【作者】 韩志立；

【导师】 秦亚青；

【作者基本信息】 外交学院 ， 当代国际关系， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 作为对当前国际秩序的一项批判建构主义研究,本文试图论证,当前的国际秩序是美国权力和知识的结果;随着美国权力影响力的下降,美国将不得不同其它主要行为体通过沟通行动建立国际秩序的新知识,并在此基础上构建国际新秩序。本文首先批判了现实主义均势秩序观和自由主义宪政秩序观,认为现实主义均势秩序的规律性和自由主义宪政秩序的正义性值得质疑。现实主义学者提出国家间形成均势秩序是客观规律。现实主义学者之所以对均势秩序必然性深信不疑,与摩根索和沃尔兹等现实主义学者对均势秩序理论科学化的努力分不开。然而,摩根索使其理论科学化的尝试存在明显缺陷,他使用了智慧文字和历史叙事作为论证证据,显然未达到科学的标准。之后,出现以沃尔兹为代表的一批行为主义学者试图修正摩根索的缺陷,对国际政治进行更为严格地、系统化的实证分析。然而,沃尔兹的理论遵循经验证实、演绎逻辑、客观观察的实证主义原则,因此,他的理论的有效性须建立在一个本质上完全为真的事实的基础上。而沃尔兹并没有找到这样一个坚实的基础,他将其整个理论大厦建立在理性主义的假定之上,其可靠性不断遭到质疑。自由主义学者试图从道德角度证明以自由经济、民主政治为基础的自由宪政秩序最具正义性,因此应受到推崇。罗尔斯的正义论是当代重要的自由主义道德理论之一。然而,罗尔斯正义论的理论推导过程存在缺陷。他仅仅遵循了形式理性的要求。从实质理性的角度来看,罗尔斯对目的选择的合理性讨论还不充分。罗尔斯的正义论将终极问题看成一个可忽略的因素,回避了对目的选择合理性的讨论。就这点而言,罗尔斯的正义论都还没有达到人类理性的要求,其合理性仍值得质疑。在批判现实主义和自由主义研究框架的基础上,本文转向了一种批判建构主义研究框架,认为秩序由规则定义;规则由知识建构;知识是权力或沟通行动的结果。行为体是社会人,社会人的理性在于遵循规则。规则具有目的性,是在知识基础上设计的结果。知识有两种生成模式:当存在霸权时,知识是权力的结果;当体系内缺乏霸权时,行为体可以在相对平等的基础上,通过沟通行动,寻求共识,并重建知识。在此建构主义框架下分析当前国际秩序,本文的研究的目的不是为了探寻国际秩序中存在的规律,也不是要证明国际秩序的正义性,而是要发现美国霸权、美国知识和国际秩序之间的关系。首先,本文仔细考察了美国从冷战结束到伊拉克战争期间建立国际新秩序的尝试,发现美国作为世界的霸权国利用权力优势,甚至不惜使用武力,以自由民主等美国私有知识为基础,试图建立国际新秩序。研究发现,老布什、克林顿和小布什三位美国总统的国际战略,具有高度的一致性,都试图利用美国的权力优势,在世界范围内推行美国的民主和自由理念,要在世界范围建立一个由民主国家、自由市场构成的国际新秩序。美国这一时期的主要对外举措,如在失败国家采取和平行动、在中东发动伊拉克战争、在民族冲突国家推进民族分裂行动等等,都体现了美国利用其权力优势,推行民主和自由理念的特征。其次,本文考察了伊拉克战争以后的权力结构,发现美国依然是世界唯一超级大国,但其权力影响力有所下降。在这种情况下,美国智库进行的两项重要战略研究——“普林斯顿计划”和“管理全球不安全因素”项目,以及新任总统奥巴马讲话,反应了美国智库对美国未来大战略建议以及奥巴马战略的两个特征:1、在美国战略中,自由民主等理念的核心地位没有发生根本性动摇。2、同以往自由国际主义战略相比出现了新迹象,即美国战略的制定加强了同其他国家的沟通;适当弱化了美国传统国际战略中的自由民主理念的作用和对美国权力的推崇。更多还原

【Abstract】 As an academic enquiry in a critical constructivist framework, this Ph.D. dissertation argues that the contemporary international order is a result of the US power and knowledge, and with the leverage of its power declining, the US will have to build new knowledge through communicative action with other major actors, on the base of which a new international order can be forged.First of all, the dissertation problematizes the reasoning of the realist claim of the balance of power and the liberalist proposal of a constitutional order.Realist IR scholars, such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, seek to explain the underlying forces governing the international political relations and make the scientific claim that the balance of power is inevitable. However, Morgenthau’s efforts were undermined by his unscientific methods of wisdom literature or historical anecdotes. And Kenneth Warltz’s theory of international relations, that attempted to uncover a causal relationship based on theoretical-objective observations, deductive logics and empirical verification and falsification, and whose validation should rest on a firm foundation absolutely false or true by nature, has not reached such a solid bedrock yet.Liberalists aver that the liberal constitutional order abides by the liberal moral principles, and hence, are the most just international order. However, these moral theories, with Rawls’principles of justice as an example, did insufficient inquiries upon the ultimate purpose. Ignorance of the ultimate purpose makes the reasoning of those moral theories problematic, and also, the justice of the international order built on them questionable.Then, the dissertation turns to critical constructivist assumptions that international order is constructed on the foundation of knowledge produced by hegemon power or communicative actions of the major actors in the absence of hegemony. As constructivism maintains, social actors are homo sociologicus, whose rationality is to follow rules. Accordingly, the order of a society is firmly set within a structure of rules, which are further embedded on the knowledge, produced by hegemon power or by communicative actions when a hegemon is absent.Under such a framework, the empirical studies of the dissertation do not aim at exploring the causality or the justice of the international politics, but to reveal the relations between hegemony, knowledge and international order. The dissertation studied the US post-cold war strategies and found that the contemporary international order is a result of the US power and knowledge; with the decline of the leverage of its power, the US will have to communicate more with other major actors for a consensus on knowledge, on the base of which a new international order can be forged.Firstly, after the cold war, as the only superpower exerting disproportionate power in the world, the US attempts to establish a new world order on its private knowledge of freedom and democracy. George H.W. Bush’s“New World Order’ was featured by a growing community of democracies and a dynamic free-market system. Bill Clinton’s "From Containment to Expansion" strategy borrowed Bush’s vision and demanded that the US shift its cold war strategy to the enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies. George W. Bush’s preemptive strategy aimed at ending“tyrannies”by using the US military forces, even unilaterally.Secondly, in the Obama’s era, the US is still the only polar in the international power structure, but wield declining power to the rest of the world. Princeton project, Managing Global Insecurity program (MGI) and Obama’s remarks in the election campaign show that the US’s liberal vision of the world order has not been shattered.The Princeton project proposes to reestablish a“Concert of Democracies”, as an alternative forum to legitimate the use of force. Obama commits his administration to support the young democracies by increasing funding for struggling democrats, creating a rapid response fund for societies in transition. On the other hand, the studies found signs that the US will do more communication with other major actors for a consensus on new knowledge. For instance, Obama pursues a strategy of wider dialogues with other major actors. MGI proposes a new vision of international order based on the concept of responsible sovereignty, instead of democracy, acknowledging that“the non-democracies”should not be excluded in the establishment of a new international order.更多还原