|
3#

楼主 |
发表于 2012-5-21 12:31:23
|
只看该作者
注释:
① 现代国际关系理论研究者对经典国际关系思想的研究大多是“编年式的”,很少有怀特这种几乎纯粹是“分析式的”研究路径,只要将怀特的研究与其他几种研究进行对比即可看出前者的哲学深度和逻辑力量。参见David Yost, “Political Philosophy and the Theory of IR,”International Affairs, Vol. 70, No. 2, 1994, p. 277。怀特的著作对“英国学派”主要代表人物赫德利·布尔、约翰·文森特的思想和著作都有很大影响,从这点即可以明显看出怀特构建的三大传统对“英国学派”独具特色的国际社会理论的影响力。参见Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, 1995。目前对怀特的三大传统分析模式的本体研究都是集中在怀特构建的三大传统的描述性及规范性的特征上,几乎无人注意到怀特采用的分析模式对国际关系理论研究的方法论价值,本文将会在最后部分对此予以详细阐述。
② 目前唯一一本有关怀特国际关系思想的专著对他的三大传统仅做了“描述性”而不是“分析性”的评判,参见Ian Hall, The International Thought of Martin Wight, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006。现有有关怀特三大传统分析模式的本体研究主要体现在相关学者(尤其是赫德利·布尔)撰写的论文中,参见Hedley Bull, “Martin Wight and the Theory of IR,”British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1976, pp. 101-116; David Yost,“Political Philosophy and the Theory of IR,”pp. 263-290; Jens Bartelson,“Short Circuits: Society and Tradition in IR, ”Review of International Studies, Vol. 22, No.4, 1996, pp. 339-360。中国人民大学国际关系学院时殷弘教授是中国最早对怀特构建的国际关系三大思想传统进行评述的学者,参见时殷弘、叶凤丽:《现实主义·理性主义·革命主义》,载《欧洲》,1995年第3期,第1-6页。
③ 有关“现实主义”和“理想主义”两大思想传统的划分及其对国际关系理论研究的重要意义,参见Edward H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939, New York: Palgrave, 2001; Hans J. Morgenthau, Scientific Manvs. Power Politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962; John Herz, Political Realism and Political Idealism, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1986。
④ 有关国际关系理论研究中思想传统的作用及历史传统与分析传统两者间的分歧,参见Renee Jeffery,“Tradition as Invention,” Millennium, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2005, pp. 57-84; Gerard Holden, “Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers?” Review of International Studies, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2002, pp. 253-270 ; Brian C. Schmidt, “The Historiography of Academic IR,” Review of lnternational Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1994, pp. 349-367。
⑤ Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998, p. 25.
⑥ Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991, p. 267.
⑦ Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 7.
⑧ Ian Hall, The International Thought of Martin Wight, p. 143.
⑨ Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 5.
⑩ Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 268.
(11) Ian Hall, The International Thought of Martin Wight, p. 142.
(12) R. B. J. Walker, “History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations, ” Millennum, Vol. 18, No. 2, 1989, p. 182.
(13) Renee Jeffery, “Tradition as Invention,” Millennium, Vol. 34, No. 1, 2005, p. 75.
(14) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p.259.
(15) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p.260.
(16) Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Domestic Investigation: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen and Unwin, 1966, p. 35.
(17) Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals, p. 24.
(18) Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” p. 40.
(19) Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals, p.24.
(20) Ian Clark, “Traditions of Thought and Classical Theories of International Relations,” in Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann, eds., Classical Theories of International Relations, London: Macmillan Press Ltd., 1996, pp. 4-5.
(21) Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, p. 23.
(22) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, pp. 17, 32.
(23) Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” pp. 37-38.
(24) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, pp. 8, 41.
(25) Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 14.
(26) Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, p. 25.
(27) Hedley Bull, “Society and Anarchy in International Relations,” p. 38.
(28) Ian Clark, “Traditions of Thought and Classical Theories of International Relations,” in Ian Clark and Iver B. Neumann, eds., Classical Theories of International Relations, p. 5.
(29) Emmanuel Navon, “The Third Debate Revisited,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 27, No. 4, 2001, p.614.
(30) Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1966, p. 362.
(31) Stephen George, “The Reconciliation of the Classical and Scientific Approaches to IR?” Millennum, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1976, p. 29.
(32) Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979, p. 12.
(33) Stanley Hoffmann, “An American Social Science: International Relations,” Daedalus, Vol. 106, No. 3, 1977, p. 52.
(34) Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” World Politics, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1966, p. 369.
(35) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 258.
(36) Martin Wight, “Why is There No International Theory?” in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, eds., Domestic Investigation : Essays in the Theory of International Politics, p. 32.
(37) Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, p.75.
(38) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 1.
(39) Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, p.71.
(40) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 259.
(41) Hedley Bull, “Martin Wight and the Theory of IR,” p. 104.
(42) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p.47.
(43) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 6.
(44) David Yost, “Political Philosophy and the Theory of IR,” p. 282.
(45) Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, p. 67. |
|