布赞关于安全中各个角色之间的关系尤其是国家与个人之间的关系,以及“弱国”、“强国”与安全之间关系的诸多观点,为其他学者“提出替代性的观点提供了出发点”。[43] 比如,“批判安全研究”的代表人物肯·布斯有关“人的安全”的观点和对安全议题的拓宽与延伸[44]就被认为具有“布赞研究的特征”。[45] 穆哈米德·阿约伯(Mohammed Ayoob)等人将布赞“弱国”的观点适用于第三世界,开始探索“国家建设”与第三世界国家安全之间的紧密关系。[46] 他关于安全的层次分析跨越了不同的安全指涉对象之间的争论,从而为安全理论化提供了一个重要的分析框架。戴维·莱克(David A. Lake)和帕特里克·摩根( Patrick M. Morgan)认为,安全的多层次分析通过强调国家、区域和国际体系的协同作用而成为当代安全研究中“一种大有可为的研究议程”,可以作为冷战后安全的“替代性方法”。[47] 值得强调的是,布赞和他的合作者们将现实主义安全观有机地融入其“新综合安全分析框架”之中,明显超越了所谓“传统安全”、“非传统安全”等争论的鸿沟,不仅使其观点为传统的战略研究、业界人士所接受,而且引发更多学者对安全进行新的深入的思考,从而成为“安全多纬度定义的出发点”。[48] 当代国际安全研究中显赫的“哥本哈根学派”由此诞生。斯蒂文·史密斯( Steve Smith)认为,该学派通过其“清晰的研究规程完成了比该领域其他主题中任何事情都要多得多的创新”,成为“当代安全研究中最有意义的发展之一”。[49]
早在1988年,约瑟夫·奈和林恩—琼斯( Sean Lynn2Jones)就指出:“国际安全不是一个学科的,而是一个问题”,并认为“该领域必须是学科间的”。他们声称:“只要地球的命运依赖于各国如何陈述安全议题,重视经济、社会、历史、物理、人类、心理和法律等其他学科做出的潜在贡献就仍然是必需的。”[56]时至今日,随着新自由主义、社会建构主义、“批判理论”以及国内政治经济方法相继介入,安全研究已走出原来单一的政治学和客观主义方法,向国际政治经济学的社会学方法转变,并表现出“国际安全多层次研究”的“综合化”趋势。[57] 布赞正是这种趋势最早的、也是最重要的推动者之一。他的多层次、多领域和多学科的安全研究无不体现出这种趋势。比尔·迈克斯威尼(B illMcSweeney)认为:“布赞的国际安全的政治经济学展示出比沃尔兹和政治学家的国家安全更复杂的世界,他通过引入无政府状态和国家的可变性来反对新现实主义者模式的固定性,可以被认为是后来关于国家学习进程的先声。”[58]
布赞安全综合研究的另一个重要特色是,他把理论、历史和经验的比较研究融入自己的“多元主义”学术视角之中。比如,其核心观点——国际体系从“不成熟”到“成熟”的无政府状态的变化和区域安全结构变化的“连续统一体”——明显体现着上述“理论连续统一体”,是国际关系理论与国际安全体系历史演变进程的有机统一体。而且,布赞在检验这一理论与历史的“有机统一体”时,采用了比个案研究更有说服力的比较研究方法。不同于比较研究惯常所采用的案例简单并置和处于同一时段的对比,他的方法是将各种典型的案例融入自己整体的分析框架之内,并置于宏大的历史进程中分阶段地进行对比,从而在不同的历史阶段和不同的历史特征中找寻共同的或相似的历史发展进程,最终验证自己所提出的整体的综合理论。这一方法在对其始终追求的“区域第一逻辑”的检验中有大量运用,比如对国家的历史形态与区域安全结构演变进程关系的分析。正如索德尔伯姆( Fredrik SÊderbaum)在谈及区域主义研究时所强调的,因为“理论必须依赖于一些归纳,比较分析是理论建设的关键”,但“如果不将比较的框架置于合适的历史框架之中,许多比较就是误导的,甚至是非常有害的”。[62]
1. 参见Barry Buzan, Charles Jones and Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy: From N eo2Realism to S tructural Realism , New York: Columbia University Press, 1993。
2. 参见Barry Buzan, and Richard Little, International System s in theWorld History: Rem aking the S tudy of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000。
3. 参见Barry Buzan, From International toW orld Society? English School Theory and the Social S tructure of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004。
4. 参见Barry Buzan, The United S tates and the Great Powers: W orld Politics in the Twenty2First Century, Cambridge: Polity, 2004。
5. 参见Barry Buzan, The United S tates and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty2First Century, Cambridge: Polity, 2004, pp. viii—ix.
6. 参见: Barry Buzan, “Not Hanging Separately: Responses to Dunne and Adler”, M illennium: Journal of International S tudies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2005, pp. 183—194。布尔(HedleyBull) 、温特(AlexanderWendt)和维夫(OleW· ver)分别是“英国学派”、主流建构主义和“哥本哈根学派”公认的核心人物。
7. Barry Buzan et al. , The Logic of Anarchy, pp. 1—17.
8. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear: The N ational Security Problem in International Relations, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1983, pp. 96—98, 105.
9. Barry Buzan et al. , The Logic of Anarchy, pp. 11—12.
10. Barry Buzan et al. , The Logic of Anarchy, pp. 29—80.
11. Barry Buzan, The United S tates and the Great Powers, pp. 3—5.
12. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear, 1983, pp. 13—14.
13. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear: An Agenda for International Security S tudies in the Post2Cold War Era, 2nd ed. , Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1991, p. 106.
14. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear, 1983, pp. 93—94, 128—149.
15. Barry Buzan, “New Patterns of Global Security in the Twenty2First Century”, International Affairs, vol. 67, no. 3, 1991, p. 433.
16. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear, 1983, pp. 218, 254, 106.
17. Barry Buzan, An Introduction to S trategic S tudies: M ilitary Technology and International Relations, London: Macmillan, 1987.
18. Barry Buzan, People, S tates and Fear, 1983, p. 257.
19. Lloyd Pettiford and Melissa Curley, Changing Security Agendas and the Third World, London: Pinter, 1999, p. 48.
20. Barry Buzan et al. , Security: A N ew Fram ework for Analysis, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998, pp. 23— 31.
21. Barry Buzan et al. , Identity, M igration and the N ew Security Agenda in Europe, London: Pinter, 1993, pp. 23—25.
22. Barry Buzan et al. , Security: A N ew Fram ework forAnalysis, pp. 36—42.
23. RichardWyn Jones, Security, S trategy, and Critical Theory, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999, p. 104.
24. BillMcSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 68.
25. Barry Buzan, “The Logic of Regional Security in the Post2Cold WarWorld”, in BjÊrn Hetnne et al. , eds. , The N ew Regionalism and the Future of Security and Developm ent, London: Macmillan Press, 2000, pp. 1— 25.
26. Barry Buzan, “ThirdWorld Regional Security in Structural and Historical Perspective”, in Brian J. Job, ed. , The Insecurity D ilemm a: N ational Security of Third World S tates, Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1992, pp. 167— 189.
27. Barry Buzan, “From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meets the English School”, International O rganization, vol. 47, no. 3, 1993, pp. 327—363.
28. Barry Buzan, “Regional Security Comp lex Theory in the Post2ColdWarWorld”, in Fredrik SÊderbaum and TimothyM. Shaw, eds. , Theories of N ew Regionalism: A Palgrave Reader, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003, p. 157.
29. Barry Buzan and Ole W· ver, Regions and Powers: The S tructure of International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 53, 49—50.
30. Barry Buzan and Ole W· ver, Regions and Powers: The S tructure of International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 55—62.
31. Barry Buzan et al. , Security: A N ew Fram ework forAnalysis, pp. 197—201; Barry Buzan et al. , Regions and Powers, p. 72.
32. Barry Buzan, “The Logic of Regional Security in the Post2ColdWarWorld”, pp. 1—25.
33. Barry Buzan et al. , Security: A N ew Fram ework for Analysis, p. 12; Barry Buzan et al. , Regions and Powers, pp. 53—58.
34. Barry Buzan et al. , Regions and Powers, pp. 20—27, 93—442.
35. Ibid. , p. 20.
36. Ibid. , pp. 43—42; Barry Buzan, The United S tates and the Great Powers, pp. 86—106.
37. Barry Buzan et al. , Regions and Powers, p. 83.
39. BillMcSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests, pp. 52—53.
40. StephenM. Walt, “The Renaissance of Security of Studies”, International S tudies Quarterly, vol. 35, no12, 1991, p. 213.
41. RichardWyn Jones, Security, S trategy, and Critical Theory, p. 126.
42. Lloyd Pettiford et al. , Changing Security Agendas and the Third World, p. 48.
43. Ibid. , p. 50.
44. 参见Ken Booth, “Security and Emancipation”, Review of International S tudies, vol. 17, no14, 1991, pp. 313—326。
45. Lloyd Pettiford et al. , Changing Security Agendas and the Third World, p. 49.
46. 参见Mohammed Ayoob, The ThirdWorld Security Predicam ent: S tateMaking, Regional Conflict, and the International System , Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1995.
47. David A. Lake and PatrickM. Morgan, “The New Regionalism in SecurityAffairs”, in David A. Lake et al. , eds. , Regional O rders: B uilding Security in a N ew World, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997, p. 14.
48. 戴维·穆提默,《超越战略:批评性思考与新安全研究》,第98—100页。
49. Steve Smith, “The Increasing Insecurity of Security Studies: Concep tualizing Security in the Last Twenty Years”, in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff, eds. , Critical Reflections on Security and Change, London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2000, pp. 86—89.
50. Barry Buzan et al. , Regions and Powers, pp. 11, 83.
51. BjÊrn Hettne and Fredrik SÊderbaum, “Theorising the Rise of Regionness”, in Shaun Breslin et al. , eds. , N ew Regionalism s in the Global Political Econom y, London: Routledge, 2002, p. 40.
52. David A. Lake et al. , “The New Regionalism in Security Affairs”, p. 11.
53. Amitav Acharya, “The Periphery as the Core: The Third World and Security Studies”, in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds. , Critical Security S tudies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolic: University ofMinnesota Press, 1997, p. 308.
54. BjÊrn Hettne, “Regionalism, Security and Development: A Comparative Perspective”, in BjÊrn Hettne et al. , eds. , Com paring Regionalism: Im plications for Global Developm ent, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001, p. 13.
55. 参见David A. Lake et al. , eds. , Regional O rders: B uilding Security in a N ew World。
56. Joseph Nye, and Sean Lynn2Jones, “International Security Studies: A Report of a Conference on the State of the Field”, International Security, vol. 12, no. 4, 1988, p. 6.
57. David Baldwin, “The Concep t of Security”, Review of International Security, vol. 23, no. 1, 1997, pp. 5—26.
58. BillMcSweeney, Security, Identity and Interests, pp. 66—67.
59. Barry Buzan, From International toWorld Society, pp. 22—23.
60. Ronald L. Jepperson et al. , “Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security ”, in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed. , The Culture of N ational Security: N orm s and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 37—52.
61. Tim Dunne, “System, State and Society: How Does It All Hang Together?”M illennium: Journal of International S tudies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2005, pp. 157, 170.
62. Fredrik SÊderbaum, “Rethinking the New Regionalism”, paper for the XIII Nordic Science Association Meeting, Aalbog, 15—17 August, 2002, p. 18.
63. Jennifer Sterling2Folker, “Realism and the Constructivist Challenge: Rejecting, Reconstructing or Reading”, International S tudies Review, vol. 4, no. 1, 2002, pp. 74—75.
64. Stuart Croft, “Book Reviews”, M illennium: Journal of International S tudies, vol. 34, no. 3, 2005, p. 833.
65. Jennifer Sterling2Folker, “Realism and the Constructivist Challenge”, p. 74.
66. EmanuelAdler, “Barry BuzanÄs Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School: ‘Not All the Way Down’”, M illennium: Journal of International S tudies, vol. 34, no. 1, 2005, p. 171.