世界历史的分期与国际体系的演变

本在介绍、分析和批判西方学术界世界历史权威分期法的同时,从国际体系演变的角度,提出了人类从60,000年前分散的采猎群到今天全球经济政治高度一体化的新的历史分期法。作以一种全新博大的历史观对西方历史学和国际关系学两大领域的主流理论提出了挑战。本译自作《世界史中的国际体系：国际关系研究的再构建》一书。作认为正是由于历史研究的匮乏,致使西方主流国际关系理论陷于只能孤芳自赏的境地。而只有融理论研究于历史探讨,建立一个超越现有诸种框架之上的新时空观,国际关系研究才能走出误区,真正对社会现实和其他学科产生影响。     

从国际社会到国际体系——英国学派历史叙事的转向

探究英国学派历史叙事从国际社会向国际体系转向的意义在于:国际关系理论如何丰富了历史尤其是世界史的叙事类型。就叙事类型的角度而言,上述转向同时也意味着英国学派从典型叙事向发生叙事的转向。其中,"国际社会"概念主导了英国学派的典型叙事和从典型叙事向发生叙事的过渡,"国际体系"概念则完成了英国学派的发生叙事。这种转向带来了重要的启示和镜鉴:反思意识和语境对峙。同时,这也提醒我们正视西方的叙事模式与客观历史事实之间的距离。     

英国学派与世界历史研究

在英国学派研究方法中,历史占有重要地位,英国学派依托世界历史在研究方面取得了很大的成就,英国学派也成为历史学和国际关系学的桥梁。根据英国学派的核心概念"国际社会",提出了"首要制度"的概念,这个概念是英国学派对界定国际社会和阐释世界历史变迁标准的一个特殊贡献。首要制度是国际社会的深刻的、不断演化而来的社会结构,包括主权、外交、民族主义、殖民主义以及国际法等。次要制度与之不同,它是被国际关系学的自由主义(制度主义)者所研究的一种建构的、工具性的制度和国际组织。在定义首要制度及其如何产生、发展和消亡后,人们就可以进而关注由它们衍生出来的几种不同类型的国际社会。在此基础上,英国学派以首要制度的变迁为基准,对现代国际社会进行一个简明的世界历史意义上的叙述。最后,反思了全球国际社会的理念和更趋于核心—边缘的现实结构之间的张力,在这种核心—边缘结构中,西方核心和其他各种区域性的国际社会共享各种制度和存有各种分歧。     

英国学派与国际会议史研究北大核心CSSCI

虽然几经浮沉,学术界却公认英国学派在后冷战时代重新焕发了生机。英国学派提供的借鉴和启示是多方面的。英国学派的国际体系和国际社会理论以及跨学科、多学科甚至全学科的学术视野,为展开国际会议史研究树立了榜样。作为一名基督教徒、历史学家、国际关系学者的英国学派开创者——赫伯特·巴特菲尔德,为超越至今仍然在历史研究和国际关系研究中令人难以释怀的“国家中心主义”情结提供了有益的镜鉴。英国学派第二代的“旗手”——赫德利·布尔对大国及其作用的考察和分析,在全球化时代依然是国际关系理论与实践两个领域必须面对的重要课题。中国与国际社会的关系,需要学术界更多地从非欧洲、非西方国家的视角来重新阐释与深入思考。英国学派为研究民族主义提供了新的维度的同时,也为我们从非西方视角考察作为国际制度的民族主义提供了契机。尽管,“他山之石,可以攻玉”,但在与英国学派的“对话”中,面对“借鉴”与“批判”、“倾听”与“表达”、“他者”与“自我”所编织的种种纠结,中国学术界的探索依旧路途漫漫。     

亚当·沃森与国际关系英国学派

亚当·沃森是国际关系英国学派的代表人物之一。作为外交官,沃森有着丰富的职业经历与现实关怀;作为学者,他在英国国际政治理论委员会中长期扮演着参与者与领导者的角色,这两种实践及彼此间的互动贯穿了沃森大部分学术生涯。围绕国际社会这一主题,沃森奉献了数部带有鲜明特色和重要影响的学术作品,传承、丰富、发展了英国学派的理论与方法。他拓展了国际社会研究的历史纵深,构建了国际社会中国家间关系的"光谱"形态和"钟摆"理论模型,参与外交事务的实践经验与思考丰富了早期英国学派理论探讨的视角与切入点,晚年对原有思想的修正与超越提升了英国学派理论的解释力与生命力。沃森的学术贡献与思想脉络也因此成为我们研究英国学派学术史的重要线索。     

“文明”标准与英国学派的典型历史叙事

正在后冷战时代,作为西方国际关系理论中的一个重要流派———英国学派,重新获得国际关系学和世界史两大学科的青睐。"两个核心要素界定了英国学派的特殊性:它的三个重要概念及其理论上的多元主义方法。这三个重要概念是:国际体系(international system)、国际社会(international society)和世界社会(world society)"。~((4))何谓英国学派是个众说纷纭的话题,巴里·布赞对这一问题的回答似乎较为明智:"在保持标签‘学派’的同时,为了避免关于来龙去脉的众多争议,我将其视为     

反思国际关系史书写中的“欧洲中心论”元叙事

目前西方学界的国际关系史书写中的"欧洲中心论"元叙事,既包含对非西方世界历史地位的忽视和贬低,同时也遮蔽了人们对欧洲或西方历史的准确认知。它笼罩下的国际关系史叙事主要表现出三种偏好:即偏好于主权国家、偏好于体系、偏好于条约。冷战结束后,西方的国际关系史研究中的英国学派,为破除"欧洲中心论"所付出的努力给我们提供了有益的启示,然而,其仍在一定程度上保留着"欧洲中心论"的痕迹。在如何进一步提升国际关系史叙事实践的问题上,应当更多地关注社会的影响与作用;重视非国家行为体的活动;注意国际体系内部的互动与相互影响;处理好国际关系史专题研究与宏观把握之间的辩证关系;克服在资料上片面强调条约和政府档案的倾向。     

社会变革与学术流派:当代英国马克思主义史学渊源综论

以霍布斯鲍姆和汤晋森等人为代表的英国马克思主义史学派,是20世纪国际史学中重要的一个史学派别。在社会变革与学术流派间相互关系的总体框架下,从学派形成的历史条件及学派发展的国际思潮背景着眼,可以清楚地看到英国马克思主义史学渊源的大体脉络。该学派形成与发展的重要学术前提,在于西方新史学与马克思主义史学之间的交互作用和互动机制,而学派奠立及其学术创新的背景层级,则依赖于当时国内外的社会政治、社会心理思潮和学术文化机制等重要社会环境资源。另外,英国传统史学理论与方法论体系对英国马克思主义历史学产生了至关重要的影响。     

国际关系研究视角中的世界史

现代意义上的国际关系体系产生于17世纪，而现代意义上的世界史产生于15世纪末以后，它们是同一个时代发展的结果，标志着人类关系的强化。国际关系学与世界史有许多相通之处，两的观察对象是同一的，两大学科兴起的社会历史背景也是相同的。用国际关系研究的方法观察世界历史的发展，或言之，在世界史研究中增加国际关系的视角可能有助于世界史研究的多样化。“世界”与“国际”是同一事物的两种视角，前注重人类社会整体的形成和发展，后关心的是国家之间的联系，前从宏观进入微观，而后从个别进入一般。近现代国家对外关系的真实目的就是维护一方民众的物质和精神利益，保证本国在争夺占有资源和控制掌握生存环境的斗争中占据优势地位。国家间为不同利益而发生争执，乃至最终爆发战争的过程，以及为取得利益平衡达成和解，就是国际关系发展的过程。人类世界的历史就是一部对生存环境和自然资源关系、以及由此引申出来的人与人、人与社会关系的发展史，而国际关系的核心也围绕这一点展开。     

论诺尔-贝克的集体安全观及其影响

20世纪20-30年代,英国国际法学者、外交官菲利普.诺尔-贝克关于国际集体安全的论述对当时的学术界和外交界产生了很大的影响。他不仅是英国国际关系学科的奠基者之一,还亲历了国联公约的起草和国联的组建工作。因此,诺尔-贝克是当时公认的国际问题专家。就思想传承而言,诺尔-贝克的集体安全观对后来的国际关系学者,包括英国学派的主流理论产生了明显的影响。虽然他后来被指责为过于理想主义,但是诺尔-贝克毕生致力于世界和平所做出的贡献还是为世人所公认,为此,他于1959年荣获了诺贝尔和平奖。     

The international political thought of Martin Wight

The different responses in Great Britain and the United States to Martin Wight as a thinker of international relations reveal something about the contrasting academic cultures of the two countries. Wight was pre‐eminently an ‘arts’ man, regarding history and philosophy as essential prerequisites for understanding the world. Above all he was concerned with the moral dimension in politics, whether domestic or international. His pacifism in the Second World War, curiously linked to his profound sense of realism, reflected deep religious convictions; indeed theology, and particularly eschatology, underlay much of his thinking. His career centres upon first Chatham House and Nuffield College, Oxford, then the London School of Economics and Political Science, and finally the University of Sussex. His lectures at the LSE on international theory achieved legendary fame, but he did not publish much in his lifetime. The appearance since 1977 of four notable posthumous works has enhanced his already high reputation, as has the increasing scholarly interest in the ‘English School’, of which he is now seen as a founding father. Ian Hall's book is a brilliant piece of analysis in which Wight's theological world view—which was not obtrusive in his teaching and writing—is investigated with a sureness that is probably rare among scholars in the international relations field.     

Faith, history and Martin Wight: the role of religion in the historical sociology of the English school of International Relations

Martin Wight is responsible for one of the English school's most distinctive features: the historical sociology of different international systems demonstrating the importance of world history for the study of International Relations. Because of Wight's influence, the English school was, from the beginning, concerned with the role of religion, culture and civilization in international society. This emphasis, particularly with regard to the role of religion, has been marginalized in the English school's current research programme. This is unfortunate because, despite a renewed interest in the English school, the kind of questions Wight asked about religion, culture and identity have become some of the most important in the study of IR. This article examines the role of religion in Wight's international theory, which cannot be separated from the fact that he was a devout Anglican throughout his life. There was a relationship between his personal faith and his understanding of religion's role in international relations that previous scholars have not examined. When these two aspects of Wight's faith and life are brought together, there is both a better sense of continuity between his early life as a Christian pacifist and his later years as a teacher and scholar of IR, and a better recognition of what his distinctive approach to religion brought to the study of International Relations.     

Securing international society: towards an English school discourse of security

English School approaches to international politics, which focus on the idea of an international society of states bound together by shared rules and norms, have not paid significant explicit attention to the study of security in international relations. This is curious given the centrality of security to the study of world politics and the recent resurgence of English School scholarship in general. This article attempts to redress this gap by locating and explicating an English School discourse of security. We argue here that there is indeed an English School discourse of security, although an important internal distinction exists here between pluralist and solidarist accounts, which focus on questions of order and justice in international society respectively. In making this argument, we also seek to explore the extent to which emerging solidarist accounts of security serve to redress the insecurity of security in international relations: the tendency of traditional security praxes to privilege the state in ways that renders individuals insecure.     

Prudence and principle in international society: reflections on Vincent's approach to human rights

John Vincent's Human rights and International Relations argued for embedding the right to be free from starvation in the international society of states. Principle and prudence were combined in a distinctive English School analysis of the universal human rights culture. Vincent argued that the entitlement to be free from the tyranny of starvation and malnutrition was one principle on which most societies could agree despite their profound ideological differences. Other conceptions of human rights, including western liberal doctrines of individual freedom, had the potential to create major divisions within international society, particularly when linked with a doctrine of humanitarian intervention. More recent approaches to world poverty raise large questions about whether Vincent succeeded in attempting to marry prudence in preserving an international order that remains anchored in state sovereignty with a principled commitment to ending starvation. Important issues also arise about how to build on his reflections on the prospects for a global ‘civilizing process’ that bridges cultural and political differences in the first universal society of states.     

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ECONOMIC HISTORY?

In this polemical book, Francesco Boldizzoni argues that economic history is so moribund as to require resurrection. He maintains that economic history has been converted into a subfield of economics and has embraced the antihistorical and a priori intellectual style of mainstream economics departments: it has, in effect, ceased to be a form of history. Boldizzoni hopes to force a recognition of contemporary economic history's bankruptcy and to show the way toward a revitalization. He criticizes both economic history as retrospective econometrics, as in the work of Robert Fogel, and economic history as a branch of the new institutional economics, as in the work of Douglas North. Boldizzoni suggests that economic history should return to the sort of research and models that prevailed earlier in its own history—models based on induction from observed economic life rather than on deduction from the theories of contemporary microeconomics. He particularly singles out the work of Witold Kula, Moses Finley, and the Annales historians for emulation, but also praises the perspectives of economic sociology and economic anthropology. Boldizzoni's call for a return to a more inductive form of economic history is welcome, and his discussions of his heroes should remind us that economic history was once a vibrant and creative part of the history profession. But the book's advice is more useful for historians working on premodern than on modern economic life. The claim that self‐governing markets and interest‐maximizing individual actors are pure figments of economists' imaginations seems far less certain for recent than for premodern times. And his insistence that each society has its own distinct form of economic life that must be discovered inductively leaves unconceptualized the world‐spanning forces of capitalist development that increasingly shape societies everywhere. Boldizzoni's critique and his positive suggestions are certainly valuable, but he by no means supplies a sufficient recipe for economic history's resurrection as a vibrant field.     

Culture and international society

This article investigates a hypothesis drawn from Martin Wight, that a society of states lacking a shared culture, as a result of expansion beyond its original base, will be unstable. This instability hypothesis has been influential in how the English School has presented the history of the expansion of European international society to a global scale. The article starts by offering two models of how a global international society could have come about since the late classical era: a multicultural encounter among several expanding civilizations (polycentric), or the takeover of the system by one centre (monocentric). Using these models as a backdrop, two accounts of the expansion story are developed. The Vanguardist account emphasizes the exceptionalism of European culture, posits a 500‐year period of western domination, sees multiculturalism and the decline of western power as problematic, and tends to pessimism about the future of international society. The Syncretist account emphasizes the permanence of cross‐cultural exchange, posits only a 200‐year period of western dominance, sees culture and international society as evolving together, and is not pessimistic about the stability of international society. These two models and two accounts are then used to assess the possible future of international society. The article argues that culture is less of a problem for international society than Wight, and much of the English School, suppose. The evidence for the substantial success of syncretism is strong and provides considerable stability to most of the likely outcomes. The key problem is not culture, but socio‐political structure. How can what North et al. call natural states and open access orders find shared practices and institutions that do not destabilize international society?     

THE EVOLUTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE

In his thought‐provoking book, Alex Mesoudi argues for an evolutionary, unifying framework for the social sciences, which is based on the principles of Darwinian theory. Mesoudi maintains that cultural change can be illuminated by using the genotype‐phenotype distinction, and that it is sufficiently similar to biological change to warrant a theory of culture‐change based on evolutionary models. He describes examples of cultural microevolution, within‐population changes, and the biologically inspired population genetics models used to study them. He also shows that some aspects of large‐scale (macro‐evolutionary) cultural transformation can be studied by using ecological models and phylogenetic comparative techniques. We argue that although Mesoudi's evolution‐based perspective offers many useful insights, his ambition—the unification of the social sciences within a Darwinian framework through the use of the methods and models he describes—suffers from a major theoretical limitation. His reductive approach leads to overlooking culture as a system with emergent processes and features. Mesoudi therefore does not engage with any of the central past and present theories in sociology and anthropology for which the systems view of culture is central, and he does not analyze the emergent, high‐level properties of human cultural‐social systems. We suggest that a systems perspective, using some analogies and metaphors from developmental biology, can complement the evolutionary approach and is more in tune with a systems view of society. Such an approach, which stresses feedback and self‐sustaining interactions within social networks, and engages with the insights of sociological and anthropological theories, can contribute to the understanding of cultural systems by highlighting the evolution of processes of social cohesion, and by making use of the mathematical approaches of complexity theory.     

The regressing ‘culture of anarchy’ in ancient China and its implications for Wendt's progressive constructivism

What does the qualitative increase in the brutality of international relations in the Eastern Zhou period of ancient China (770–221bc) mean for the implicit progressivism of Alexander Wendt's constructivism, as espoused in his landmark text Social Theory of International Politics (1999)? Wendt's constructivism is useful in understanding international systems outside the contemporary Westphalian order and provides an excellent analytical tool for understanding ancient China. However, this article argues that Wendt's implicit teleology of progressively cooperative ‘cultures of anarchy’ in international politics is empirically questionable. It is demonstrated that such a progression is not supported by the historical evidence of ancient China, which represents an instance of an international system ‘regressing’ from a more to a less cooperative international social structure.     

《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》是如何写出来的？--“修昔底德问题”研究的回顾与思考

修昔底德创作《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》花费了毕生精力,全书各个部分的写作次序和时间如何迄今悬而未决。从1846年这个问题提出到20世纪80年代初,大体有两派观点:"分离论"和"一体论"。前者认为,修昔底德的著作是分阶段写成的,这不仅表现在时间上,还表现在作者的思想上;后者则认为,尽管这部书是未完之作,且有一些不完善地方,但全书一以贯之,因此主要在一个时间段写成。两派各执一词,探讨逐步深入。1984年美国学者康纳提出修昔底德文本的同质性问题,即作者有意带领读者一起面对事件,其思想认识和叙事形式都发生了变化,故其文本不是同质的。这对"分离论"起到了纠偏的作用,也超越了"一体论"。在康纳观点指引下,英国学者鲁德和美国学者德沃尔德研究了修昔底德的叙事方式。鲁德认为"修昔底德问题"是一个"无法回答的问题";德沃尔德则证明其叙事的组织形式发生了变化。"修昔底德问题"将激发学者们的研究热情,砥砺他们的才智,推动着学术界不断深化对于史学的认识。