在國際關係的研究領域中，不論是國家中心論或是以體系為主的體系理論，都以國家為研究的客體。伴隨著全球化浪潮，「全球治理」概念的出現，表明以國家為主的國際政治體系已無法解決國際環境的複雜變化，須藉助許多跨國性次級團體來共同治理。有鑑於此，新現實主義、新自由主義、 與建構主義中以國家為給定對象的國際關係主流理論，遇到解釋上的局限， 需要建構一套新的本體論與知識論，俾有效解釋在國際政治中逐漸呈現的多元行為體治理現象。本文認為國際關係理論面臨三個問題的挑戰:一、如何解釋國際政治多元行為體的現象?二、如何解釋行為體的認同變化與行動選擇?三、如何解釋人、多元行為體與國際社會三者相互建構的關係?本文援引當代社會理論，將「主題」與「個人」視為來回往返的主客體，以「主題」取代「國家」成為主體，並以「權力載體」的概念取代行為體，嘗試對上述問題做出合理的系統性解釋。本文認為，一旦主題成為社會共識，個人會依所處的社會位置與知識理念，選擇適當的「權力載體」，創造出符合系統目標的論述，而在論述的競合中，社會的建構於焉發生。
Theories of international relations(IR), whether through state-centric or systemic approach, put states as centers of research objectives. With trending globalization, the advent of the global governance concepts manifests that a state-focused international political system without transnational sub-political groups has failed to respond to complex changes in the international environment. Accordingly, this challenges neo-realism, neo- liberalism, and constructivism, which focus on the state-centric approach and experience explanatory constraints. In order to interpret the multiple actors’ phenomenon in present international politics, a set of new ontology and epistemology in the study of IR should be introduced. The aforementioned theories exhibit some explanatory shortcomings with regards to(1) multiple actors’ phenomenon in present international politics;(2)actor’s identity shifting and its alternatives of action;(3)the co-constructive relationships among individuals, multiple actors, and the international society.
To overcome these shortcomings, this article constructs a synthesis on the basis of the current IR and modern sociological theories. In doing so, this article first presents the centrality of “theme” to challenge IR’s main focus on “states” as well as their ontological claims and then employs the “power platform” to replace actors. This paper argues that once an issue becomes a theme with strong social consensus, individuals may choose an associating power platform according to their statuses and perceptions to create discourses corresponding to the inherent social system. Social construction may happen in the process of cooperation and competition of discourses.
國際關係建構主義學者內部不同知識論的爭論或焦慮，尤其是現代建構主義與後現代建構主義的知識論爭議，因為後者根本反對有共同知識論與方法論的存在，影響了建構主義內部的建橋計畫，乃至整個國際關係理論建橋計畫的可能性，更明確地說，國際關係理論的綜合是否可能呢?遂有必要更為細緻與詳細的探討不同建構主義學者個別的觀點，藉以呈現國際關係理論研究的複雜性、多元性。本文以 Alexander Wendt、Jeffrey Checkel、Emanuel Adler 和 David..
The different epistemological assumptions or anxieties among constructivists, particularly, the epistemological debate between modernistic constructivists and postmodernistic constructivists, and it may not only have a profound impact on the bridge building project within constructivism but also on the bridge building projects in the International Relations Theory (IRT). Clearly and namely, can it be possible for the synthesis of IRT? It is necessary to conduct a more sophisticated and detailed research on constructivism&rsqu..
2008年全球金融危機爆發，重挫跨國資本市場;既有全球金融治理機制備受質疑之餘，也開啟2008年之後繁複的治理機制改革之路。 本研究認為2008年之後的全球金融治理機制改革有三個不同的層次:從規範、制度到結構，每個層次對於治理機制改革的重點議題與運作方式與目的各有不同的掌握。規範層次與制度層次的共同點在於皆強調在既有金融治理機制的改革;二者差別在於，規範層次專注於監理內容的補強，而制度層次側重行為者之間的互動方式與關係。較諸前二者，結構..
This paper examines the reform of global financial governance mechanism after the global financial crisis in 2008. The research argues that three different levels of reform could be identified in order to get a thorough understanding of the governance reform during the last ten years, i.e. regulatory level, institutional level, and structural level, each of which assumes different causes to the financial crisis and prescriptions to the problematic governance mechanism reform. Regulatory reform supporters..
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.