从华夏体系历史看美国国际关系理论范式的西方特色

美国国际关系研究的三理论大理论范式具有无政府状态假设、科学理性范式、见物不见人等三大明显的缺陷,适合西方但未必适合解释中国的历史文化和国际关系问题。从中国历史上存在过的华夏体系来看,用这三大范式进行理论解释有很大的缺陷。比如,华夏体系也是一个无政府结构,但这是一个有权威的、等级特别明显的结构;与用安全解释大国崛起的西方观点不同,华夏体系中出现的霸权国家似乎并没有明显的安全问题存在;西方的均势理论似乎特别不适合华夏体系中秦国战胜六国联盟的历史。华夏体系各国的人员、商品、思想的流动和开放程度都很高,也通过频繁的盟会产生了一些共有的国际规范和规则,但这种一定程度的相互依赖与合作又是十分有限的、不可靠的,齐国霸权、晋国霸权、魏国霸权之后,这种合作都没能持续下去。华夏体系中的那些华夏国家也的确有一个身份问题。但身份的认同不如建构主义所说的有那样大的作用。所以,应把这三大范式从普遍性的理论研究范式还原成西方特色的理论研究范式。

The Western Characteristics of the Paradigms of International Studies in America:With the Huaxia System as a Counterexample

Three flaws are obvious in the three paradigms of International Studies in America. Specifically, their arguments are based on the assumption that the world is anarchic; they go too far in employing the scientific and rational methodology; they pay little attention to the humans. Hence, the three paradigms of international studies in America aren’t necessarily useful for the explanation of China’s history and culture as well as its relations with the outside world. The Huaxia system, for example, is anarchic but also apparently hierarchical; the approach of pursuing security in understanding the rise of western powers may be meaningless, for the hegemony in the Huaxia System needn’t worry about its security; the theory of power-balancing seemingly couldn’t explain why Qin ended up in defeating the alliance of the other six states in the Warring-states period. The Huaxia system is quite open, and has free movement of people, goods, and ideas. Some interstate regimes and institutions were formed through Huimeng (alliance-making) among states. However, this kind of limited and fragile interdependence and cooperation soon came to an end after the hegemonies of Qi, Jin and Wei. There does exit the identity problem among states in the Huaxia System, but this problem doesn’t play such a great role as the constructivists expect it would.