在英国学派中,尽管一些人认识到国际社会和世界社会之间有着重要的联系,国际社会的存在需要某种世界社会的发展,但对于国际社会形成过程中世界社会究竟能发挥多大的作用并没有进行清楚的阐述。在国际社会的范围究竟应有多大这个问题上,英国学派内部存在着多元主义( p luralism)和社会连带主义( solidarism)的争论。多元主义认为,国家主权本身意味着政治和文化的多样性,国家之间只能在国际社会共存这个有限的目标上达成一致,因而国际社会的范围是非常有限的,这样的国际社会对于制约无政府状态下出现的极度无序起着平衡作用;如果使国际社会脆弱的结构承担过多的负担,就可能威胁到它的生存。而社会连带主义则认为,国际社会除了维持国家之间最小限度共存这个秩序目标外,应该具有更大的范围,可能需要在诸如人权、经济发展、环境保护以及核武器问题等方面有更大程度的共识和一致。目前,英国学派中关于多元主义和社会连带主义的主张是否相互排斥的争论仍在进行。这一争论在很大程度上取决于由个人等非国家行为体组成的世界社会和以国家组成的国际社会相比所具有的相对重要性。不过,英国学派在这方面并未建立起清晰的准入价值以使它成为独树一帜的分析框架。
[1] 本文涉及的方法论是指哲学方法论(methodology) 。哲学方法论通常有一元论、二元论和多元论的划分。多元论( p luralism)与一元论、二元论相反,这种学说认为实在由许多事物组成,其组成元素中没有哪一种比任何其他元素更为基本,因此不可能把实在中的任何东西都还原为一种或两种最终的基质。对多元论而言,有多个世界,我们可以通过使用不同的概念系统和不同的测量标准而把它们构造出来。参见[英]尼古拉斯·布宁、余纪元编著:《西方哲学英汉对照辞典》,北京:人民出版社, 2001年版,第771页。
[2] Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Under exploited Resource in IR, ”Review of International S tudies, Vol. 27, 2001, p. 471.
[3]Martin Hollis and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, pp. 1 27, 45-91.
[4]John Baylis and Steve Smith, eds. , The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Second Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 226 -228.
[5]Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical App roach, ”in Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau, eds. , Contending Approaches to International Politics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 20 238.
[6]Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant: Hum an Conduct in a World of States, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 72-76.
[7]Richard Little, “The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations, ”European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000, p. 398.
[8]Hedley Bull, “The Theory of International Politics, 1919-1969, ”in James Der Derian, ed. , International Theory: Critical Investigations,New York: New York University Press, 1995, p. 205.
[9]Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical App roach, ”pp. 36 238.
[10]MartinWight, “Why Is There No International Theory?”in Herbert Butterfield andMartinWight, eds. , D iplom atic Investigations, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966, p. 27.
[11]Robert Jackson and Georg Sorensen, Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 56.
[12]Hedley Bull, “MartinWight and the Theory of International Relations, ”in Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, New York: Holmes &Meier, 1992, p. xvii.
[13]Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, pp. 259-260.
[14]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, London: Macmillan Press LTD. , 1995, p. 49.
[15]Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International System s in World History: Rem aking the S tudy of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 46.
[16]Richard Little, “The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations, ”p. 408.
[17]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, 1995; Martin Wight, Power Politics, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978, p. 105.
[18]Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations, ”in Herbert Butterfield and MartinWight, eds. , D iplom atic Investigations, p. 38.
[19]KaiAlderson and Andrew Hurrell, eds. , Hedley B ull on International Society, London: Macmillan Press LTD. , 2000, p. 57.
[20]Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds. , The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, p. 1.
[21]Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International System s in World History: Rem aking the S tudy of International Relations, p. 104.
[23]Martha Finnemore, N ational Interests in International Society, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996, p. 18.
[24]Hedley Bull, “The Emergence of a Universal International Society, ”in HedleyBull and AdamWatson, eds. , The Expansion of International Society, pp. 117-126.
[25]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, pp. 64-68, 97-122.
[26]Martin Wight, System s of S tates, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1977, p. 33.
[27]Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, eds. , The Expansion of International Society, p. 4.
[28]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, pp. 15-16, 304 -305.
[29]Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime TheoryMeet the English School, ”International O rganization, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1993, pp. 332-335, 345.
[30]Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Underexp loited Resource in IR, ”p. 477.
[31]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, p. 81.
[32]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, p. 269.
[33] [英]R. J. 文森特著,凌迪等译:《人权与国际关系》,北京:知识出版社, 1998年版,第144页。
[34]Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, pp. 146-147.
[35]Barry Buzan and Richard Little, International System s in World History: Rem aking the S tudy of International Relations, p. 106.
[41]Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society: A Com para2tive Historical Analysis, London and New York: Pinter, 1992, p. 311.
[42]Stanley Hoffmann, “Foreword: Revisisting‘The Anarchical Society’, ”in Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A S tudy of O rder in World Politics, pp. viii- ix.
[43]Barry Buzan, “The English School: An Underexp loited Resourcein IR, ”p. 480.
[44]石斌:《权力·秩序·正义》,载《欧洲研究》, 2004年第5 期,第22页。
[45]MartinWight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, pp. 14-15.
[46]Andrew Linklater, “Rationalism, ”in Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater, Theories of International Relations, London: Macmillan Press LTD. , 1996, pp. 99-100.
[48]Stanley Hoffmann, “ International Society, ”in J. D. B. Miller and R. J. Vincent, eds. , O rder and V iolence: Hedley B ull and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 26.