由此可见,在国际关系研究中,“对历史的理解是基本的”。[15] 英国著名历史学家巴勒克拉夫论及当代史的本质特征,即欧洲的世界地位的变化、美苏两个超级大国的兴起、英法等老牌帝国主义的崩溃、亚洲和非洲的觉醒、白人和有色人种之间关系的调整以及热核革命等,特别强调要联系以往的历史来看待当代变化。他认为上述的所有特征都“是整个历史过程的各个部分,倘若脱离了历史的来龙去脉,那我们也就不可能充分理解它”。[16] 以认真研究历史为手段准确把握现实的思想大家,要算近代意大利政治思想家尼科洛·马基雅维里了。马基雅维里根据韦杰提乌、弗朗提诺和波里比乌斯等人遗存的文献资料,对古罗马军队的组织结构和战争方式进行了仔细和深入研究。在研究具体的历史事件过程中,马基雅维里深刻把握住了战争和用兵之道的基本原则,从而写就了西方思想史上的不朽名著《论战争艺术》( The A rts ofW a r) 。尤为重要的是,通过研读古罗马史家们的著作,马基雅维里“理解他自己所处时代的国际体系:国家是逐步成长和扩张的,它们永无休止地卷入战争,力图扩展它们的权势和领土,并且为自己的生存而战,抵挡试图征服它们的其他国家”。[17] 吉尔伯特对马基雅维里的评论恰当地说明了历史研究对理解国际政治现实的重要意义。
1. Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical App roach”, in Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau, eds. , Contending Approaches to International Politics, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969, pp. 20—22.
2. 黑伦用历史学方法研究国际关系的代表作是: A. H. L. Heeren, A Manual of the History of the Political System of Europe and Its Colonies: From Its Form ation at the Close of the Fifteenth Century to Its Re2establishm ent upon the Fall of N apoleon, London: H. G. Bohn, 1846; 兰克相关的代表作是其极其出名的短文《论列强》:Leopold von Ranke, “On Great Powers”, in The Theory and Practice of History, edited with an introduction by Georg G. Iggers and Konrad vonMoltke, Indianapolis, The Bobbs2Merrill Company, Inc. , 1973。
3. 参见Richard B. Finnegan, “International Relations: The Disputed Search forMethod”, The Review of Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1, Jan. , 1972。
4. 参见美国著名冷战史学家John L. Gaddis, “ International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War”, in SeanM. Lynn2Jones, ed. , The Cold War and After: Prospect for Peace, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1994。
5. 预测到冷战可能以和平方式结束的学者是约翰·加迪斯。参见: John L. Gaddis, “How the ColdWar Might End”, A tlantic, May 1990。在这篇文章中,加迪斯竟然准确预测到了冷战结束的方式,即冷战以和平方式结束,苏联在军备竞赛中耗尽国力而****,苏联放弃自己的意识形态。
6. 这种回归表现在一些国际关系领域的著名学者呼吁用历史学方法研究国际关系,如PaulW. Schroeder, “Quantitative Studies in the Balance of Power: An Historian Reaction ”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 21, No. 1, March 1977; John L. Gaddis, “Expanding the Data Base: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Enrichment of Security Studies”, International Security, Vol. 12, No. 1, Summer 1987; PaulW. Schroeder, “Historical Reality vs. Neo2realist Theory”, International Security, Vol. 19, No. 1, Summer 1994; Ian S. Lustick, “History, Historiography, and Political Science”, Am erican Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, Sep tember 1996; Colin Elman andMiriam Fendius Elman, “Correspondence: History vs. Neo2realism: A Second Look”, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 1, Summer 1995; B. K. Gills, “International Relations Theory and the Processes ofWorld History: Three App roaches”, in Hugh C. Dyer, ed. , The S tudy of International Relations: The S tate of A rt, New York: St. MartinÄs Press, 1989。1997年夏季卷的《国际安全》杂志约请了美国一批著名国际关系学者撰文讨论历史学与国际政治理论之间的关系。国内学术界也有不少学者论及历史学方法在国际关系研究中的重要性,如:时殷弘:《关于国际关系的历史理解》,《世界经济与政治》2005年第10期;秦治来:《国际关系研究中的历史分析》,《世界经济与政治》2006年第3期;谢华:《国际关系理论与历史学》,《理论探索》2003年第3期等。
7. Ernest Satow, A Guide to D iplom atic Practice, 2 vols, London: Longmans, Green, 1917, p. 85.
8. Harold Nicolson, The Evolution of D iplom acy, New York: Collier, 1962, p. 85.
9. Francois de Calliéres, On theManner of N egotiating w ith Princes, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963, p. 3.
10. Jams Bryce, International Relations, London, 1922, pp. 3—4. 转引自詹姆斯·德·代元主编:《国际关系理论批判》,秦治来译,杭州:浙江人民出版社2003年版,第198页。
17. 参见Felex Gilbert, “Machiavelli: The Renaissance of theArt ofWar”, in Peter Paret, ed. , Makers ofModern S trategy: From Machiavelli to the N uclearAge, Princeton, N. J. : Princeton University Press, 1986, chap ter 1。
26. Ludwig Dehio, The Precarious B alance: The Politics of Power in Europe, 1494—1945, London: Chatto & Windus, 1963; A. J. P. Taylor, The S truggle for Mastery in Europe, 1848—1918, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954; William L. Langer, European A lliances and A lignm ents, 1871—1890, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. , 1966.
27. 罗伯特·杰维斯:《国际政治中的知觉与错误知觉》,第217页。
28. 国际关系领域的变量之多,可以参见美国学者布里安·黑利和阿瑟·斯泰恩的一篇研究均势的论文,他们把自己的结论建立在50个基本图表和110个半圆的基础上,其中还包括30个双边组合( dyads)和80个三边组合( triads) 。参见Brian Healy and Arthur Stein, “The Balance of Power in International History: Theory and Reality”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 17, March 1973, p. 56。
29. Alan Sked, “The Study of International Relations: A HistorianÄs View”, in Hugh C. Dyer and LeonMangasarian, eds. , The S tudy of International Relations: The S tate of A rt, New York: St. MartinÄs Press, 1989, p. 90.
30. ErnestMay, “Lessons”of the Past: TheUse andM isuse of History in Am erican Foreign Policy, New York: Oxford University Press, 1973, p. xi.
31. Jack S. Levy, “Too Importance to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations”, International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1, Summer 1997.
32. Colin Elman andMiriam Fendius Elman, “Dip lomatic History and International Relations Theory: Respecting Difference and Crossing Boundaries”, International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1, Summer 1997, p. 7.
33. 熊彼特:《经济分析史》(第一卷) ,第28页。
34. Dale C. Copeland, “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations”, in Michael Brown, ed. , Theories ofWar, and Peace, Cambridge: TheMIT Press, 1998, p. 465.
35. Bruce Russett, “The Fact ofDemocratic Peace”, inMichaelBrown, ed. , Debating theDem ocratic Peace, p. 80.
36. John L. Gaddis, “International Relations Theory and the End of the ColdWar”, in SeanM. Lynn2Jones and Steven E. Miller, eds. , The Cold War and After: Prospects for Peace, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993, p. 325.
37. Jack S. Levy, “Too Importance to Leave to the Other: History and Political Science in the Study of International Relations”, pp. 32—33.