|
总 结 本文的目的在于开启而非结束一场辩论。我们关于基准时间的设计应该起到一种刺激思考的作用，而非是一锤定音的结论。我们认为，不管这种设计有何错误之处，它都比正统基准时间更加深化了对国际关系的探索。通过从主流国际关系理论中抽取并详细阐述这些标准，使基准时间超越了现实主义标准所主导的那套正统基准时间。它尽管没有否定将大战作为基准时间的做法，但对此提出质疑。它同时对其他转型过程的地位进行了评价，尤其关注“漫长的19世纪”。它更强调过程的集合而非时间点事件。更为重要的是，本文让国际关系学者们对给予特定时间以基准地位的一系列做法进行思考、反思和问题化。国际关系学科对此尤其是最近对1989年的评价做得过于轻率。(77) 我们的总结包含以下五点： 第一，国际关系基准时间应该按照重要性来评级：首要基准时间是深刻变革、广泛集合与全球影响的结合；次要基准时间是一组变革集合的临界点，但并不一定具有全球性意义；第三级基准时间是时间点事件，其结果是本地/区域性而非全球性的。 第二，从长远来看，基准时间的级别可能会变化，也可能会被取消基准时间的地位。因此进行重新评估是必要的。这就是说，越重视上文所述的标准，越能在各个理论视角之间进行更好的判断、批判和对话。国际关系学者和学生将会继续讨论某一基准时间的重要性。但他们应该更有批判性，并用更加系统化的方式进行讨论。 第三，不应该再将大战看做国际关系基准时间的主要或习惯的定义性特征。并非所有的大战都有这个地位。经济、技术和观念的发展应该得到更多的重视，即使它们与大战无关。 第四，国际关系应该更加关注根植或围绕19世纪“全球大变革”的基准时间，探索工业化、理性国家构建和进步意识形态的构成在国际领域关键转型过程中的作用。 第五，应该更加区分区域和全球范围的特定的基准时间，且要明白，欧洲也是一个区域。在1500年以前不存在全球层次，因此将这种分歧向历史深处推进需要改变分析的尺度。 可以说，本文至少向大家澄清那套正统基准时间是有缺陷的。正统基准时间强调权力分配，而对权力模式变革或支撑这些变革的社会、经济和政治转型的关注不足。它强调战争，但没有足够注意导致战争的社会发展。国际关系正统基准时间使国际关系与历史学和较近的社会科学的关联减弱，导致视野更加狭小。围绕经过更加慎重思考且更为开放的一套基准时间来重新描述国际关系，可以给该学科带来更敏锐的历史触角和更深入的当代问题议程。它也可以增强国际关系学在与社会科学和历史学交流中的立场。 (本文2012年12月16日首发于在线《欧洲国际关系杂志》(The European Journal of International Relations)，《史学集刊》已取得复制许可，数字对象唯一标识符(DOI)：10. 1177/1354066112454553。) 注释： ①本文并没有探讨次学科领域里特定的基准时间，当然这将会是另一个有意思的研究领域。 ②例如B. Buzan and R Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp 401-402。 ③例如J. Baylis and S Smith, eds, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 54; D. Philpott, Revolution in Sovereignty, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001, pp. 30, 77。 ④例如C. Brown and K. Ainley, Understanding International Relations, 4th rev. edn, London: Palgrave, 2009, pp. 18-23。 ⑤例如C. W. Kegley, Jr. and E. R. Wittkopf, World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 8th edn, New York: St Martin's, 2001; G. Lundestad, East West North South, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 1; T. Oatley, International Political Economy: Interests and Institutions in the Global Economy, London: Longman, 2007, p. 27。 ⑥例如C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999。 ⑦B. Buzan and L. Hansen, The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 226-255. ⑧B. Buzan and R Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, pp. 386-406; W. A. Green, "Periodization in European and world history," Journal of World History, 3: 1(1992): 13-53; E. May, 'Lesson' of the Past, New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. ⑨B. Buzan and G. Lawson, "The global transformation: The 19th century and the making of modern international relations, " International Studies Quarterly, 47: 1(2013); K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation, Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1957. ⑩E. May, "Lesson" of the Past. (11)例如A. Tickner and D. Blaney,(eds), Thinking International Relations Differently, London: Routledge, 2011。 (12)D. Philpott, Revolution in Sovereignty, pp. 30, 77. (13)J. G. Ruggie, "Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis, " World Politics, 35: 2(1983): 271-279. (14)例如H. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations, 5th edn. Rev., New York: Knopf, 1978。 (15)例如A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society, London: Routledge, 1992。 (16)例如D. Held, A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt, et al., Global Transformations, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999。 (17)B. de, Carvalho, H. Leira and J. Hobson, "The big bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919, " Millennium, 39: 3(2011): 740; A. Osiander, "Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth," International Organization, 55: 20(2001): 266. (18)A Osiander, "Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth," International Organization, 55: 20(2001): 266. (19)B. de, Carvalho, H. Leira and J. Hobson, "The big bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919, " Mil lennium, 39: 3(2011): 740; B. Teschke, The Myth of Westphalia, London: Verso, 2003, p. 241. (20)D. Nexon, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009, p.265; A. Osiander, "Sovereignty, international relations, and the Westphalian myth," International Organization, 55: 20(2001): 278; B. Teschke, The Myth of Westphalia, p. 217. (21)C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State, pp 87-154. (22)D. Nexon, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe, pp. 278-280. (23)T. Knutsen, The History of International Relations Theory, 2nd edn, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997; B. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of IR, New York: SUNY Press, 1998. (24)A F. Grant, A. Greenwood, J. D. I. Hughes, et al., An Introduction to International Relations, London: Macmillan, 1916; J. Hobson, The Eurocentric Origins of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. (25)D. Bell, The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order 1860-1900, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007; J. Hobson, The Eurocentric Origins of International Relations; S. Vucetic, The Anglosphere: A Genealogy of a Racialized Identity in International Relations, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011. (26)G. Lawson, "Introduction: The 'what', 'when' and 'where' of the global 1989, " in G. Lawson, C. Armbruster and M. Cox,(eds),The Global 1989: Continuity and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. p. 1. (27)B. de, Carvalho, H. Leira and J. Hobson, "The big bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919, " Millennium, 39: 3(2011): 756. (28)例如E. Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002; R Shilliam, "The perilous but unavoidable terrain of the non-West," in R. Shilliam(ed), International Relations and Non-Western Thought, London: Routledge, 2011, pp. 12-26; S. Suzuki, Civilization and Empire, London: Routledge, 2009。 (29)例如K Hutchings, Time and World Politics, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008。 (30)例如I. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005; I. Clark, International Legitimacy and World Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007; R. Gilpin, War & Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981; K. J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflict and International Order, 1648-1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991;G. J. Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001; C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State。 (31)我们所关注的是主流理论，因为我们的目的是建立国际关系组织研究与教学的主要方式，并将其引领到其他学科中。因为大部分国际关系学者在使用这些理论，因此这也会对该学科大部分所思考的事件和过程进行讨论。 (32)A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society. (33)例如D. H. Deudney, Bounding Power, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007。 (34)例如R. O. Keohane and J. S. Nye, Power and Interdependence, Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1977。 (35)B. Buzan and R Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, pp. 267-268. (36)可以用2011年来代替2008年，因为经济合作与发展组织国家的经济占世界总量不到一半。感谢肖逸夫(Yves Tiberghien)指出了这一点。 (37)A Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 314. (38)C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State. (39)J. G. Ruggie, "Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis," World Politics, 35: 2(1983): 261-285. (40)H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan, 1977. (41)B. Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, pp. 240-249. (42)B. Buzan, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, pp. 240-249; K. J. Holsti, Taming the Sovereigns: Institutional Change in International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. (43)J. Mayall, Nationalism and International Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. (44)I. Clark, International Legitimacy and World Society; I. Clark, Hegemony in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. (45)I. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, pp. 2, 9. (46)I. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, pp. 7, 19-25. (47)H. Bull and A. Watson(eds), The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984; B. Buzan and M. Albert, "Differentiation: A sociological approach to International Relations Theory," European Journal of International Relations, 16: 3(2010): 315-337; C. Reus-Smit, "Struggles for individual rights and the expansion of the international system," International Organization, 65: 2(2011):207-242; A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society. (48)女权主义作品或许也在其中，但并非基准时间的显性特征。一些女权主义的分析和某些基准时间很吻合：按性别构建的威斯特伐利亚国家以及一战和二战间女性权利的改善。应该有人来做这方面的研究。 (49)例如E. Hobsbawm，The Age of Revolution 1789-1848，London: Abacus, 1962; J. Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society, London: Verso, 1994。 (50)例如C. A. Bayly, The Birth of the Modern World 1780-1914, Oxford: Blackwell, 2004。 (51)B. Teschke, The Myth of Westphalia, p.241. (52)F. Halliday, Revolution and World Politics, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1999. (53)例如D. Armstrong, Revolution and World Order, Oxford: Oxford University Presa, 1993; G. Lawson, Negotiated Revolutions, London: Ashgate, 2005; S. Walt, Revolution and War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997。 (54)B. Buzan and M. Albert, "Differentiation: A sociological approach to International Relations Theory," European Journal of International Relations, 16: 3(2010): 315-337. (55)K. N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979. (56)J. G. Ruggie, "Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis," World Politics, 35: 2(1983): 261-285. (57)B. Buzan and R. Little, International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, 2000. (58)N. Onuf, "Institutions, intentions and international relations," Review of International Studies, 28: 2(2002): 228. (59)A. Wendt, "Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics, " International Organization, 46: 2(1992): 391-425. (60)另见B. Buzan, C Jones and R. Little, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, p. 244。 (61)E. Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society. (62)H. Bull and A. Watson(eds), The Expansion of International Society; B. Buzan, "'Culture and international society': The Martin Wight Lecture for 2009, "International Affairs, 86: 1(2010): 1-25; B. Buzan and R. Little, "The historical expansion of international society," in Denemark RA(ed)The International Studies Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 3339-3356; C. Reus-Smit, "Struggles for individual rights and the expansion of the international system, "International Organization, 65: 2(2011): 207-242;A. Watson, The Evolution of International Society. (63)C. Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State; J. G. Ruggie, " Continuity and transformation in the world polity: Toward a neorealist synthesis, " World Politics, 35: 2(1983): 261-285. (64)K. N. Waltz, "Realist thought and neo-realist theory," Journal of International Affairs, 44: 1(1990): 37，同时参见K N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 91。 (65)例如R Gilpin, War & Change in World Politics。 (66)J. H. Herz, "The rise and demise of the territorial state," World Politics, 9: 4(1957): 473-493; K. N. Waltz,(1981)"The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better, Adelphi, 171, London: IISS, 1981. (67)B. Buzan and G. Lawson, "The global transformation: The 19th century and the making of modern international relations, " International Studies Quarterly, 47: 1(2013). (68)例如I. Wallerstein, The Modern World System, New York: Academic Press, 1974。 (69)G.. J. Ikenberry, "Liberal internationalism 3.0: America and the dilemmas of liberal world order," Perspectives on Politics, 7:(2009): 71-86. (70)S. Suzuki, Civilization and Empire. (71)参见B. Buzan and R Little International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, pp. 401-402。 (72)I. Clark, Legitimacy in International Society, pp. 51-70; 此外，更具实验性的是K. J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflict and International Order, 1648-1989, p. 39。 (73)G. J. Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. (74)P. Schroeder, "Historical reality versus neorealist theory," International Security, 19: 1(1994): 108-148. (75)F. Zakaria, The Post-American World and the Rise of the Rest, London: Penguin, 2008. (76)S. Sassen, "The return of primitive accumulation," in G. Lawson, C. Armbruster and M. Cox(eds), The Global 1989, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010, pp. 51-75. (77)G. Lawson, "Introduction: The 'what', 'when' and 'where' of the global 1989, in G. Lawson, C Armbruster and M. Cox,(eds), The Global 1989: Continuity and Change in World Politics, pp. 1-20. (责任编辑：admin) |