[3]Stephen Gill, “Historical Materialism, Gramsci, and IPE, ”inCraig N. Murphy and Roger Tooze, eds. , The N ew International PoliticalEconom y, Boulder, Colo. : Lynne Rienner Publisher, 1991, p. 59.
[4]葛兰西:《葛兰西文选》,第574、420页。
[5]葛兰西:《狱中札记》,第280页。
[6]Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations, ”in R. Cox and Timothy Sinclair, eds. , Approaches to World O rder, Cam2bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 131-133.
[7]这一称谓见Stephen Gill, “HistoricalMaterialism, Gramsci, andIPE, ”p. 52; S. Gill, “Gramsci and Global Politics, ”in S. Gill, ed. ,Gram sci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 2。
[8]R. Cox and Timothy Sinclair, eds. , Approaches to World O rder,p. 133.
[9]Robert Cox, “Social Forces, States, andWorld Orders, ”in Rob2ert Keohane, ed. , N eorealism and Its Critics, N. Y. : Columbia UniversityPress, 1986, pp. 217-218.
[11]Robert Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony, and International Relations, ”pp. 137-140.
[12]Robert Cox, Production, Power, andWorld O rder, N. Y. : Columbia University Press, 1987, Chapter8.
[13]Robert Cox, “Influence and Commitments, ”in R. Cox and Timothy Sinclair, eds. , Approaches toWorld O rder, pp. 31-32.
[14]Robert Cox, “Global Perestroika, ”in George Crane and AblaAmawi, eds. , The Theoretical Evolution of International Political Economy,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 158-172.
[18]新现实主义和新自由制度主义在方法论上是一致的,尽管考克斯在《生产、权力与世界秩序》一文中对理论的批判往往是针对现实主义而言的,但它也同样适用于新自由制度主义。新现实主义与新自由制度主义在方法论上的一致可见AndreasHasenclever, et al. , Theories of International Regim es, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 23 226。考克斯在他所编的New Realism (N. Y. : United Nations University Press, 1997)一书的“前言”中也指出新自由制度主义与新现实主义的一致性(pp. xvii2xviii) 。