解码国际关系理论：理论及其影响 - Historique des versions

Arthur le 28 janvier 2024 à 08:47

2024-01-28T08:47:11Z

← Version précédente		Version du 28 janvier 2024 à 10:47
Ligne 10 :		Ligne 10 :
	{{hidden		{{hidden
	\|[[国际关系理论]]		\|[[国际关系理论]]
	\|[[~~国际关系理论解码：理论及其影响~~]] ● [[古典现实主义及其对现代地缘政治的影响]] ● [[~~Structural Realism: Power Dynamics in a Stateless World~~]] ● [[~~Liberalism: The Pursuit of Peace and Cooperation~~]] ● [[Neoliberalism: Complex Interdependence and Global Governance]] ● [[The English School of International Relations]] ● [[Constructivism: Social Structures and International Relations]] ● [[Critical Theory: Challenging Dominant Paradigms]] ● [[Identity, Culture, and Religion: Shaping Global Interactions]]		\|[[解码国际关系理论：理论及其影响]] ● [[古典现实主义及其对现代地缘政治的影响]] ● [[现代世界的结构现实主义：理解权力与战略]] ● [[行动中的自由理论：全球政治的康德视角]] ● [[Neoliberalism: Complex Interdependence and Global Governance]] ● [[The English School of International Relations]] ● [[Constructivism: Social Structures and International Relations]] ● [[Critical Theory: Challenging Dominant Paradigms]] ● [[Identity, Culture, and Religion: Shaping Global Interactions]]
	\|headerstyle=background:#ffffff		\|headerstyle=background:#ffffff
	\|style=text-align:center;		\|style=text-align:center;

Arthur le 3 janvier 2024 à 10:00

2024-01-03T10:00:47Z

← Version précédente		Version du 3 janvier 2024 à 12:00
Ligne 10 :		Ligne 10 :
	{{hidden		{{hidden
	\|[[国际关系理论]]		\|[[国际关系理论]]
	\|[[国际关系理论解码：理论及其影响]])古典现实主义：基础与主要思想家结构现实主义：无国家世界中的权力动态自由主义：追求和平与合作新自由主义：复杂的相互依存关系与全球治理英国国际关系学派建构主义：社会结构与国际关系批判理论：挑战主流范式身份、文化与宗教：塑造全球互动关系		\|[[国际关系理论解码：理论及其影响]] ● [[古典现实主义及其对现代地缘政治的影响]] ● [[Structural Realism: Power Dynamics in a Stateless World]] ● [[Liberalism: The Pursuit of Peace and Cooperation]] ● [[Neoliberalism: Complex Interdependence and Global Governance]] ● [[The English School of International Relations]] ● [[Constructivism: Social Structures and International Relations]] ● [[Critical Theory: Challenging Dominant Paradigms]] ● [[Identity, Culture, and Religion: Shaping Global Interactions]]
	\|headerstyle=background:#ffffff		\|headerstyle=background:#ffffff
	\|style=text-align:center;		\|style=text-align:center;

Arthur : /* Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution */

2023-12-29T08:46:34Z

Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:46
Ligne 285 :		Ligne 285 :
	国际体系 "这一概念是国际关系的核心，指的是世界各国和其他重要行为体之间的关系结构和模式，受特定规则和规范的制约。布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）认为，这一概念可以作为不同理论方法的共同基础，提供一个可以整合各种观点的综合结构。他们认为，通过关注国际体系，有可能超越单个理论的局限性，对全球政治形成更具凝聚力和更全面的理解。这种方法将借鉴各种理论传统的见解，对国际体系进行更细致、更多维的分析。例如，它可以将现实主义对权力与安全的关注、自由主义对制度与合作的强调、建构主义对社会建构与身份的关注以及批判理论对权力动态与不平等的关注结合起来。布赞和利特尔提出的基于国际体系概念的整体框架，旨在弥合国际关系中不同理论观点之间的分歧。它代表了一种努力，即超越理论上的支离破碎，以更加综合和跨学科的方法来理解国际舞台的复杂性。这种方法不仅有可能丰富国际关系的学术研究，而且有可能提高该学科在应对全球政治的多方面挑战方面的实用性。		国际体系 "这一概念是国际关系的核心，指的是世界各国和其他重要行为体之间的关系结构和模式，受特定规则和规范的制约。布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）认为，这一概念可以作为不同理论方法的共同基础，提供一个可以整合各种观点的综合结构。他们认为，通过关注国际体系，有可能超越单个理论的局限性，对全球政治形成更具凝聚力和更全面的理解。这种方法将借鉴各种理论传统的见解，对国际体系进行更细致、更多维的分析。例如，它可以将现实主义对权力与安全的关注、自由主义对制度与合作的强调、建构主义对社会建构与身份的关注以及批判理论对权力动态与不平等的关注结合起来。布赞和利特尔提出的基于国际体系概念的整体框架，旨在弥合国际关系中不同理论观点之间的分歧。它代表了一种努力，即超越理论上的支离破碎，以更加综合和跨学科的方法来理解国际舞台的复杂性。这种方法不仅有可能丰富国际关系的学术研究，而且有可能提高该学科在应对全球政治的多方面挑战方面的实用性。

	=== ~~Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution~~ ===		=== 振兴国际关系学智力贡献的战略 ===
	Addressing the perceived failure of International Relations (IR) as an intellectual project, especially in the context of a global era marked by increasing globalization, requires a reorientation and expansion of its theoretical and methodological approaches. This reorientation involves moving beyond traditional frameworks and embracing more macro-approaches that are prevalent in other social sciences.

	One direction that has been suggested involves moving beyond the 'world systems' theory, famously associated with Immanuel Wallerstein, which has its roots in Marxism and materialism. Wallerstein's world-systems theory views the global order as a complex system characterized by a capitalist world economy divided into core, periphery, and semi-periphery nations. While this theory has provided valuable insights into the economic structures of global inequality, critics argue that it focuses too narrowly on economic factors and class dynamics, overlooking other important aspects of international relations. In response, there is a growing interest in studying the international system, world system, and world society in a more holistic manner. This approach would involve integrating a broader range of factors beyond just economic ones, including political, cultural, technological, and environmental dimensions. It also suggests a need to understand the interactions not only between states but also between a wide array of non-state actors, such as international organizations, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and transnational advocacy networks.		要解决国际关系学（IR）作为智力项目被认为失败的问题，尤其是在全球化日益加剧的全球时代背景下，就需要对其理论和方法进行重新定位和扩展。这种重新定位包括超越传统框架，采用其他社会科学中流行的更为宏观的方法。

	The study of the international system would continue to examine the traditional concerns of IR, such as power dynamics, state behavior, and international institutions. However, it would also incorporate insights from other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology, and environmental science, to better understand the social, cultural, and ecological aspects of global politics. The concept of world society, on the other hand, extends the analysis to include the global community's collective norms, values, and identities. It emphasizes the role of transnational actors and networks in shaping global norms and practices, ranging from human rights and environmental sustainability to international law and global governance.		有人提出的一个方向是超越与伊曼纽尔-沃勒斯坦（Immanuel Wallerstein）著名的 "世界体系 "理论，该理论源于马克思主义和唯物主义。沃勒斯坦的世界体系理论将全球秩序视为一个复杂的体系，其特点是资本主义世界经济分为核心国家、边缘国家和半边缘国家。虽然这一理论对全球不平等的经济结构提供了有价值的见解，但批评者认为，该理论过于狭隘地关注经济因素和阶级动态，忽视了国际关系的其他重要方面。作为回应，人们对以更加全面的方式研究国际体系、世界体系和世界社会的兴趣与日俱增。这种方法将涉及整合更广泛的因素，而不仅仅是经济因素，包括政治、文化、技术和环境因素。它还表明，不仅需要了解国家之间的互动，还需要了解国际组织、非政府组织、跨国公司和跨国宣传网络等一系列非国家行为者之间的互动。

	Moving beyond the 'Westphalian straightjacket' involves challenging the state-centric view of international relations that has dominated the field since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. This perspective traditionally views sovereign states as the primary and most significant actors in the international system, with little regard for non-state entities or transnational forces. The suggestion to reverse IR's attitude toward history, particularly world history, is a call to broaden the scope of analysis beyond the narrow focus on states and their interactions. The English School of International Relations offers an approach that aligns with this broader perspective. It recognizes the importance of not just states but also international society — a concept that encompasses a wider array of actors and acknowledges the role of shared norms, values, rules, and institutions in shaping international relations. This school of thought emphasizes the historical and social dimensions of international politics, considering how historical events and processes have shaped the current international system.		对国际体系的研究将继续探讨传统的国际关系问题，如权力动态、国家行为和国际机构。不过，它还将吸收社会学、人类学和环境科学等其他学科的见解，以更好地理解全球政治的社会、文化和生态方面。另一方面，世界社会的概念将分析扩展到全球社会的集体规范、价值观和身份认同。它强调跨国行动者和网络在形成全球规范和实践方面的作用，包括人权、环境可持续性、国际法和全球治理。

	~~By incorporating a more thorough understanding of world history, IR can move beyond the limitations of the Westphalian model. This involves recognizing the influence of historical empires, non~~-Western states, and transnational movements in shaping the global order. It also means acknowledging the impact of colonialism, economic globalization, and cultural exchanges in forming the current international landscape. Furthermore, reversing IR's attitude toward history entails recognizing the dynamic and evolving nature of international relations. It requires an understanding that the concepts and theories used to explain international politics must also evolve in response to changing historical circumstances. This approach challenges the static view of international relations as merely interactions among sovereign states, instead presenting it as a dynamic and complex web of relations influenced by a wide range of historical and social factors.		要超越 "威斯特伐利亚式的束缚"，就必须挑战自 1648 年《威斯特伐利亚和约》以来一直主导国际关系领域的以国家为中心的观点。这种观点传统上将主权国家视为国际体系中最主要、最重要的行为体，而很少考虑非国家实体或跨国力量。建议扭转国际关系学派对历史，尤其是世界历史的态度，是呼吁扩大分析范围，超越对国家及其互动的狭隘关注。英国国际关系学派提供了一种与这种更广泛视角相一致的方法。该学派不仅承认国家的重要性，还承认国际社会的重要性--国际社会这一概念涵盖了更广泛的行为体，并承认共同的规范、价值观、规则和制度在塑造国际关系中的作用。这一学派强调国际政治的历史和社会维度，考虑历史事件和进程如何塑造了当前的国际体系。

	Incorporating world history into IR also allows for a more nuanced understanding of contemporary issues. For instance, current conflicts and alliances can often be better understood in the context of their historical underpinnings. Additionally, a historical perspective can provide insights into the development of international norms and institutions and help explain variations in the behavior of different states and societies. Moving beyond the 'Westphalian straightjacket' and embracing a more historically informed approach, as exemplified by the English School, allows for a richer and more comprehensive understanding of international relations. It acknowledges the importance of states while also recognizing the significance of historical processes, non-state actors, and transnational forces in shaping the global arena. This approach not only enriches the theoretical depth of IR but also enhances its practical relevance in addressing the complex challenges of the contemporary world.		通过更透彻地了解世界历史，国际关系学可以超越威斯特伐利亚模式的局限。这就需要认识到历史上的帝国、非西方国家和跨国运动对塑造全球秩序的影响。这也意味着要承认殖民主义、经济全球化和文化交流对当前国际格局形成的影响。此外，要扭转国际关系学对历史的态度，就必须认识到国际关系的动态性和演变性。它要求我们认识到，用于解释国际政治的概念和理论也必须随着历史环境的变化而发展。这种方法挑战了将国际关系仅仅视为主权国家之间互动的静态观点，而是将其视为受各种历史和社会因素影响的动态而复杂的关系网。

	~~Barry Buzan and Richard Little, in their critique of the field of International Relations (IR), address the issue of sectoral narrowness and what they describe as~~ "~~a rather thoughtless embracing of theoretical fragmentation.~~" This critique points to a tendency within IR to compartmentalize the field into distinct theoretical and thematic sectors without sufficient cross-fertilization or synthesis. Sectoral narrowness refers to the specialization within IR where scholars focus intensively on specific areas or themes, such as security studies, international political economy, or human rights. While such specialization has led to in-depth understanding and insights in these individual areas, Buzan and Little argue that it also results in a fragmented field where the broader picture is often lost. This fragmentation means that critical insights and developments in one sector of IR may not be adequately integrated into or recognized by others. The "thoughtless embracing" of this fragmentation, as Buzan and Little put it, suggests a lack of critical reflection on the limitations and drawbacks of having such sharply divided subfields. It implies a missed opportunity to develop more comprehensive and holistic approaches that draw on the strengths and insights of various sectors. For instance, understanding international security challenges fully requires not just a focus on military and strategic aspects (as in traditional security studies) but also an appreciation of economic conditions, cultural factors, and historical contexts.		将世界历史纳入国际关系还有助于对当代问题有更细致的了解。例如，当前的冲突和联盟往往可以在其历史背景下得到更好的理解。此外，历史视角可以为国际规范和制度的发展提供洞察力，并有助于解释不同国家和社会的行为差异。超越 "威斯特伐利亚式的束缚"，采用英国学派所倡导的更具历史依据的方法，可以让我们对国际关系有更丰富、更全面的理解。它承认国家的重要性，同时也认识到历史进程、非国家行为者和跨国力量在塑造全球舞台方面的重要性。这种方法不仅丰富了国际关系的理论深度，还增强了其在应对当代世界复杂挑战方面的现实意义。

	~~To move beyond this sectoral narrowness, Buzan and Little suggest that~~ IR should foster more interdisciplinary engagement and synthesis. This approach would involve creating frameworks and methodologies that bridge different sectors, encouraging scholars to incorporate insights from various areas of IR into their analyses. It also means promoting dialogue and collaboration among specialists from different subfields to address complex global issues in a more integrated manner. Such a shift would not only enhance the theoretical richness of IR but also increase its practical relevance. By breaking down the silos within the field, IR could offer more nuanced and comprehensive analyses of international phenomena, better equipping policymakers, diplomats, and other practitioners to navigate the complexities of the global landscape. In essence, moving beyond sectoral narrowness requires a conscious effort to build bridges across theoretical divides, fostering a more unified and collaborative approach to understanding and addressing the challenges of international relations.		巴里-布赞（Barry Buzan）和理查德-利特尔（Richard Little）在对国际关系（IR）领域的批判中谈到了部门狭隘性的问题，以及他们所描述的 "对理论支离破碎的不假思索的接受"。这一批评指出了国际关系领域内的一种倾向，即把该领域划分为不同的理论和主题部门，而没有充分的交叉融合或综合。部门狭隘性指的是 IR 内部的专业化，即学者们专注于特定领域或主题，如安全研究、国际政治经济学或人权。虽然这种专业化导致了对这些个别领域的深入理解和洞察力，但布赞和利特尔认为，这也造成了一个支离破碎的领域，往往失去了更广阔的视野。这种支离破碎意味着，投资者关系某一领域的重要见解和发展可能无法充分融入其他领域或得到其他领域的认可。正如布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）所言，"不假思索地接受 "这种支离破碎的现象，表明对这种截然划分的子领域的局限性和弊端缺乏批判性的反思。这意味着我们错失了制定更全面、更整体的方法的机会，而这种方法可以借鉴各部门的优势和见解。例如，要全面了解国际安全挑战，不仅需要关注军事和战略方面（如传统的安全研究），还需要了解经济状况、文化因素和历史背景。

	~~Integrating world history into International Relations (~~IR) and aiming to recapture a vision of international systems as a grand theory represent an ambitious and significant shift in the approach to studying global affairs. This perspective underscores the importance of historical context in understanding the evolution and dynamics of international systems, advocating for a more comprehensive and holistic view of IR. Integrating world history into IR involves recognizing that current international systems, institutions, norms, and power dynamics have been shaped by historical processes. This approach acknowledges that the state-centric system, global economic patterns, and political ideologies are the products of historical developments, including colonialism, industrialization, wars, and cultural exchanges. By studying these historical trajectories, IR scholars can gain deeper insights into why the international system operates as it does today and how it might evolve in the future.		布赞和利特尔建议，为了超越这种部门性的狭隘，国际关系学应促进更多的跨学科参与和综合。这种方法包括创建连接不同部门的框架和方法，鼓励学者将 IR 不同领域的见解纳入其分析中。这也意味着促进不同子领域专家之间的对话与合作，以更加综合的方式解决复杂的全球问题。这种转变不仅会增强投资者关系理论的丰富性，也会提高其实用性。通过打破领域内的孤岛，国际关系学可以对国际现象进行更细致、更全面的分析，使政策制定者、外交官和其他从业人员更好地驾驭复杂的全球格局。从本质上讲，超越部门狭隘性需要有意识地努力建立跨越理论鸿沟的桥梁，培养一种更加统一和协作的方法来理解和应对国际关系的挑战。

	Moreover, a historical approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of non-Western perspectives and experiences, which have often been marginalized in traditional IR theory. This includes exploring the impact of imperialism and decolonization on state formation and international relations in the Global South, as well as understanding the roles of non-European empires and civilizations in shaping world history. Recapturing a vision of international systems as a grand theory means striving for an overarching framework that can explain the broad patterns and structures of international relations across different eras and contexts. This grand theory would aim to synthesize insights from various IR theories and historical analyses to offer a comprehensive understanding of how global politics work. It would address the power dynamics between states, the roles of non-state actors, the influence of economic and cultural factors, and the impact of technological and environmental changes.		将世界史纳入国际关系（IR），并将国际体系视为一种宏大理论，是研究全球事务的方法上一个雄心勃勃的重大转变。这种观点强调了历史背景在理解国际体系的演变和动态方面的重要性，主张对国际关系采取更加全面和整体的观点。将世界史纳入国际关系需要认识到当前的国际体系、制度、规范和权力动态是由历史进程形成的。这种方法承认，以国家为中心的体系、全球经济模式和政治意识形态是历史发展的产物，包括殖民主义、工业化、战争和文化交流。通过研究这些历史轨迹，国际关系学者可以更深入地了解国际体系为何会像今天这样运行，以及未来可能如何演变。

	To develop such a grand theory, IR scholars would need to engage in interdisciplinary research, drawing on insights from history, sociology, economics, political science, and other relevant fields. This would involve not only examining the historical roots of current international phenomena but also considering how historical patterns might inform future developments. Integrating world history into IR and working towards a grand theory of international systems represent a call for a more expansive and inclusive approach to studying global politics. This approach recognizes the value of historical context in understanding the complexities of the international arena and seeks to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework that can explain the intricacies and dynamics of global affairs, both past and present.		此外，历史研究方法还能更细致地了解非西方的观点和经验，而这些观点和经验在传统的国际关系理论中往往被边缘化。这包括探索帝国主义和非殖民化对全球南部国家形成和国际关系的影响，以及理解非欧洲帝国和文明在塑造世界历史中的作用。将国际体系视为一种宏大理论，意味着要努力建立一个能够解释不同时代和背景下国际关系的广泛模式和结构的总体框架。这一宏大理论旨在综合各种国际关系理论和历史分析的见解，全面理解全球政治是如何运作的。它将涉及国家之间的权力动态、非国家行为者的作用、经济和文化因素的影响以及技术和环境变化的影响。

			要发展这样一种宏大理论，国际关系学者需要进行跨学科研究，借鉴历史学、社会学、经济学、政治学和其他相关领域的见解。这不仅需要研究当前国际现象的历史根源，还需要考虑历史模式如何为未来发展提供依据。将世界史纳入国际关系并努力构建国际体系的宏大理论，是对采用更广泛、更包容的方法来研究全球政治的一种呼吁。这种方法承认历史背景在理解国际舞台复杂性方面的价值，并寻求建立一个全面的理论框架，以解释过去和现在全球事务的复杂性和动态。

	= 附录 =		= 附录 =

Arthur : /* Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures */

2023-12-29T08:46:18Z

Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:46
Ligne 269 :		Ligne 269 :
	= 布赞和利特尔对作为智力项目的国际关系的批判 =		= 布赞和利特尔对作为智力项目的国际关系的批判 =

	=== ~~Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures~~ ===		=== 国际关系的知识失败分析 ===
	Barry Buzan and Richard Little, in their article "Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project," assert that despite its internal dynamism, the field of International Relations (IR) has remained curiously insulated from other social sciences and history. This critique highlights a significant limitation in the development of IR as an academic discipline. The authors argue that IR's isolation from other disciplines has hindered its ability to develop a comprehensive understanding of global politics. While IR has evolved and diversified in its approaches and theories, this evolution has largely occurred within its own silo, separate from the insights and methodologies of disciplines like sociology, psychology, economics, and history.

	This insularity, according to Buzan and Little, has led to a certain narrowness in perspective and methodology within IR. By not fully engaging with the theories, concepts, and empirical findings of other social sciences, IR has missed opportunities to enrich its analysis and to understand more deeply the complex interplay of factors that shape international relations. This includes overlooking the historical processes that have shaped the modern state system, the economic underpinnings of international politics, and the psychological factors that influence decision-~~making at the international level. Moreover, Buzan and Little suggest that this separation from other disciplines has limited IR's ability to effectively address and solve real~~-world problems. They advocate for a more interdisciplinary approach, one that draws on the strengths and insights of various social sciences to create a more robust and nuanced understanding of international phenomena. While IR has made significant strides in developing its own theories and models, its progress as an intellectual project has been constrained by its relative isolation. To advance further, the field needs to open itself to cross-disciplinary influences, integrating broader social scientific perspectives and methods into its study of global politics. This approach would not only deepen the theoretical richness of IR but also enhance its practical relevance in addressing the complex challenges of the international arena.		巴里-布赞（Barry Buzan）和理查德-利特尔（Richard Little）在他们的文章《为什么国际关系作为一个知识项目失败了》中断言，尽管国际关系（IR）具有内在的活力，但令人奇怪的是，它仍然与其他社会科学和历史隔绝开来。这一批评凸显了国际关系作为一门学术发展的重大局限性。作者认为，国际关系与其他学科的隔绝阻碍了其全面理解全球政治的能力。虽然投资关系学在方法和理论上不断发展和多样化，但这种发展在很大程度上是在自己的 "孤岛 "中进行的，与社会学、心理学、经济学和历史学等学科的见解和方法论相分离。

	~~Barry Buzan and Richard Little's observation about the limited outbound traffic from International Relations (~~IR) into other disciplines presents a noteworthy contradiction when considering IR's self-conception. IR often views itself as a discipline whose subject matter is inherently important and relevant, and as being inherently inter or multi-disciplinary. This self-perception, however, seems at odds with the reality of its engagement with other fields.		布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）认为，这种孤立性导致了国际关系学在视角和方法论上的某种狭隘性。由于没有充分借鉴其他社会科学的理论、概念和实证研究成果，国际关系学错失了丰富其分析、更深入地理解塑造国际关系的各种因素之间复杂的相互作用的机会。这包括忽视形成现代国家体系的历史进程、国际政治的经济基础以及影响国际决策的心理因素。此外，布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）认为，这种与其他学科的分离限制了国际关系学有效处理和解决现实世界问题的能力。他们主张采用一种更具跨学科性的方法，即借鉴各种社会科学的优势和见解，从而对国际现象形成更有力、更细致入微的理解。虽然国际关系学在发展自身理论和模型方面取得了长足进步，但其作为一项知识工程的进展却因相对孤立而受到限制。为了进一步发展，该领域需要向跨学科影响开放，将更广泛的社会科学视角和方法融入全球政治研究中。这种方法不仅能深化 IR 丰富的理论，还能增强其在应对国际舞台上复杂挑战时的实用性。

	~~IR's self~~-conception as an important and relevant field is based on the premise that it deals with critical issues like war, peace, global cooperation, international economics, and human rights. These are topics of undeniable significance and global impact, and the field prides itself on tackling these complex and pressing global challenges. IR theorists and practitioners often emphasize the discipline's capacity to offer insights and solutions to some of the world's most critical problems. Additionally, IR has historically positioned itself as inter or multi-disciplinary, drawing theoretically and methodologically from a range of other disciplines, including history, economics, sociology, law, and political science. This interdisciplinary approach is seen as essential given the complexity and scope of international issues, which often cannot be fully understood through a single disciplinary lens.		巴里-布赞（Barry Buzan）和理查德-利特尔（Richard Little）认为，国际关系（IR）与其他学科的交流有限，这与国际关系的自我认知存在明显矛盾。国际关系学通常认为自己是一门学科，其主题固有的重要性和相关性，以及固有的跨学科或多学科性。然而，这种自我认知似乎与 IR 与其他领域的现实接触相矛盾。

	However, Buzan and Little point out a contradiction in this self-conception: while IR may draw from other disciplines, there seems to be a limited flow of ideas and research from IR back into these other fields. This one-way traffic suggests a certain insularity within IR, where it benefits from the insights of other disciplines but does not equally contribute to or influence these fields in return. This contradiction might stem from several factors, including the specialized nature of IR that focuses primarily on state-to-state relations and the high-level politics of the international system. Such a focus might limit the applicability of IR insights to other disciplines that deal with different scales or aspects of human activity. Moreover, the theoretical and methodological approaches developed within IR might not seamlessly translate to other fields, which have their own established paradigms and research priorities.		将国际关系学视为一个重要和相关领域的前提是，它涉及战争、和平、全球合作、国际经济和人权等关键问题。这些都是具有不可否认的重要意义和全球影响的主题，该领域以应对这些复杂而紧迫的全球挑战为荣。国际关系理论家和实践者经常强调该学科有能力为世界上一些最关键的问题提供见解和解决方案。此外，国际关系学历来将自身定位为跨学科或多学科，在理论和方法上借鉴了一系列其他学科，包括历史学、经济学、社会学、法学和政治学。鉴于国际问题的复杂性和广泛性，这种跨学科方法被认为是必不可少的，因为单一学科的视角往往无法完全理解这些问题。

	~~Barry Buzan and Richard Little, in their critique of the field of International Relations (~~IR), disagree with the prevailing tendency to assume that theoretical fragmentation within the discipline constitutes an inevitable state of affairs. This prevalent view suggests that the diverse and often conflicting array of theories in IR—ranging from realism and liberalism to constructivism and critical theory—is a natural and unalterable condition that must either be endured or embraced. Such fragmentation is often seen as reflecting the complex and multifaceted nature of international relations itself. However, Buzan and Little challenge this perspective. They argue against resigning to or celebrating this theoretical fragmentation. Instead, they advocate for a more holistic framework for understanding international relations, one that can potentially harmonize the diverse perspectives within the field. They propose leveraging the interdisciplinary appeal of the concept of the ‘international system’ as a unifying framework.		然而，布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）指出了这一自我认识中的矛盾之处：虽然国际关系学可以从其他学科中汲取营养，但从国际关系学流向这些其他领域的思想和研究似乎很有限。这种单向流动表明，爱尔兰共和军内部存在某种孤立性，即它从其他学科的见解中获益，但并没有对这些领域产生同样的贡献或影响。这种矛盾可能源于几个因素，包括国际关系的专业性质，即主要关注国与国之间的关系和国际体系的高层政治。这种侧重点可能会限制 IR 的见解适用于涉及人类活动不同规模或方面的其他学科。此外，在国际关系领域发展起来的理论和方法可能无法无缝转换到其他领域，因为这些领域有自己的既定范式和研究重点。

	The concept of the ‘international system’ is central to IR and refers to the structure and pattern of relationships among the world's states and other significant actors, governed by certain rules and norms. Buzan and Little suggest that this concept can serve as a common ground for different theoretical approaches, providing a comprehensive structure within which various perspectives can be integrated. By focusing on the international system, they believe it's possible to transcend the limitations of individual theories and create a more cohesive and comprehensive understanding of global politics. This approach would involve drawing on insights from various theoretical traditions to build a more nuanced and multi-dimensional analysis of the international system. For example, it could combine the realist focus on power and security, the liberal emphasis on institutions and cooperation, the constructivist attention to social constructs and identities, and the critical theories' concern with power dynamics and inequality. Buzan and Little's proposition for a holistic framework based on the concept of the international system aims to bridge the divides between different theoretical perspectives in IR. It represents an effort to move beyond theoretical fragmentation towards a more integrated and interdisciplinary approach to understanding the complexities of the international arena. This approach not only has the potential to enrich the academic study of IR but also to enhance the practical relevance of the discipline in addressing the multifaceted challenges of global politics.		巴里-布赞（Barry Buzan）和理查德-利特尔（Richard Little）在对国际关系（IR）领域的批判中，不同意认为学科内理论支离破碎是不可避免的普遍趋势。这种普遍的观点认为，国际关系理论多种多样，从现实主义和自由主义到建构主义和批判理论，往往相互冲突，这是一种自然的、不可改变的状态，要么忍受，要么接受。这种分裂通常被视为反映了国际关系本身的复杂性和多面性。然而，布赞和利特尔挑战了这一观点。他们反对接受或赞美这种理论上的支离破碎。相反，他们主张建立一个更全面的框架来理解国际关系，一个有可能协调领域内不同观点的框架。他们建议利用 "国际体系 "概念的跨学科魅力作为统一框架。

			国际体系 "这一概念是国际关系的核心，指的是世界各国和其他重要行为体之间的关系结构和模式，受特定规则和规范的制约。布赞（Buzan）和利特尔（Little）认为，这一概念可以作为不同理论方法的共同基础，提供一个可以整合各种观点的综合结构。他们认为，通过关注国际体系，有可能超越单个理论的局限性，对全球政治形成更具凝聚力和更全面的理解。这种方法将借鉴各种理论传统的见解，对国际体系进行更细致、更多维的分析。例如，它可以将现实主义对权力与安全的关注、自由主义对制度与合作的强调、建构主义对社会建构与身份的关注以及批判理论对权力动态与不平等的关注结合起来。布赞和利特尔提出的基于国际体系概念的整体框架，旨在弥合国际关系中不同理论观点之间的分歧。它代表了一种努力，即超越理论上的支离破碎，以更加综合和跨学科的方法来理解国际舞台的复杂性。这种方法不仅有可能丰富国际关系的学术研究，而且有可能提高该学科在应对全球政治的多方面挑战方面的实用性。

	=== Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution ===		=== Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution ===

Arthur : /* Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project */

2023-12-29T08:45:23Z

Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:45
Ligne 267 :		Ligne 267 :
	这一视角还强调了非国家行为者在塑造国际关系中的作用。从影响全球经济政策的跨国公司到倡导人权或环境保护的活动家网络，这些行为体所参与的实践既反映也影响着对国际关系理论的理解。从本质上讲，将国际关系理论视为日常社会实践需要一个广阔的视角，以捕捉国际关系在现实世界背景下展开的多样化动态方式。这需要对全球政治有更全面的理解，在理论与实践之间架起一座桥梁，并承认塑造国际舞台的众多参与者和活动。		这一视角还强调了非国家行为者在塑造国际关系中的作用。从影响全球经济政策的跨国公司到倡导人权或环境保护的活动家网络，这些行为体所参与的实践既反映也影响着对国际关系理论的理解。从本质上讲，将国际关系理论视为日常社会实践需要一个广阔的视角，以捕捉国际关系在现实世界背景下展开的多样化动态方式。这需要对全球政治有更全面的理解，在理论与实践之间架起一座桥梁，并承认塑造国际舞台的众多参与者和活动。

	= ~~Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project~~ =		= 布赞和利特尔对作为智力项目的国际关系的批判 =

	=== Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures ===		=== Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures ===

Arthur : /* IR as Daily Social Practice */

2023-12-29T08:45:01Z

IR as Daily Social Practice

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:45
Ligne 259 :		Ligne 259 :
	这两种形式的批评在国际关系领域都发挥着重要作用。负面批评对于理解当前国际体系的局限性和问题非常重要，为任何有意义的改革或转型提供了必要的基础。先知式批判对于想象另一种未来、推动变革以建立更加公正和可持续的全球秩序至关重要。在学术讨论和政策制定中，这些批判是对现有体系进行问责的一种手段，并激发了对潜在变革途径的讨论。它们鼓励不断重新审视国际关系的原则、实践和结构，促进对全球政治的动态和不断发展的理解。		这两种形式的批评在国际关系领域都发挥着重要作用。负面批评对于理解当前国际体系的局限性和问题非常重要，为任何有意义的改革或转型提供了必要的基础。先知式批判对于想象另一种未来、推动变革以建立更加公正和可持续的全球秩序至关重要。在学术讨论和政策制定中，这些批判是对现有体系进行问责的一种手段，并激发了对潜在变革途径的讨论。它们鼓励不断重新审视国际关系的原则、实践和结构，促进对全球政治的动态和不断发展的理解。

	=== ~~IR as Daily Social Practice~~ ===		=== 将国际关系（IR）理论视为日常社会实践 ===
	Viewing International Relations (IR) theory as everyday social practice involves understanding it not just as an academic discipline, but as something that is actively lived out and embodied in the daily interactions and activities of states, organizations, and individuals. This perspective emphasizes that the principles and concepts of IR theory are not merely abstract ideas confined to scholarly texts but are part of the ongoing, practical fabric of international politics. From this standpoint, IR theory as everyday social practice means that the behaviors, decisions, and policies of states and other international actors are continually informed by and reflective of theoretical principles. For instance, a state's foreign policy decisions are often based on realist principles of power and security, liberal ideals of cooperation and international institutions, or constructivist notions of social constructs and identity.

	Moreover, this approach acknowledges that international relations are not only shaped by high-level diplomatic meetings or formal treaties but also by a myriad of less visible, everyday interactions. These can include business transactions, cultural exchanges, non-governmental organization activities, and even individual actions, all of which contribute to the broader dynamics of international relations. Seeing theory as everyday social practice also means recognizing that the concepts and models of IR are constantly being tested, modified, and reinterpreted in the light of real-world events. The practice of diplomacy, for instance, is not just an application of theoretical understanding but also a source of insights that can refine or challenge existing theories.		将国际关系（IR）理论视为日常社会实践涉及到不仅将其理解为一门学术学科，而且将其理解为在国家、组织和个人的日常互动和活动中积极实践和体现的东西。这一视角强调，国际关系理论的原则和概念并不仅仅是局限于学术文本的抽象概念，而是国际政治持续不断的实践结构的一部分。从这一观点出发，作为日常社会实践的国际关系理论意味着国家和其他国际行为体的行为、决策和政策不断受到理论原则的启发和反映。例如，一个国家的外交政策决策往往基于现实主义的权力与安全原则、自由主义的合作与国际制度理想，或建构主义的社会建构与身份认同概念。

	This perspective also highlights the role of non-state actors in shaping international relations. From multinational corporations influencing global economic policies to activist networks advocating for human rights or environmental protection, these actors engage in practices that both reflect and impact theoretical understandings in IR. In essence, considering IR theory as everyday social practice requires a broad lens that captures the diverse and dynamic ways in which international relations unfold in real-world contexts. It invites a more holistic understanding of global politics, one that bridges the gap between theory and practice, and acknowledges the multitude of actors and activities that shape the international stage.		此外，这种方法还承认，国际关系不仅是由高层外交会议或正式条约形成的，也是由无数不太显眼的日常互动形成的。这些互动包括商业交易、文化交流、非政府组织活动，甚至是个人行为，所有这些都有助于形成更广泛的国际关系动态。将理论视为日常社会实践还意味着要认识到，国际关系的概念和模式在现实世界的事件中不断受到检验、修改和重新诠释。例如，外交实践不仅是理论理解的应用，也是完善或挑战现有理论的洞察力来源。

			这一视角还强调了非国家行为者在塑造国际关系中的作用。从影响全球经济政策的跨国公司到倡导人权或环境保护的活动家网络，这些行为体所参与的实践既反映也影响着对国际关系理论的理解。从本质上讲，将国际关系理论视为日常社会实践需要一个广阔的视角，以捕捉国际关系在现实世界背景下展开的多样化动态方式。这需要对全球政治有更全面的理解，在理论与实践之间架起一座桥梁，并承认塑造国际舞台的众多参与者和活动。

	= Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project =		= Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project =

Arthur : /* IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions */

2023-12-29T08:44:48Z

IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:44
Ligne 249 :		Ligne 249 :
	解释学理论与国际关系中的建构主义方法一致，认为国际政治的现实是由社会和文化建构的，而不是客观给定的。建构主义者认为，国家的身份、利益和行动是由共同的观念、规范和价值观形成的，因此，理解这些社会建构是理解国际关系的关键。解释性理论和诠释性理论都为国际关系提供了宝贵的见解。解释性方法侧重于一般规律和因果解释，对于预测事件和制定政策非常有用。另一方面，解释性方法能让人更深入地理解影响国际事件和决策的复杂社会、历史和文化因素。在实践中，对国际关系的全面分析往往需要两种方法的结合。解释性理论可以阐明国家行为的广泛模式和规律性，而解释性理论则可以揭示具体国际事件的独特背景和含义。这两种方法结合在一起，可以更全面地展现国际政治世界中的动态。		解释学理论与国际关系中的建构主义方法一致，认为国际政治的现实是由社会和文化建构的，而不是客观给定的。建构主义者认为，国家的身份、利益和行动是由共同的观念、规范和价值观形成的，因此，理解这些社会建构是理解国际关系的关键。解释性理论和诠释性理论都为国际关系提供了宝贵的见解。解释性方法侧重于一般规律和因果解释，对于预测事件和制定政策非常有用。另一方面，解释性方法能让人更深入地理解影响国际事件和决策的复杂社会、历史和文化因素。在实践中，对国际关系的全面分析往往需要两种方法的结合。解释性理论可以阐明国家行为的广泛模式和规律性，而解释性理论则可以揭示具体国际事件的独特背景和含义。这两种方法结合在一起，可以更全面地展现国际政治世界中的动态。

	=== ~~IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions~~ ===		=== 国际关系理论：批判与预言 =====
	International Relations (IR) theory can function as a form of critique of the existing international order, and this critique can take two primary forms: negative critique and prophetic critique. These approaches differ in their perspectives and objectives regarding the status quo of international relations.

	Negative critique in IR theory primarily involves a critical analysis of the current international system, identifying and highlighting its flaws, contradictions, and injustices. This form of critique does not necessarily offer a clear path to a new or reformed system; rather, its focus is on deconstructing and challenging the existing structures and assumptions. Scholars who adopt this approach might scrutinize the power dynamics within the international system, the inequities produced by current global economic arrangements, or the failings of international institutions. For instance, realist critiques of international organizations often focus on their perceived inability to transcend the self-interest of powerful states, while Marxist critiques might focus on how international capitalism perpetuates inequality.		国际关系（IR）理论可以作为对现有国际秩序的一种批判形式，这种批判有两种主要形式：消极批判和预言性批判。这两种方法对国际关系现状的看法和目标各不相同。

	Prophetic critique in IR theory, on the other hand, goes beyond simply critiquing the current state of affairs. It also envisions and advocates for a radically different international order based on new principles and structures. This approach is characterized by its forward-looking perspective and its normative commitment to a more just and equitable world. Prophetic critiques often draw on ethical, philosophical, and ideological foundations to propose transformative changes. For example, critical theorists and constructivists might envision a world where international relations are governed more by shared norms and values than by power politics, and where global institutions are more democratic and responsive to the needs of all people, not just the interests of the most powerful states.		国际关系理论中的消极批判主要涉及对当前国际体系的批判性分析，指出并强调其缺陷、矛盾和不公正。这种形式的批判并不一定提供一条通往新体系或改革体系的明确道路；相反，其重点在于解构和挑战现有的结构和假设。采用这种方法的学者可能会仔细研究国际体系内的权力动态、当前全球经济安排所产生的不公平现象或国际机构的失误。例如，现实主义对国际组织的批判往往侧重于国际组织被认为无法超越强国的自身利益，而马克思主义的批判则可能侧重于国际资本主义如何使不平等永久化。

	Both forms of critique play vital roles in the field of IR. Negative critiques are important for understanding the limitations and problems of the current international system, providing a necessary foundation for any meaningful reform or transformation. Prophetic critiques are essential for imagining alternative futures and motivating change towards a more just and sustainable global order. In academic discourse and policy-making, these critiques serve as a means of holding the existing system accountable and inspiring debates about potential pathways for change. They encourage a continuous re-examination of the principles, practices, and structures that govern international relations, fostering a dynamic and evolving understanding of global politics.		另一方面，国际关系理论中的先知式批判不仅仅是对当前事态的批判。它还设想并倡导一种基于新原则和新结构的截然不同的国际秩序。这种方法的特点是其前瞻性视角及其对一个更加公正和公平的世界的规范性承诺。先知式批判通常以伦理、哲学和意识形态为基础，提出变革性的变革建议。例如，批判理论家和建构主义者可能会设想这样一个世界：国际关系更多地受到共同准则和价值观而非强权政治的支配，全球机构更加民主，更能满足所有人的需求，而不仅仅是最强大国家的利益。

			这两种形式的批评在国际关系领域都发挥着重要作用。负面批评对于理解当前国际体系的局限性和问题非常重要，为任何有意义的改革或转型提供了必要的基础。先知式批判对于想象另一种未来、推动变革以建立更加公正和可持续的全球秩序至关重要。在学术讨论和政策制定中，这些批判是对现有体系进行问责的一种手段，并激发了对潜在变革途径的讨论。它们鼓励不断重新审视国际关系的原则、实践和结构，促进对全球政治的动态和不断发展的理解。

	=== IR as Daily Social Practice ===		=== IR as Daily Social Practice ===

Arthur : /* IR Theory as a Problem-Solving Toolkit */

2023-12-29T08:44:34Z

IR Theory as a Problem-Solving Toolkit

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:44
Ligne 223 :		Ligne 223 :
	因此，无论是军事干预还是人道主义干预，都需要进行细致全面的评估。这需要平衡当前的需求和对受影响人口及国际体系的长期影响。确保干预行动得到法律认可、国际支持以及有效和负责任的实施，对于维护其合法性和确保其利大于弊至关重要。		因此，无论是军事干预还是人道主义干预，都需要进行细致全面的评估。这需要平衡当前的需求和对受影响人口及国际体系的长期影响。确保干预行动得到法律认可、国际支持以及有效和负责任的实施，对于维护其合法性和确保其利大于弊至关重要。

	=== IR ~~Theory as a Problem-Solving Toolkit~~ ===		=== 作为解决问题工具包的 IR 理论 ===
	International Relations (IR) theory, as conceptualized by theorists like Robert Cox, can be understood as a 'tool kit' or a type of 'problem-solving theory.' This characterization underscores the practical and analytical utility of IR theory in understanding and addressing the complexities of global politics.

	As a 'tool kit,' IR theory provides a diverse array of concepts, frameworks, and paradigms that scholars and practitioners can use to analyze and interpret international events and relationships. This toolkit includes various theoretical approaches, each offering unique insights and explanations for the behavior of states and other international actors. For instance, realism focuses on power dynamics and security concerns, liberalism emphasizes cooperation and international institutions, while constructivism considers the impact of social constructs and identities on international politics. By applying these different theories, one can gain a more comprehensive understanding of international events, from wars and treaties to trade agreements and diplomatic negotiations.		国际关系（IR）理论，按照罗伯特-考克斯（Robert Cox）等理论家的概念，可以理解为一种 "工具包 "或一种 "解决问题的理论"。这一特征强调了国际关系理论在理解和解决全球政治复杂性方面的实用性和分析性。

	In the context of Robert Cox's work, the description of IR theory as a 'problem-solving theory' highlights its pragmatic approach to dealing with the challenges of international relations. Cox distinguished between 'critical theory,' which seeks to understand and transform the world by questioning underlying structures and assumptions, and 'problem-solving theory,' which takes the world as it finds it and aims to make the functioning of these existing structures more efficient. In this sense, IR theory as a problem-solving tool focuses on managing and resolving immediate issues within the given parameters of the global system. It is about addressing specific problems in international relations by applying established theories and methods to understand and navigate these challenges effectively.		作为一个 "工具包"，国际关系理论提供了一系列不同的概念、框架和范式，供学者和实践者用来分析和解释国际事件和国际关系。这套工具包括各种理论方法，每种方法都能为国家和其他国际行为体的行为提供独特的见解和解释。例如，现实主义关注权力动态和安全问题，自由主义强调合作和国际制度，而建构主义则考虑社会建构和身份认同对国际政治的影响。通过运用这些不同的理论，人们可以更全面地了解从战争和条约到贸易协定和外交谈判等国际事件。

	~~For example, in dealing with a diplomatic crisis, a problem~~-solving approach might involve using negotiation and conflict resolution techniques informed by IR theories to de-escalate tensions and find a mutually acceptable solution. In addressing global economic issues, theories like liberalism or neoliberalism might be employed to understand and enhance international trade and cooperation. However, it is important to note that while IR theory can be immensely useful as a toolkit for understanding and addressing international issues, it also has its limitations. Critics, including Cox himself, argue that by focusing on problem-solving within the existing order, such theories may overlook deeper structural issues and inequalities in the international system. IR theory, as a 'tool kit' or 'problem-solving theory,' thus offers valuable perspectives and tools for understanding and addressing the complexities and challenges of international relations. It equips scholars, diplomats, and policymakers with the analytical frameworks necessary to interpret global events and craft strategies for effective engagement in the international arena.		在罗伯特-考克斯的著作中，将国际关系理论描述为 "解决问题的理论"，突出了其应对国际关系挑战的务实方法。考克斯区分了 "批判理论 "和 "问题解决理论"。"批判理论 "试图通过质疑潜在的结构和假设来理解和改造世界，而 "问题解决理论 "则以其所发现的世界为基础，旨在使这些现有结构的运作更加有效。从这个意义上说，作为一种解决问题的工具，国际关系理论侧重于在全球体系的既定参数范围内管理和解决眼前的问题。它通过运用既定的理论和方法来理解和有效地应对这些挑战，从而解决国际关系中的具体问题。

	In the context of International Relations (IR) theory as a type of 'problem-solving' theory, the concept of 'efficient causation,' as originally conceptualized by Aristotle, becomes relevant in understanding how certain actions or events cause specific outcomes in the realm of international politics. Aristotle's notion of 'efficient causation' refers to a cause that directly brings about an effect. It's the kind of cause-and-effect relationship where the cause is seen as an active and primary factor in producing the effect. In IR, this concept can be applied to analyze how certain decisions or actions by states or international actors directly lead to particular outcomes or changes in the international system. For instance, when a country decides to impose economic sanctions on another, the 'efficient causation' would be the decision to impose sanctions, and the effect might be an economic downturn or a change in the targeted country's foreign policy. Similarly, a military intervention by one state in another can be seen as the 'efficient cause' of the subsequent changes within the intervened state, whether it be regime change, conflict resolution, or in some cases, further destabilization.		例如，在处理外交危机时，解决问题的方法可能涉及使用以国际关系理论为基础的谈判和冲突解决技巧，以缓和紧张局势并找到双方都能接受的解决方案。在解决全球经济问题时，可以采用自由主义或新自由主义等理论来理解和加强国际贸易与合作。然而，需要注意的是，虽然国际关系理论作为理解和解决国际问题的工具包非常有用，但它也有其局限性。包括考克斯本人在内的批评者认为，此类理论侧重于在现有秩序下解决问题，可能会忽视国际体系中更深层次的结构性问题和不平等现象。因此，作为一种 "工具包 "或 "问题解决理论"，国际关系理论为理解和应对国际关系的复杂性和挑战提供了宝贵的视角和工具。它为学者、外交官和政策制定者提供了必要的分析框架，以解读全球事件并制定有效参与国际舞台的战略。

	In the problem-solving approach of IR theory, understanding efficient causation is crucial for identifying the direct actions that can resolve specific international issues. This approach involves looking at the immediate causes of international problems and finding solutions that address these causes effectively. For example, in conflict resolution, identifying the immediate actions or events that led to the conflict (the efficient causes) is a key step in developing strategies to resolve it. However, it is important to note that while efficient causation focuses on direct and immediate causes, international relations often involve complex interactions where long-term and indirect causes (what Aristotle termed 'material,' 'formal,' and 'final' causes) also play significant roles. For instance, while a political decision or an act of aggression may be the efficient cause of a war, underlying economic conditions, historical grievances, and cultural factors (other forms of causation) are also crucial in understanding the broader context of the conflict. The concept of efficient causation in the framework of IR as a problem-solving theory helps to pinpoint the immediate and direct causes of international events and issues. This approach is instrumental in formulating practical and targeted responses to specific problems in the realm of international relations, although it is also essential to consider the broader and more complex web of causation that characterizes global politics.		国际关系（IR）理论是一种 "解决问题 "的理论，在此背景下，亚里士多德最初提出的 "有效因果关系 "概念，在理解某些行动或事件如何导致国际政治领域的特定结果时变得非常重要。亚里士多德的 "有效因果关系 "概念指的是直接带来结果的原因。在这种因果关系中，"因 "被视为产生 "果 "的主动和主要因素。在国际关系中，这一概念可用于分析国家或国际行为体的某些决定或行动如何直接导致国际体系中的特定结果或变化。例如，当一个国家决定对另一个国家实施经济制裁时，"有效因果关系 "就是实施制裁的决定，而效果可能是经济衰退或目标国家外交政策的改变。同样，一国对另一国的军事干预可被视为被干预国家内部随后发生变化的 "有效因果"，无论是政权更迭、冲突解决，还是在某些情况下进一步破坏稳定。

	The post-behavioral revolution in American political science, particularly during the tumultuous period of the Vietnam War, marked a significant turning point in the field's evolution, especially in International Relations (IR) theory. This revolution was a response to the dominant behavioralist approach, which heavily emphasized empirical, quantifiable research methods, akin to those used in the natural sciences. Behavioralism focused on observable, objective behavior and data, often at the expense of subjective factors such as ideology, ethics, and morality. The aim was to develop generalizable theories about political behavior based on empirical evidence.		在国际关系理论的问题解决方法中，理解有效因果关系对于确定能够解决具体国际问题的直接行动至关重要。这种方法涉及研究国际问题的直接原因，并找到有效解决这些原因的方案。例如，在解决冲突时，确定导致冲突的直接行动或事件（有效原因）是制定解决战略的关键一步。然而，需要注意的是，虽然有效因果关系侧重于直接和即时原因，但国际关系往往涉及复杂的相互作用，其中长期和间接原因（亚里士多德称之为 "物质"、"形式 "和 "最终 "原因）也发挥着重要作用。例如，政治决策或侵略行为可能是战争的有效原因，但潜在的经济条件、历史积怨和文化因素（其他形式的因果关系）对于理解冲突的大背景也至关重要。作为解决问题的理论，国际关系框架中的有效因果关系概念有助于找出国际事件和问题的直接原因。这种方法有助于针对国际关系领域的具体问题制定切实可行、有的放矢的对策，但同时也必须考虑到全球政治中更广泛、更复杂的因果关系网络。

	However, the experiences and outcomes of the Vietnam War highlighted the shortcomings of this approach. Critics argued that the reliance on positivism and naturalism in political science, which influenced the strategies used in the Vietnam War, failed to capture the complex human dimensions of politics. This methodology was seen as overly reductionist, neglecting the ethical, normative, and subjective aspects of political decision-making and ignoring the cultural contexts and personal experiences of those involved. In response, the post-behavioral revolution called for a reevaluation of the methods and goals of political science. This new wave of thought emphasized the need to include ethical and moral considerations in political studies, arguing for an understanding of politics that encompassed both what is and what ought to be. It promoted methodological pluralism, encouraging the use of diverse research methods, including qualitative approaches, to better capture the richness and intricacies of political phenomena.		美国政治学的后行为革命，尤其是在越南战争的动荡时期，标志着该领域发展的一个重要转折点，尤其是在国际关系（IR）理论方面。这场革命是对占主导地位的行为主义方法的回应，行为主义非常强调实证的、可量化的研究方法，类似于自然科学中使用的方法。行为主义注重可观察的、客观的行为和数据，往往以牺牲意识形态、伦理和道德等主观因素为代价。其目的是在经验证据的基础上发展可推广的政治行为理论。

	Another key aspect of this revolution was its focus on relevance. Post-behavioral scholars stressed the importance of addressing real-world issues and societal problems, rather than confining themselves to abstract theoretical or empirical research detached from the realities of everyday life. This shift represented a move towards a more socially engaged and reflective form of political science. Furthermore, the post-behavioral approach recognized the influence of researchers' values and perspectives on their work, challenging the notion of absolute objectivity in the study of politics. This acknowledgment of subjectivity marked a significant departure from the earlier belief in detached scientific neutrality.		然而，越南战争的经历和结果凸显了这种方法的缺陷。批评者认为，政治学对实证主义和自然主义的依赖影响了越战中使用的策略，未能捕捉到政治中复杂的人性层面。这种方法论被认为过于简化，忽视了政治决策的伦理、规范和主观方面，也忽视了相关人员的文化背景和个人经历。作为回应，后行为革命要求重新评估政治学的方法和目标。这股新思潮强调有必要在政治研究中纳入伦理道德方面的考虑，主张对政治的理解既包括 "是什么"，也包括 "应该是什么"。它提倡方法论多元化，鼓励使用不同的研究方法，包括定性方法，以更好地捕捉政治现象的丰富性和复杂性。

	In the realm of IR, the impact of the post-behavioral revolution was profound. It paved the way for the emergence of more critical and diverse theoretical frameworks, such as constructivism, feminism, and critical theory. These approaches sought to understand international relations in a manner that was more ethically informed and nuanced, acknowledging the importance of human values, subjective experiences, and ethical considerations in the analysis of global politics. This paradigm shift enriched the field of IR, offering a more holistic and reflective approach to studying international affairs, one that recognized the complexity and moral dimensions inherent in the world of global politics.		这场革命的另一个重要方面是其对相关性的关注。后行为学者强调解决现实问题和社会问题的重要性，而不是局限于脱离日常生活现实的抽象理论或经验研究。这一转变代表着政治学向更具社会参与性和反思性的方向发展。此外，后行为研究方法承认研究人员的价值观和视角对其工作的影响，对政治研究中的绝对客观性概念提出了挑战。这种对主观性的承认，标志着与早期超脱的科学中立信念的重大背离。

	In the realm of International Relations (IR) theory, the distinction between explanatory theory as a form of social scientific theory and interpretive theory highlights different approaches to understanding and analyzing international events and phenomena. This distinction is well encapsulated in the contrast between the 'covering-law' model of explanation and the interpretive approach to understanding events in international relations. The 'covering-law' model, or the nomological-deductive method, is a hallmark of explanatory theory in social science. This approach seeks to explain events by subsuming them under general laws or regularities. According to this model, an event can be explained if it can be shown to be a specific instance of a general law. For example, in IR, a realist might use the concept of the balance of power to explain why states enter into alliances — the general law being that states seek alliances to balance against stronger powers. This model is characterized by its emphasis on objectivity, empiricism, and the search for causal relationships that can be generalized across different cases. In contrast, interpretive theory, as discussed by scholars like Hollis and Smith, aims to understand events in international relations by delving into their specific contexts and meanings. Interpretive theory is not primarily concerned with finding general laws or regularities. Instead, it focuses on understanding the subjective meanings and intentions behind actions and events. For instance, an interpretive approach to a diplomatic crisis might involve examining the historical, cultural, and ideological contexts that shape the perspectives and actions of the involved states, providing a nuanced understanding of the event that goes beyond general laws.		在国际关系领域，后行为革命的影响是深远的。它为建构主义、女性主义和批判理论等更具批判性和多样性的理论框架的出现铺平了道路。这些方法试图以一种更有伦理依据、更细致入微的方式来理解国际关系，承认人类价值观、主观经验和伦理因素在全球政治分析中的重要性。这种范式的转变丰富了国际关系领域，为研究国际事务提供了一种更加全面和反思性的方法，一种承认全球政治世界固有的复杂性和道德维度的方法。

	Interpretive theory aligns with the constructivist approach in IR, which holds that the realities of international politics are socially and culturally constructed rather than objectively given. Constructivists argue that the identities, interests, and actions of states are shaped by shared ideas, norms, and values, and thus, understanding these social constructs is key to understanding international relations. Both explanatory and interpretive theories offer valuable insights into international relations. The explanatory approach, with its focus on general laws and causal explanations, is useful for predicting events and formulating policies. On the other hand, the interpretive approach provides a deeper understanding of the complex social, historical, and cultural factors that influence international events and decisions. In practice, a comprehensive analysis of international relations often requires a combination of both approaches. While the explanatory theory can elucidate broad patterns and regularities in state behavior, interpretive theory can uncover the unique contexts and meanings that underlie specific international events. Together, these approaches provide a more complete picture of the dynamics at play in the world of international politics.		在国际关系（IR）理论领域，作为社会科学理论一种形式的解释性理论与解释性理论之间的区别突出了理解和分析国际事件和现象的不同方法。在理解国际关系中的事件时，"覆盖法 "解释模式与解释性方法之间的对比很好地概括了这种区别。覆盖法 "模式，或称唯名论-演绎法，是社会科学中解释性理论的标志。这种方法试图通过将事件归结为一般规律或规则来解释事件。根据这种模式，如果一个事件可以被证明是一般规律的一个具体实例，那么它就可以得到解释。例如，在国际关系中，现实主义者可能会使用权力制衡的概念来解释国家为何结盟--一般规律是国家寻求结盟以制衡强国。这种模式的特点是强调客观性、经验主义，以及寻找可在不同情况下推广的因果关系。相比之下，霍利斯和史密斯等学者所讨论的解释性理论旨在通过深入研究国际关系事件的具体背景和含义来理解这些事件。解释性理论主要关注的不是发现普遍规律或规律性。相反，它侧重于理解行动和事件背后的主观含义和意图。例如，对外交危机的解释性方法可能涉及到对历史、文化和意识形态背景的研究，这些背景决定了相关国家的观点和行动，从而对事件提供了超越一般规律的细致入微的理解。

			解释学理论与国际关系中的建构主义方法一致，认为国际政治的现实是由社会和文化建构的，而不是客观给定的。建构主义者认为，国家的身份、利益和行动是由共同的观念、规范和价值观形成的，因此，理解这些社会建构是理解国际关系的关键。解释性理论和诠释性理论都为国际关系提供了宝贵的见解。解释性方法侧重于一般规律和因果解释，对于预测事件和制定政策非常有用。另一方面，解释性方法能让人更深入地理解影响国际事件和决策的复杂社会、历史和文化因素。在实践中，对国际关系的全面分析往往需要两种方法的结合。解释性理论可以阐明国家行为的广泛模式和规律性，而解释性理论则可以揭示具体国际事件的独特背景和含义。这两种方法结合在一起，可以更全面地展现国际政治世界中的动态。

	=== IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions ===		=== IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions ===

Arthur : /* IR Theories as Tools for Ethical and Normative Inquiry */

2023-12-29T08:44:15Z

IR Theories as Tools for Ethical and Normative Inquiry

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* Cultural, Religious, and Nationalistic Influences */

2023-12-29T08:43:40Z

Cultural, Religious, and Nationalistic Influences

← Version précédente		Version du 29 décembre 2023 à 10:43
Ligne 157 :		Ligne 157 :
	持续的外交进程也促进了合作。不断的外交接触，无论是通过高调的峰会还是谨慎的沟通渠道，都能让各国表达自己的利益，了解其他国家的立场，并达成有利于所有相关方的协议。国际合作的历史既有成功，也有失败。例如，国际联盟未能阻止第二次世界大战的爆发，但却为联合国的成立铺平了道路，联合国自此在维护国际和平与安全方面发挥了举足轻重的作用。因此，国际合作的成功是建立在从过去的经验中吸取教训、利益一致以及各国为共同利益而共同努力的基础之上的。从本质上讲，追求国际合作是对全球关系复杂动态的一种回应，由于缺乏最高权威，各国不得不寻求共存、合作和共同应对挑战的途径。通过建立国际机构、条约、经济伙伴关系和安全联盟，以及培养共同准则和外交实践，各国努力创造一个稳定、繁荣与和平的世界。		持续的外交进程也促进了合作。不断的外交接触，无论是通过高调的峰会还是谨慎的沟通渠道，都能让各国表达自己的利益，了解其他国家的立场，并达成有利于所有相关方的协议。国际合作的历史既有成功，也有失败。例如，国际联盟未能阻止第二次世界大战的爆发，但却为联合国的成立铺平了道路，联合国自此在维护国际和平与安全方面发挥了举足轻重的作用。因此，国际合作的成功是建立在从过去的经验中吸取教训、利益一致以及各国为共同利益而共同努力的基础之上的。从本质上讲，追求国际合作是对全球关系复杂动态的一种回应，由于缺乏最高权威，各国不得不寻求共存、合作和共同应对挑战的途径。通过建立国际机构、条约、经济伙伴关系和安全联盟，以及培养共同准则和外交实践，各国努力创造一个稳定、繁荣与和平的世界。

	==== ~~Cultural, Religious, and Nationalistic Influences~~ ====		==== 文化、宗教和民族主义的影响 ====
	The role of culture, religion, identity, ethnicity, and nationalism in international society is profoundly significant, influencing the behavior of states and other actors in a myriad of ways. These elements often shape the underlying values, beliefs, and motivations that drive international interactions.

	Culture, which encompasses the shared values, norms, and practices of a society, can deeply influence a state's foreign policy and diplomatic interactions. Cultural understandings and misinterpretations can either facilitate or hinder international cooperation. For instance, the concept of "face-saving" in East Asian cultures plays a critical role in diplomatic negotiations, requiring a nuanced approach that respects the cultural context. Religion, too, has been a potent force in international relations. It can be a source of conflict, as seen in various sectarian or religious conflicts around the world, but it can also be a powerful force for peace and reconciliation, as religious leaders and organizations often play key roles in peacebuilding and humanitarian efforts. The role of the Catholic Church in the Polish Solidarity movement of the 1980s, for example, illustrates how religious institutions can influence political change.		文化、宗教、身份、种族和民族主义在国际社会中的作用举足轻重，以各种方式影响着国家和其他行为体的行为。这些因素往往塑造了推动国际互动的基本价值观、信仰和动机。

	Identity and ethnicity are central to understanding many international conflicts, particularly in areas where national borders do not align with ethnic or cultural boundaries. Ethnic tensions have been a driving force behind numerous conflicts, including the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s. Ethnic identity can also influence state policies in more subtle ways, such as the preferential treatment of certain diaspora communities. Nationalism, or the belief in the superiority and interests of one's nation, often shapes a state's foreign policy. It can be a unifying force, fostering cohesion and collective identity, but it can also be exclusionary and lead to conflict with other nations. The rise of nationalism in various countries in recent years has had significant implications for international politics, affecting trade policies, immigration laws, and international cooperation.		文化包含了一个社会的共同价值观、规范和惯例，可以深刻影响一个国家的外交政策和外交互动。对文化的理解和曲解既能促进也能阻碍国际合作。例如，东亚文化中的 "面子 "概念在外交谈判中起着至关重要的作用，需要采取尊重文化背景的细致入微的方法。宗教也是国际关系中一股强大的力量。它可以成为冲突的根源，世界各地的各种教派或宗教冲突就是例证，但它也可以成为促进和平与和解的强大力量，因为宗教领袖和宗教组织往往在建设和平与人道主义努力中发挥关键作用。例如，天主教会在 20 世纪 80 年代波兰团结工会运动中的作用就说明了宗教机构如何影响政治变革。

	The interplay between these factors and international politics is complex. Constructivist theorists like Alexander Wendt argue that these social and cultural factors are not merely background conditions but actively shape state interests and identities. They can determine who is considered a friend or foe, what actions are deemed legitimate or illegitimate, and how states define their goals and interests. In practice, these cultural and social factors often intersect with more material aspects of international relations. For example, disputes over resources can be exacerbated by ethnic or religious differences, and cultural ties can influence economic partnerships. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), part of China's Belt and Road Initiative, is not only an economic project but also reflects the cultural and political affinity between China and Pakistan. In conclusion, culture, religion, identity, ethnicity, and nationalism are integral to the fabric of international society. They shape the perceptions, behaviors, and policies of states and non-state actors, influencing the course of international relations in profound and sometimes unpredictable ways. Understanding these elements is crucial for a comprehensive analysis of global affairs.		身份和种族是理解许多国际冲突的核心，尤其是在国界与种族或文化界限不一致的地区。民族关系紧张是许多冲突背后的驱动力，包括 20 世纪 90 年代的南斯拉夫战争。种族认同还能以更微妙的方式影响国家政策，如优待某些侨民社区。民族主义，或对本民族优越性和利益的信念，常常左右着一个国家的外交政策。它可以是一种团结的力量，促进凝聚力和集体认同，但也可能具有排斥性，导致与其他国家的冲突。近年来，民族主义在各国的兴起对国际政治产生了重大影响，影响到贸易政策、移民法和国际合作。

			这些因素与国际政治之间的相互作用十分复杂。亚历山大-温特（Alexander Wendt）等建构主义理论家认为，这些社会和文化因素并不仅仅是背景条件，而是在积极塑造国家利益和身份。它们可以决定谁被视为朋友或敌人，什么行为被视为合法或非法，以及国家如何定义自己的目标和利益。在实践中，这些文化和社会因素往往与国际关系中更多的物质方面相互交织。例如，种族或宗教差异会加剧资源争端，而文化纽带则会影响经济伙伴关系。中巴经济走廊（CPEC）是中国 "一带一路 "倡议的一部分，它不仅是一个经济项目，也反映了中巴两国在文化和政治上的亲和力。总之，文化、宗教、身份、种族和民族主义是国际社会结构的组成部分。它们塑造了国家和非国家行为体的观念、行为和政策，以深刻的、有时甚至是不可预测的方式影响着国际关系的进程。了解这些因素对于全面分析全球事务至关重要。

	=== IR Theories as Tools for Ethical and Normative Inquiry ===		=== IR Theories as Tools for Ethical and Normative Inquiry ===

解码国际关系理论： 理论及其影响 - Historique des versions

Arthur le 28 janvier 2024 à 08:47

Arthur le 3 janvier 2024 à 10:00

Arthur : /* Strategies for Revitalizing IR's Intellectual Contribution */

Arthur : /* Analysis of IR's Intellectual Failures */

Arthur : /* Buzan and Little's Critique of IR as an Intellectual Project */

Arthur : /* IR as Daily Social Practice */

Arthur : /* IR Theory: Critique and Prophetic Visions */

Arthur : /* IR Theory as a Problem-Solving Toolkit */

Arthur : /* IR Theories as Tools for Ethical and Normative Inquiry */

Arthur : /* Cultural, Religious, and Nationalistic Influences */