国际关系理论英文原版书部分内容

sysop

国际关系理论英文原版书部分内容
秋色夏天

Robert, J. and Georg, S.(2003) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches.Oxford university press

CONTENT

1 Why study IR?

2 IR as an Academic Subject

3 Realism

4 Liberalism

5 International Society

6 International Political Economy(IPE)

7 International Political Economy: Contemporary Debate

8 Methodological Debates: Classical Versus Positivist Approaches

9 Methodological Debates: Post-Positivist Approaches

10 New Issues in IR



１　WHY STUDY IR?

KEY CONCEPTS:

State Sovereignty:  a state's characteristic of being politically independent of all other states

State System: relations between politically organized human groupings which occupy distinctive territories are not under any higher authority or power, and enjoy and exercise a measure of independence from each other

Five basic values of a state system: Security, Freedom, Order, Justice, and Welfare

Major troditional IR approaches: Realism, Liberalism, International Society, and IPE (International Political Economy)

The security dilemma: states are both a source of security and a threat to security for human beings

Medieval authority: an arrangement of dispersed political authority

Modern state authority: an arrangement of centralized political authority

Hegemony: power and control exercised by a leading state over the other states

Balance of power: a doctrine and an arrangement whereby the power of one state (or group of states) is checked by the countervailing power of other states

International Relations in Everyday Life

   IR is the shorthand name for the academic subject of international relations. The main reason why we should study IR is the fact that the entire population of the world is divided into separate territorial political communities, or independent states, which profoundly affect the way people live. Together those states form an international system that is global in extent. At the present time there are almost 200 independent states. Everybody on earth with very few exceptions not only lives in one of those countries but is also a citizen of one of them and very rarely of more than one. So virtually every man, woman, and child on earth is connected to a particular state, and they may not be fully aware of.

     State are independent of each other, at least legally: they have sovereignty. But that does not mean they are isolated or insulated from each other. On the contrary, they adjoin each other and affect each other and must therefore somehow find ways to coexist and to deal with each other. They are usually embedded in international markets which affect the policies of their governments and the wealth and welfare of their citizens. That requires that they enter into relations with each other. Complete isolation is usually not an option. When states are isolated and are cut off from the state system, either by their own government or by foreign powers, the people usually suffer as a result. That has been the situation recently with regard to Burma, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. The state system is a system of social relations, that is, a system of relations between groups of human beings. Like most other social systems, international relations can have certain advantages and disadvantages for the participants. IR is the study of the nature and consequences of these relations.

The state system is a distinctive way of organizing political life on earth which has deep historical roots. There have been state systems or quasi-state systems at different times and places in different parts of the world: for example, in ancient India, in ancient Greece, and in Renaissance Italy(Watson1992). However, the subject of IRconventionally dates back to the early modern ear(sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) in Europe, when sovereign states based on adjacent territories were initially established. Ever since the eighteenth century the relations between such independent states have been labeled "international relations". In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the state system was expanded to encompass the entire territory of the earth. The world of states is basically a territorial world: it is a way of politically organizing the world's populated territory, a distinctive kind of territorial political organization which is based on numerous different governments that are legally independent of each other. The only large territory that is not a state is Antarctica, and it is administered by a consortium of states. Today IR is the study of the global state system from varous scholarly perspectives, the most important of which shall be discussed in this book.

To understand the significance of IR it is necessary to grasp what living in states basically involves. What does it imply? How important is it? How should we think about it? This book is centrally concerned with these questions and aspecially with the last one. The chapters which follow deal with various answers to that fundamental question. This chapter examines the core historical subject-matter of IR: the evolution of the state system and the changing contemporary world of states.

     To begin to respond to these questions it may be helpful to expected to uphold: security, freedom, order, justice and welfare. These are social values that are so fundamental to human well-being that they must be protected or ensured in some way. That could be by social organizations other than the state: e.g. by family,clan, ethinic or religious organizations. In the modern era, however, the state has usually been involved as the leading institution in that regard: it is expected to insure these basic values. For example, people generally assume that the state should and will underwrite the value of security, which involves the protection of citizens from internal and external threat. That is a fundamental concern or interest of states. However, the every existence of independent states affects the value of security: we live in a world of many states, almost all of which are armed at least to some degree. Thus states can both defend and threaten peoples' security, and that paradox of the state system is usually referred to as the "security dilemma". In other words, just like any other human organization, states present problems as well as provide solutions.

Most states are likely to be friendly, non-threatening, and peace-loving. But a few states may be hostile and aggressive and there is no world government to constrain them. That poses a basic and age-old problem of state systems: national security. To deal with that problem most states possess armed forces. Military power is usually considered a necessity so that states can coexist and deal with each other without being intimidated or subjugated. Unarmed states are extremely rare in the history of the state system that we should never lose sight of. Many states also enter into alliances with other states to increase their national security. To ensure that no great power succeeds in achieving a hegemonic position of overall domination, based on intimidation, coercion, or the outright use of force, it is also necessary to construct and maintain a balance of military power. Security is obviously one of the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of realist theories of IR(Morgenthau1960). It operates on the assumption that relations off states can be best characterized as a world in which armed states are competing rivals and periodically go to war with each other.

      The second basic value that states are usually expected to uphold is freedom, both personal freedom and national greedom or independence. A fundamental reason for having states and putting up with the burdens that governments place on citizens, such as tax burdens or obligations of military service, is the condition of national freedom or independence which states exist to foster. We cannot be free unless our country is free too: that was made very clear to millions of Czech, Polish, Danish, Norwegian, Belgian, and Dutch citizens as well as citizens of other countries that were invaded and occupied by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Even if our country is free we may still not be free personally, but at least then the problem of our freedom is in our own hands. War threatens and sometimes destroys freedom. Peace fosters freedom. Peace also makes progrssive international change possible, that is, the creation of a better world. Peace and progressive change are obviously among the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of liberal theories of IR(Claude1971). It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as a world in which states cooperate with each other to maintain peace and freedom and to pursue progressive change.

The third and fourth basic values that states are usually expected to uphold are order and justice. States have a common interest in establishing and maintaining international order so that they can coexist and interact on a basis of stability, certainty, and predictability. To that end, states are expected to uphold international law: to keep their treaty commitments and to observe the rules, conventions, and customs of the international legal order. They are also expected to follow accepted practices of diplomacy and to support international organizations. International law, diplomatic relations, and international organizations can only exist and operate successfully if these expectations are generally met by most states most of the time. States are also expected to uphold human rights. Today there is an elaborate international legal framework of human rights--civil, political, social, and economic--which has been developed since the end of the Second World War. Order and justice obviously are among the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of International Society theories of IR(Bull 1995). It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as a world in which states are socially responsible actors and have a common interest in preserving international order and promoting international justice.

     The final basic value that states are usually expected to uphold is the population's socioeconomic wealth and welfare. People expect their government to adopt appropriate policies to encourage high employment, low inflation, steady investment, the uninterrupted flow of trade and commerce, and so forth. Because national economies are rarely isolated from each other, most people also expect that the state will respond to the international economic environment in such a way as to enhance or at least defend and maintain the national standard of living.

States nowadays try to frame and implement economic policies that can maintain the stability of the international economy upon which they are all increasingly dependent. That usually involves economic policies that can deal adequately with international markets, with the economic policies of other states, with foreign investment, with foreign exchange rates, with international trade, with international transportation and communications, and with other international economic relations that affect national wealth and welfare. Economic interdependence, meaning a high degree of mutual economic dependence among countries, is a striking feature of the contemporary state system. Some people consider that to be a good thing because it may increase overall freedom and wealth by expanding the global marketplace and thereby increasing participation, specialization, efficiency, and productivity. Other people consider it to be a bad thing because it may promote overall inequality by allowing rich and powerful countries, or countries with financial or technological advantages, to dominate poor and weak countries that lack those advantages. But either way,wealth and welfare obviously are among the most fundamental values of international relations. That approach to the study of world politics is typical of IPE(international political economy) theories of IR( Gilpin 1987). It operates on the assumption that international relations can be best characterized as fundamentally a socioeconomic world and not merely a political and military world.

      Most people usually take these basic values(security;freedom;order and justice;welfare) for granted. They only become aware of them when something goes wrong--for example, during a war or a depression, when things begin to get beyond the control of individual states. On those learning occasions people wake up to the larger circumstances of their lives which in normal times are a silent or invisible background. At those moments they are likely to become sharply aware of what they take for granted, and of how important these values really are in their everyday lives. We become aware of national independence and our freedom as citizens when peace is no longer guaranteed. We become aware of internaional order and justice when some states, especially major powers, abuse, exploit, denounce, or disregard international law or trample on human rights. We become aware of national welfare and our own personal socioeconomic well-being when foreign countries or international investors use their economic clout to jeopardize our standard of living.

I am sorry for everyone of you that i haven't been updating the material which i should offer for ages. I am so glad that there are so many of my peers are interested in studying International Relaitons in Englsih~ and it is really my pleasure to communicate with you as well as to discuss with you on certain issues in IR. ok, today i will type another part of the this chapter, and I will try to update it whenever i am sufficient in time. Good luck to all of you~!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------There were significant moments of heightened awareness of these major values during the twentieth entury. The First World War made it dreadfully clear to most people just how devastatingly destructive of lives and living conditions modern mechanized warfare between major powers can be, and just how important it is to reduce the risk of great power war. That recognition led to the first major developments of IR through whih tried to find effecctive legal institutions--e.g. the Covenant of the League of Nations--to prevent great-power war. The Great Depression brought home to many people around the world how their economic likelyhood could be adversely affected, in some cases destroyed, by market conditions not only at home but also in other countries. The Second World War not only underlined the reality of the dangers of great-power war but also revealed how  important it is to prevent any great power from getting out of control and how unwise it is to pursue a policy of appeasement--whih was adopted by Britain and France in regard to Nazi Germany just prior to the war with disatrous consequences for everybody, including the German people.

There also were moments of heightened awareness of the fundamental importance of these values after the Second World War. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 brought home to many people the dangers of nuclear war. The anti-colonial movements in Asia and Africa of the 1950-s and 1960-s and the secessionist movements in former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia at the end of the Cold War made it clear how important self-determination and political independence continue to be. The global inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s caused by a sudden dramatic increase in oil prices by the OPEC cartel of oil-exporting ountries was a reminder of how the interconnectedness of the golbal economy can be a threat to national and personal welfare anywhere in the world. For example, the oil shock of the 1970s, made it abundantly clear to countless American, European, and Japanese motorists--among others--that economy policies of Middle-East and other major oil producing countries could suddenly raise the price of gas or petrol at the pump and lower their standard of living. The Gulf War(1990-1)and the conflicts in the Balkans, particularly Bosnia(1992-5) and Kosovo(1999) were a reminder of the importance of international order and respect for human rights. The attacks on New York and Washington(2001) awakened many people in the United States and elsewhere to the dangers of international terrorism.

tauringhuang.

能不能发完整版的

未知的方向

谢谢楼主，顶啊

翠竹映清泉

有点少了。多点。

嘎嘎小欣

呵呵，辛苦了阿

twlei

不错的东西 要是能多些就好了

yingw82

谢谢

LaVieEnRose

谢谢