory or approach in IR. This article comparatively explores the way of linking IR and IL with social theory(constructivism)in Onuf&rs..

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..