期刊文献+

国际关系学科史视域下的国际合作研究:一种单向度的关联分析

On International Cooperation Study from the Perspective of the Disciplinary History of International Relations:A Unidimensinal Relevance Analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 作为国际关系学的一个分支领域,国际合作研究呈现出几个明显的历史特征:时间上,国际合作研究主要兴起于20世纪70年代末。空间上,国际合作研究真正诞生于美国。理论载体上,国际合作研究主要存在于新自由主义理论中。国际合作研究发展的历史特征受到国际关系学科的发展历史的深刻影响,国际关系学发展历史中的"国家知识霸权"的演变、"范式知识霸权"的更替、"大争论的学科发展模式"、"着重于行为研究和语言研究的重大知识革命"对国际合作研究具有重大影响,在一定程度上解释了国际合作研究为何呈现出这样的时空特征和理论特征。这种分析是从国际关系学科史的视角出发的,而且是一种单向度的分析,强调国际关系学科史对国际合作研究的影响。 As a subfield of International Relations,international cooperation study has shown several historical features. Temporally,international cooperation study didn't come up until the late seventies of the 20th century; spatially,it occurred actually in America; theoretically,it has existed mainly in neoliberalism. The disciplinary history of International Relations has greatly influenced the track of international cooperation study. Specifically,the evolution of country's intellectual hegemony in International Relations,the evolution of paradigm's intellectual hegemony in International Relations,the Great Debates as the dynamic of international Relations' development,and the behavior and language revolution in International Relations all together explain,in some degrees,why international cooperation study has developed these characteristics. The analysis describes the development features of international cooperation study from the perspective of disciplinary history of International Relations. It is a unidimentional analysis,which focuses on the influence of disciplinary history of International Relations on international cooperation study.
作者 石贤泽
出处 《外交评论(外交学院学报)》 CSSCI 2008年第4期102-109,共8页 Foreign Affairs Review
基金 教育部人文社科项目<国际合作与和谐世界的构建:全球视角的解读>(批准号:07JC710002)的阶级性成果
  • 相关文献

参考文献57

  • 1Steve Smith, "Hegemonic Power, Hegemonic Discipline?" in James N. Rosenau, ed., Global Voices: Dialogues in International Relations, Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.
  • 2A.J.R. Groom and Peter Mandaville, “Hegemony and Autonomy in International Relations: The Continental Experience”, in Robert M. A. Crowford and Darry S. L. Jarvis, eds., International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001, p. 162.
  • 3Kal J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1985, p. 103.
  • 4Miles Kahler, “International Relations: Still an American Soeial Science?” in Linda B. Miller and Michael J. Smith, eds., Ideas and Ideals: Essays on Politics in Honor of Stanley Hoffmann, Boulder and Oxford: Westview Press, 1993, p. 396.
  • 5Norman D. Palmer, “The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives of Half a Century”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1980, p. 353.
  • 6Cameron G. Thies, "Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory", European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2002, p. 173.
  • 7Brian C. Schmidt, "Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline", International Relations,Vol. 16, No. 1, 2002, p. 9.
  • 8Brian C. Schmidt, “Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3, 1998, pp. 443-449.
  • 9Kal J. Holsti ,The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, p. 16.
  • 10Steve Smith,“Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science”, in Hugh C. Dyer and Leon Mangasarian, eds., The Study of International Relations: the State of the Art, New York: St. Martin' s Press, 1989, p. 8.

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部