Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131773
|
| Title: | 英國學派的第三種想像：一個柏克式的國際政治理論
The third way of English School: a Burkean international political theory |
| Authors: | 周景賀
Chou, Jing-Ho |
| Contributors: | 葉浩
Yeh, Hao
周景賀
Chou, Jing-Ho |
| Keywords: | 柏克
多元主義
團合主義
大英帝國
帝國社會
Burke
Pluralism
Solidarism
the British Empire
Imperial society |
| Date: | 2020 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-09-02 12:43:25 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 學界過去處理柏克的國際政治議題時，不外乎從兩個面向去談。一是從他的《論弒君的和平》（Letters on a Regicide Peace）來建構柏克對於歐洲共同體的想像（如Welsh﹐1995；Fidler& Welsh﹐1999）；二是從柏克對Hastings的彈劾案及對東印度公司的批判切入，以說明柏克的普世性關懷和萬民法的應用（Pitts﹐2018）。然而前人的研究似乎都不約而同的將歐洲社會與歐洲以外的社會割裂處理，並沒有放在同個平台比較。換句話說，國際社會的範疇只包含了歐洲地區，非歐洲地區（如印度）因為沒有共同的價值基礎、宗教信仰，自始被排除在外，但又由於柏克在某種程度上具有普世主義的色彩，因此萬民法（或自然法）的力量共同約束了歐洲與非歐洲。這種「以歐洲共同體為中心、再以萬民法填補空白」的同心圓詮釋在一定程度上或許與柏克的國際政治思想有所衝突。同心圓的圖像暗示著歐洲與非歐洲並不在同一個基準點上。同心圓的核心是以各個歐洲國家所構成的國際社會，外圍則是回歸以人為本的最終關懷，說明非歐洲地區的住民也不應受到非人道對待。這種理論架構並未能將柏克所參與的國際政治事件融貫為一套國際政治理論，只能看作是柏克對不同事件的不同評論。
筆者認為柏克無論是在審視歐洲或非歐洲的議題時，皆緊扣著其一貫的保守主義思想精隨，意即從各地區的傳統與文化作為著眼點，思索英國社會與該社會互動下，兩者會產生怎樣的火花與影響。因此若欲建構一套柏克式的國際政治理論，「社會」的觀念極為重要，而所謂的「國際社會」（international society）也應當以「諸民族間的社會」（inter-national society）來理解，或許更能理解柏克的國際政治思想，此種理解在帝國統治下尤為重要。
回到當代的多元主義和團合主義論戰，本文將試圖借用柏克的思想資源來闡述「社會」此一概念應當從主權國家與個人的光譜兩極中被拉出來獨立看待。對柏克來說，社會是孕育個人的載體、賦予國家性格的有機體，它是先於此二者的存在。換句話說，主權還是人權都是在「社會」此一實體得以存在、穩健茁壯的前提下才具有意義。
When scholars dealt with the international political thought of Edmund Burke, they often mentioned two aspect about him. One was the idea of European commonwealth, which can be find in his “Letters on a Regicide Peace”; the other was his universal concern and the application of laws of nations, especially in the cases of impeachment of Warren Hastings and the critics of the East India Company. Those researches, however, dealt with European society and non-European society separately and not compared the two society in the same horizon. That was to say, the scope of international society only included Europe and exclude the non-Europe owing to lacking of common value and religious belief. In the other hand, we could find some universalism trait, in certain degree, in Burke’s thought, therefore the force of laws of nations or the nature law can bind Europe and non-Europe. This concentric circle interpretation, which centered on European commonwealth and filled laws of nations in the space, somehow conflicted with Burke’s international political thought. The image of concentric circle imply the Europe and non-Europe are in the different benchmark. The center of concentric circle is constituting by international society of European countries, and the outer circle is about all individuals who are the objects of nature law which demand even the non-European people should be treated humanely. This interpretation might not cohere the international affairs Burke involved in into a systematic international political theory, and could be only seen as perspectives about different issues of Burke.
In my opinion, when Burke examined the issues of Europe or non-Europe, he always fol-lowed a coherent thought about conservatism, that is traditions and cultures of every society and consideration about the influence when English society engaging with others. Hence, if we want to constitute a Burkean international political theory, we should focus on the idea of “society” and the “international society” should be understood as “inter-national society”. In this way, we might grasp Burke’s international political thoughts properly, especially in the context of empire reign.
Back to the modern engagement of pluralism and solidarism, this essay tries to argue that the idea of society should be treated as a subject in international politics, just as sovereign and individual being. For Burke, society is an organic which can bear individual for quality and define the character of a country, it is prior than an individual and a sovereign state. In other words, sovereign or human right are all make sense if, and only if, the entity of society could exist and function well. |
| Reference: | 一、柏克一手文獻
Burke, Edmund
1997-2015 The Writing and Speech of Edmund Burke, 9 Vols., Paul Langford (Gen-eral ed.). US: Oxford University Press.
2005 The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Vol. VII. (of 12).
上網日期109年8月21日，檢自：http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16292/16292-h/16292-h.htm
Harris, Ian(ed.). 1993. Edmund Burke: Pre-Revolutionary Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pagano, Frank(ed.). 1982. A Vindication of Natural Society. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.
二、中文二手文獻
曾國祥，2009，《主體危機與理性批判：自由主義的保守詮釋》，台北市：巨流。
梁文韜，2012，《國際政治理論與人道干預：論多元主義與團合主義之爭辯》，高雄市：巨流。
陳思賢，2018，《西洋政治思想史》，台北：五南。
葉浩，2013，〈Robert Jackson的「全球共約」理論與柏林的價值多元主義：兼論國際關係英倫學派的古典途徑〉，政治與社會哲學評論；45期，頁111-173。
Berlin, Isaiah著、陳曉林譯，1986，《自由四論》，台北市：聯經。
Bull, Hedley著、石斌等譯，2014，〈格勞秀斯在國際關係研究中的重要性〉，《格勞秀斯與國際關係》，Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, Adam Roberts主編，北京：中國社會科學出版社。頁58-79。
Burbank, Jane & Frederick Cooper著、馮奕達譯，2015，《世界帝國二千年：一部關於權力政治的全球史》，新北市：八旗文化∕遠足文化。
Hurrell, Andrew著、林曦譯，2017，《全球秩序的崩塌與重建》（On Global Order：Power, Values and the Constitution of International Society），北京：中國人民大學出版社。
Morley, John著、劉戎譯，2018，《埃德蒙．伯克評傳》，上海：上海社會科學院出版社。
Roelofsen, C. G.著、石斌等譯，2014，〈格勞秀斯與17世紀的國際政治〉，《格勞秀斯與國際關係》，Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, Adam Roberts主編，北京：中國社會科學出版社。頁80-110。
Röling, B. V. A.著、石斌等譯，2014，〈格勞秀斯思想在拓展後的世界中是否過時？〉，《格勞秀斯與國際關係》，Hedley Bull, Benedict Kingsbury, Adam Roberts主編，北京：中國社會科學出版社。頁237-251。
三、英文二手文獻
Barker, Ernest. 1941. The Idea and Ideals of the British Empire. London: Cambridge.
Bearce, George D. British attitudes towards India, 1784-1858. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Pres.
Bromwich, David. 2014. The Intellectual Life of Edmund Burke: From the Sublime and Beau-tiful to American Independence. U.S.A.:The Bulknap Press of University Press.
Brown, Chris. 2002. Sovereignty, Rights, and Justice: International Political Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity.
Brown, Chris. 2015. International society, global polity: An Introduction to International Po-litical Theory. London: SAGE Publications.
Brown, Chris. 2018. International Relations and International Political Theory. In The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory, edited by Chris Brown and Robyn Eckersley. Oxford, United Kingdom : Oxford University Press.
Boucher, David. 1991. ‘The Character of the History of the philosophy of International rela-tions and the case of Edmund Burke’. Review of International Studies, 17, pp.127-148.
Boucher, David. 1998. Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bourke, Richard. 2015. Empire & Revolution: the Political Life of Edmund Burke. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Byrne, William F.. 2011. Edmund Burke for Our Time : Moral Imagination, Meaning, and Politics. DeKalb : Northern Illinois University Press.
Bull, Hedley. 2012. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
Butterfield, Herbert, and Martin Wight(eds). 1968. Diplomatic Investigations : Essays in the Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press.
Cannadine, David. 2001. Ornamentalism: How British Saw Their Empire. New York : Oxford University Press.
Carr, E. H.. 1948. The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of Inter-national Relations. London: Macmillan.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2020. I Am the People: Reflections on Popular Sovereignty Today. USA: Columbia University Press.
Collins, Gregory M..2019. ‘Edmund Burke on Slavery and the Slave Trade’. Slavery& Aboli-tion, 40:3, 494-521.
Evans, Graham.1974. ‘Some problems with a History of Thought in International Relations’, International Relations, 4:6 ,715-726
Fidler, David P., and Jennifer M. Welsh(eds). 1999. Empire and Community: Edmund Burke`s Writings and Speeches on International Relations. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Frohnen, Bruce. 1993. Virtue and the promise of conservatism: the legacy of Burke and Tocqueville. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Hall, Ian. 2006. The International Thought of Martin Wight. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jackson, Robert. 2000. The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson,Sameul. 2016. A Dictionary of the English Language. London: Forgotten Books.
Jones, Roy. The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure, Review of In-ternational Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Jan., 1981), pp.1-13.
Laski, Harold. 1950. Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Linklater, Andrew, and Hidemi Suganami. 2006. The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marques de Almeida, João. 2003. ‘Pluralists Solidarists and the Issues of Diversity, Justice and Humanitarianism in World Politics’. The International Journal of Human Rights, 7:2, 144-163.
Marshall, P. J..1965. The Impeachment of Warren Hastings. London: Oxford University Press.
Metcalf, Thomas R.. 1995. Ideologies of the Raj. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, Jesse. 2013. Edmund Burke: The Visionary Who Invented Modern Politics. U.K.: William Collins
O’Brien, Conor Cruise. 1992. The Great Melody: A Thematic Biography and Commented An-thology of Edmund Burke. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
O’Neill, Daniel. 2016. Edmund Burke and the Conservative Logic of Empire. Oakland: Uni-versity of Cambridge Press.
Pitts, Jennifer, 2018. Boundaries of the International: Law and Empire. U.S.A.: Harvard Uni-versity Press.
Sato, Sora. 2018. Edmund Burke as Historian : War, Order and Civilisation. Cham, Switzer-land: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stanlis, Peter J. 1997. Edmund Burke and British Views of the American Revolution: A Con-flict over Rights of Sovereignty. In Edmund Burke: His Life and Legacy, edited by Ian Crowe. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press.
Stanlis, Peter J. 1993. Edmund Burke: the Enlightenment and Revolution. New Jersey: Trans-action Publishers.
Stanlis, Peter J.. 2003. Edmund Burke and the natural law. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Suganami, Hidemi. 2005. The English School and International Theory. In International Soci-ety and its Critics, edited by Alex J. Bellamy. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press.
Vincent, R. J.. 1984. ‘Edmund Burke and the Theory of International Relations’, Review of In-ternational Studies, 10, 205-218.
Weber, Martin. 2007. ‘The Concept of Solidarity in the Study of World Politics: Towards a Critical Theoretic Understanding’, Review of International Studies, 33:4, 693-713.
Whelan, Frederick G.. 1996. Edmund Burke and India: Political Morality and Empire. USA: University Pittsburgh Press.
Welsh, Jennifer M.. 1995. Edmund Burke and International Relations. Great Britain: Macmil-lan Press LTD.
Wight, Martin.1987. ‘An Anatomy of International Thought’. Review of International Studies, 13:3, pp. 221-227.
Wight, Martin. 1992. International Theory: The Three Traditions. U.S.A.: Holmes & Meier Publishers.
Wight, Martin. 2005. ’Why is there no International Theory’, in Diplomatic Investigations: Es-say in the Theory of International Politics, edited by H. Butterfield and M. Wight. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, P. 1989. ‘The English School of International Relations: A Reply to Sheila Grader’. Review of International Studies, 15:1, pp. 49-58.
White, Stephen K.. 1994. Edmund Burke: Modernity, Politics, and Aesthetics. California: Sage Publication Inc.. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
政治學系
105252022 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1052520221 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| DOI: | 10.6814/NCCU202001579 |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 022101.pdf | | 2147Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 218 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
