因果機制和政治解釋：民主和平論和現實主義的論辯

Causal Mechanism and Political Explanation: Debate between Democratic Peace Theory and Realism

蔡榮祥(Jung-hsiang Tsai)

《問題與研究》 59卷4期 (2020/12) Pp. 143-180

https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.202012_59(4).0004

摘要

本文主要的目的在於爬梳社會科學方法論中因果機制分析的發展和演進，並進一步評估政治學研究中如何運用因果機制來進行解釋以及討論相關的解釋效力的問題。本文將具體評析政治學國際關係領域中民主和平論之論點，以此來衡量政治學運用因果機制解釋的優勢和侷限。因果機制研究層面上，本文聚焦在機制的定義和類型、機制的觀察性、因果機制與因果關係、法則和中介變數的差異、機制的層次、機制的運作和測量、機制的路徑圖。因果機制運用層面上，本文側重於民主和平論的源起和演進、民主和平論的重要論述、對於民主和平論的挑戰以及現實主義因果機制的補充解釋。最後，本文針對民主和平論的相關論辯提出因果機制的補充解釋。

關鍵字

方法論 ； 因果機制 ； 國際關係 ； 民主和平論 ； 現實主義

並列摘要

The main purpose of this paper is to parse out the development and evolution of causal mechanism and to further evaluate how political research adopts the method of causal mechanism to explain and discuss the explanatory effect in the field of qualitative methods. Our focus is to shed light on the causal mechanism of democratic peace theory in the field of international relations and to gauge its advantages and restraints. On the dimension of causal mechanism, this paper focuses on the definition of mechanism, observation of causal mechanism, the difference between causal mechanism, causality, laws and intervening variables, level of analysis, operationalization and measurement of causal mechanism, and roadmap of causal mechanism. This paper applies the analysis of causal mechanism to the origin and evolution of democratic peace theory, the challenges of realism over democratic peace theory, and the responses from democratic peace theory. Finally, we offer an alternative explanation to the debate between democratic peace theory and realism.

並列關鍵字

Qualitative Methods ； Causal Mechanism ； International Relations ； Democratic Peace Theory ； Realism

參考文獻

Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. 2016. “Selecting Appropriate Cases When Tracing Causal Mechanisms.” Sociological Methods and Research. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115622510 (January 13, 2016).

張文揚，2014，〈民主和平論與非民主和平論之經驗檢證：政治制度相似性的關鍵作用〉，《人文與社會科學集刊》，26(1): 1-39。Chang, Wen-yang. 2014. “mín zhǔ hé píng lùn yǔ fēimín zhǔ hé píng lùn zhī jīng yàn jiǎn zhèng: zhèng zhì zhì dù xiāng sì xìng de guān jiàn zuò yòng” [An Empirical Analysis of the Democratic Peace and Non-democratic Peace Theses: The Critical Effects of Political Institutional Similarity]. Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy, 26 (1): 1-39.

黃旻華，2001，〈「民主和平」研究的方法論：「聽眾成本」概念之辨析〉，《問題與研究》，40(1): 87-107。Huang, Min-hua. 2001. “mín zhǔhé píng yán jiù de fāng fǎlùn: tīng zhòng chéng běn gài niàn zhī biàn xī” [A Methodological Evaluation of the Democratic Peace Research]. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 40 (1): 87-107.

Allison, Graham, and Philip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman

Babst, Dean. 1972. “A Force for Peace.” Industrial Research, (April): 55-58.