“多国体系”中行为体的不同行为逻辑及其根源--兼与许田波商榷

Actorsin "Multi-States System":Different Behavioral Logics and Foundations

对于为何战国时期的"列国"最终由秦国实现统一,而在近代欧洲的"多国体系"中反复出现"均势"这一问题,许田波通过对春秋战国时期与近代早期欧洲进行比较研究之后认为:战国时期的秦国采取"自强型改革"和"聪明的战略",突破"制衡逻辑"从而实现统一;而欧洲国家则采取"自弱型权宜措施"和相对"笨拙的"战略,从而导致"均势"在欧洲的盛行。作者认为,许田波的论述脱离了欧洲和中国的文化背景和历史实践,导致对"多国体系"中政治行为体之所以奉行不同的行为逻辑产生了误读。战国时期的"列国"都奉行兼并统一的战略,是因为它们都受到中国"大一统"观念的引导;而近代欧洲产生的"主权"观念和"均势"行为则与欧洲中世纪之后形成的"多元化"政治格局紧密相关。作者认为构建中国的国际关系理论不能僵硬地套用西方国际关系理论的范畴、概念与观点,而应该从中国的文化传统和历史实践出发,体现出创造性和独立性。

The unification was achieved by Qin in the Chinese Warring States Period while the 'balance of power' repeatedly appeared in the European 'multi-states system'. Why? By a comparative study between the Chinese Warring States Period and early Modern Europe, Victoria Tin-bor Hui argued that the 'self-strengthening reforms' and 'clever strategies' are the reasons why Qin broke the 'logic of balancing' and achieved unification in China, while the 'self-weakening expedients' and the 'clumsy strategies' adopted by European countries led to the repeated occurrences of 'balance of power'. We hold that the argument made by Victoria Tin-bor Hui ignored the cultural backgrounds and historical practices of China and Europe, which led to the misunderstandings of different logics of political actors in 'Multi-States System'. All 'warring states' in the Warring States Period pursued the strategy of annexing and unity for the ideal of 'Grand Unification' in China; in contrast, the concept of 'sovereignty' and the phenomenon of 'balance of power' in early modern Europe were closely related with the traditions of diversity in the Medieval. Therefore, we stress that the construction of China’s international relations theory cannot simply copy the Western categories, concepts and ideas; instead, our creativeness and independence in IR theory should be originated in China’s traditional thoughts and historical practices.