Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18089
標題: Andrew Linklater理論中歷史社會學面向之初探
A Preliminary Study on the Aspect of Historical Sociology of Andrew Linklater''s Theory
作者: 夏耘
Hsia, Yun
關鍵字: Andrew Linklater
Andrew Linklater
批判歷史社會學
國際關係的歷史社會學
Critical Historical Sociology
International Historical Sociology
出版社: 國際政治研究所
引用: 一、中文部分 (一)書籍 Giddens, Anthony著、胡宗澤等譯(2002),《民族-國家與暴力》。新北:左岸文化。 Habermas, Jurgen著,曹衛東譯(2002),《後民族格局》。台北:聯經。 Hobson, John M.著,周劭彥譯(2003),《國家與國際關係》。台北:弘智文化。 Waltz, Kenneth著,胡祖慶譯(1997),《國際政治體系理論解析》。台北:五南。 王逸舟(1999),《國際政治學:歷史與理論》。台北:五南。 白雲真、李開盛(2009),《國際關係理論流派概論》。杭州:浙江人民。 倪世雄(2003),《當代國際關係理論》。台北:五南。 (一) 專書論文 汪宏倫(2011),〈國家與戰爭:歷史社會學與國際關係的邂逅〉,包宗和編,《國際關係理論》。台北:五南。 林炫向、陳牧民(2011),〈國際關係規範理論〉,包宗和編,《國際關係理論》。台北:五南。 陳欣之(2003),〈國際關係理論:對現實主義的質疑〉,張亞中編,《國際關係總論》。台北:揚智。 黃競涓(2007),〈國際關係理論中的後實證主義學派〉,張亞中編,《國際關係總論》。台北:揚智。 (二) 期刊論文 Habermas, Jurgen著、徐季耘譯(1999),〈歐洲的民族國家與全球化壓力〉,《台灣社會研究季刊》,第34期,頁113-132。 余家哲、李政鴻(2009),〈歷史社會學與國際關係理論的交會:歷史社會學的國家理論〉,《政治科學論叢》,第40期,頁127-152。 林炫向(2009),〈國際關係學與政治理論的重新結合:以羅爾斯的《萬民法》為鑑〉,《全球政治評論》,第28期,頁1-38。 洪鎌德(2009),〈國際關係學說中的批判理論〉,《台灣國際研究季刊》,第6卷第3期,頁1-30。 秦亞青(2006),〈建構主義:思想淵源、理論流派與學術理念〉,《國際政治研究》,第3期,頁1-23。 陸昕、白雲真(2008),〈試論國際關係批判理論──以林克萊特的學術思想為個案研究〉,《北京行政學院學報》,第6期,頁88-91。 過子庸(2010),〈英國學派發展之研究─探討其對國際社會、制度與研究方法之觀點〉,《國際關係學報》,第30期,頁137-185。 黃旻華(2000),〈評「論國際關係中的建構主義」〉,《問題與研究》,第39卷第11期,頁71-94。 莫大華(2003),〈理性主義與建構主義的辯論:國際關係的另一次大辯論?〉,《政治科學論叢》,第19期,頁113-138。 莫大華(2007),〈探索國際關係理論的建橋計畫:理性主義與建構主義的理論綜合〉,《政治科學論叢》,第31期,頁175-216。 閻靜(2009),〈試析林克萊特批判歷史社會學視角中的世界主義傷害協議〉,《學術論壇》,第2期,頁140-144。 (三) 學位論文 林佾靜(2008),《反思國際關係理論「國家中心論」之探討》。台北:政治大學外交研究所博士論文。 郭懷舜(2007),《「威爾斯學派」之批判安全研究》。高雄:中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 黃旻華(1998),《國際關係批判理論的重建與評論:科學實存論的觀點》。高雄:中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 葉宗顯(2009),《普遍與殊異:Andrew Linklater之國際批判理論的初探與重建》。高雄:中山大學政治學研究所碩士論文。 (四) 國科會研究 林炫向(2013),《春秋戰國至秦的「國際體系」變遷:Michael Mann歷史社會學的分析應用》。國科會計畫「近代早期歐洲與上古中國『國家』形成之比較研究」第一期研究成果。 (五) 網路資料 王軍(2006),〈國際關係的歷史社會學:基於流派的考察〉,《國際論壇》(2013/5/7瀏覽),http://www.360doc.com/content/11/0701/23/5031625_130934911.shtml。 二、英文部分 (二)書籍 Bull, Hedley (2002), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Palgrave. Brown, Chris (1992), International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Cochran, Molly (1999), Normative Theory in International Relations: A Pragmatic Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Frost, Mervyn (1996), Ethics in International Relations: A Constitutive Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Griffiths, Martin (1999), Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations. London: Routledge. Hobden, Stephen and Hobson, John M. ed. (2002), Historical Sociology of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve (1990), Explaining and Understanding International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press. Hutchings, Kimberly (1999), International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era. London: SAGE Publications. Linklater, Andrew (1990), Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations. London: Macmillan. Linklater, Andrew (1990), Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations. London: Macmillan. Linklater, Andrew (1998), The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. Cambridge: Polity Press. Linklater, Andrew (2007), Critical Theory and World Politics: Citizenship, Sovereignty and Humanity. London: Routledge. Linklater, Andrew (2011), The Problem of Harm in World Politics: Theoretical Investigations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Neufeld, Mark (1995), The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Morgenthau, Hans (1978), Politics among Nations – A Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knof Publisher. Shapcott, Richard (2001), Justice, Community, and Dialogue in International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Suganami, Hidemi and Linklater, Andrew (2006), The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. New York: Cambridge University Press. Thompson, Janna (1992), Justice and World: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Routledge. Wight, Martin (1991), International Theory: the Three Traditions. London: Leicester University Press. Wyn Jones, Richard (1999), Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. (三)專書論文 Bull, Hedley (1995),“The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969,” in James Der Derian ed., International Theory: Critical Investigations. New York: New York University Press. Cox , Robert W. (1996), “Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Robert W. Cox et al. ed., Approaches to World Order. New York : Cambridge University Press. Devetak, Richard (2009), “Critical Theory,” in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater ed., Theories of International Relation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Devetak, Richard (2009), “Post-structuralism,” in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater ed., Theories of International Relation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hobson, John M. (2002), “What’s at Stake in ‘Bringing Historical Sociology Back into International Relations’? Transcending ‘Chronofetishism’ and ‘Tempocentrism’ in International Relations,” in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson eds., Historical Sociology of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Linklater, Andrew (1992), “What is A Good International Citizen?,” in Paul Keal ed., Ethics and Foreign Policy. Linklater, Andrew (1995), “Neo-Realism in Theory and Practice,” in Ken Booth & Steve Smith ed., International Relations Theory Today. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Linklater, Andrew and Macmillan, John (1995), “Introduction: Boundaries in Question,” in Andrew Linklater and John Macmillan ed., Boundaries in Question: New Directions in International Relations. New York: Pinter Publishers. Linklater, Andrew (1996), “Hegel, State and International Relations,” in Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann ed., Classical Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave. Linklter, Andrew (2002), “Towards a Critical Historical Sociology of Transnational Harm,” in Stephen Hobden and John M. Hobson ed., Historical Sociology of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Linklater, Andrew (2005), “Political Community and Human Security,” in Ken Booth ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Linklater, Andrew (2009), “The English School,” in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater ed., Theories of International Relation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Linklater, Andrew (2009), “Marx and Marxism,” in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater ed., Theories of International Relation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Linklater, Andrew (2009), “Historical Sociology,” in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater ed., Theories of International Relation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Spegele, Roger D. (1996), “Emancipatory International Relations: A First Cut,” Roger D. Spegele, Political Realism in International Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. Waver, Ole (1996), “Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” in Steve Smith et al. ed., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. New York: Cambridge. Wight, Martin (1966), “Why is There No International Theory?,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight ed., Diplomatic Investigations. London: George Allen & Unwin. Wyn Jones, Richard (2001), “Introduction: Locating Critical International Relations Theory,” in Richard Wyn Jones ed., Critical Theory and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. (四)期刊論文 Bohman, James (2005), “We, Heirs of Enlightenment: Critical Theory, Democracy and Social Science,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol.13, No.3, pp.353-377. Brown, Chris (1991), “Review Article: Theories of International Justice,” British Journal of Political Science, No.21, pp.273-297. Brown, Chris (1994), “’Turtles All the Way Down’: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.23, No.2, pp.213-236. Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard (1994), “The Idea of ‘International System’: Theory Meets History,” International Political Science Review, Vol.15, No.3, pp.231-255. Duvall, Raymond and Varadarajan, Latha (2003), “On the Practical of Critical International Relations Theory,” Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol.11, No.2, pp.75-88. Elliott, Lorraine (2006), “Cosmopolitan Environmental Harm Conventions,” Global Society, Vol.20, No.3, pp.345-363. Habermas, Jurgen (1999), “Bestiality and Humanity: A War on the Border between Legality and Morality,” Constellations, Vol.6, No.3, pp.263-272. Habermas, Jurgen (1999), “The European Nation-state and the Pressure of Globalization,” New Left Review, No.235, pp.45-69. Halliday, Fred (1987), “State and Society in International Relations,” Millennium, Vol.16, No.2, pp.215-229. Hobson, John M. (1998), “The Historical of the State and the State of Historical Sociology in International Relations,” Review of International Political Economy, Vol.5, No.2, pp.284-320. Hoffman, Mark (1991) , “Restructuring, Reconstruction, Reinscription, Rearticulation: Four Voices in Critical International Theory,” Millennium Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, p. 169-185. Hopf, Ted (1998), “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.171-200. Jordaan, Eduard (2009), “Cosmopolitanism, Freedom and Indifference: A Levinasian View,” Alternatives, No.34, pp.83-106. Jones, Deniol (2003), “The Origins of Global City: Ethics and Morality in Contemporary Cosmopolitanism,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol.5, No.1, pp.50-73. Kveinen, Else (2002), “Citizenship in a Post-Westphalian Community: Beyond External Exclusion?,” Citizenship Studies, Vol.6, No.1, pp.21-35. Keohane, Robert O. (1988), “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.32, No.4, pp.379-396. Linklater, Andrew (1992), “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.21, No.1, pp.77-98. Linklater, Andrew (1994), “Dialogue, Dialectic and Emancipation in International Relations at the End of the Post-War Age,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.23, No.1, pp.119-131. Linklater, Andrew (1997), “The Transformation of Political Community: E. H. Carr, Critical Theory and International Relations,” Review of International Studies, Vol.23, No.3, pp.321-338. Linklater, Andrew (1999), “The Evolving Spheres of International Justice,” International Affairs, Vol.75, No.3, pp.473-482. Linklater, Andrew (1999), “Transforming Political Community: A Response to the Critics,” Review of International Studies, Vol.25, No1, pp.165-175. Linklater, Andrew (2005), “Dialogic Politics and the Civilizing Process,” Review of International Studies, No.31, pp.141-154. Linklater, Andrew (2009), “Human Interconnectedness,” International Relations, Vol.23, No.3, pp.481-497. Linklater, Andrew (2010), “Global Civilizing Processes and the Ambiguities of Human Interconnectedness,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol.16, No.2, pp.155-178. Martins, Herminio (2002), “Methodological Nationalism and the Study of Migration,” European Journal of Sociology, Vol.43, pp.217-240. Mason, Michael (2006), “Citizenship Entitlement beyond Borders? Identifying Mechanisms of Access and Redress for Affected Publics in International Environmental Law,” Global Governance, No.2, pp.283-303. Morrice, David (2000), “The Liberal-Communitarian Debate in Contemporary Political Philosophy and Its Significance for International Relations,” Review of International Studies, No.26, pp.233-251 Pert, Alison (2012), “The Good International Citizenship of the Rudd Government,” Legal Studies Research Paper, No.12/72, pp.1-54. Saull, Richard (2002), “Transforming Citizenship and Political Community: The Case of French Revolutionary Internationalism,” Global Society, Vol.16, No.3, pp.245-275. Shani, Giorgio (2007), “Religion, Politics and International Relations ‘Provincializing’ Critical Theory: Islam, Sikhism and International Relations Theory,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol.20, No.3, pp.417-433. Shani, Giorgio (2008), “Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review, No.10, pp.722-734. Shapcott, Richard (2002), “Cosmopolitan Conversations: Justice Dialogue and the Cosmopolitan Project,” Global Society, Vol.16, No.3, pp.221-243. Walker, R. B. J. (1999), “Hierarchicalization of Political Community,” Review of International Studies, Vol.25, No.1, pp.154-156. Weber, Martin (2002), “Engaging Globalization: Critical Theory and Global Political Change,” Alternatives, No.27, pp.301-325. (五)網路資料 Brincat, Shannon (2010), “An Interview with Andrew Linklater,” Global Discourse (2012/03/01), http://global-discourse.com/contents/an-interview-with-andrew-linklater/. Hobson, John M., Lawson, George, Rosenberg, Justin (2010),“Historical Sociology,” (2013/08/23), http://historicalsociology.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/hobson-john-george-lawson-and-justin-rosenberg-2010-historical-sociology-isa-compendium.pdf. Lake, David (2007), “The State and International Relations,” UC San Diego-Division of Social Science (2013/5/6), http://dss.ucsd.edu/~dlake/documents/LakeOxfordStateessayreview.pdf. Yan, Jing (2010), “Interview Questions for Professor Linklater,” Chinese Social Sciences Today (2012/04/15), http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/cass_interview_for_professor_linklater.pdf.
摘要: Andrew Linklater的理論從「人與公民」的分野出發,其宗旨在建構一個以人類解放為依歸的國際關係的政治理論。在理論的建構過程中,Linklater應用了不同於主流國際關係的歷史社會學。與主流國際關係的歷史社會學相較,Linklater特別強調理念要素,並以理念與制度的改變與衝突作為人類歷史朝愈來愈自由的方向發展之動力來源,其稱之為「批判歷史社會學」。本文目的如下:第一,釐清歷史社會學面向在Linklater理論中的位置與重要性;第二,比較批判歷史社會學分析與主流歷史社會學的異同;最後,由Linklaterr架構出來的包含規範、社會學與實踐分析之研究架構,深入其研究的兩個重要主題:政治社群的轉型與傷害協議,以歸納出批判歷史社會學對國際關係研究的貢獻與不足之處。
The starting point of Andrew Linklater’s theory is the distinction of men and citizens. His purpose is to build an International Political Theory which aims to achieve human emancipation. In the process of building the theory, he applied the historical sociology which is different from the main stream. Linklater emphasized the importance of idea factors and regarded the change and conflict between ideas and institutions as the power source which promote the human history developing into higher degree of freedom. He calls it “Critical Historical Sociology.” Hence the purposes of this article are as follow: first, to clarify the importance and location of historical sociology in Linklater’s theory; second, to compare Critical Historical Sociology with the main stream; finally, through study the two important research topics of Linklater-the transformation of political community and the harm conventions, to conclude the contributions and inadequacies of Critical Historical Sociology.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/18089
其他識別: U0005-2308201314494000
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-2308201314494000
Appears in Collections:國際政治研究所

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.