國家安全的再思考：三種批判理論的分析

本文探討國際關係學術界內部可能存在的「政治問題」，並且探究現今行動主義者學術成就的解釋能量。本文分析三種流行的「批判」途徑，分別為哥本哈根學派的「安全化」途徑、坎貝爾所代表的後結構主義者的「解構途徑」，以及批判性安全研究的「解放」途徑，因為他們對現狀的批評有共同的根基，尤其是他們對種族衝突的辯論以及他們各自的自身限制。本文主要的目的是希冀超越理論辯論的關注，轉而嚴肅地看待真實的政治後果，對國際關係的研究不應簡單的指責為「極度的政治」或「將政治帶入教室」之類，因為國際關係學術界已經具有政治性質。本文認為，儘管三項途徑之間有所差異，但遭受相同的缺陷，亦即他們仍是與壓制具有某種程度的共謀關係，而且似乎是一種對國際關係學術界根本的精神違背。

關鍵字

安全化；解構；解放；國家安全

並列摘要

This paper analyses three popular 'critical' approaches, especially as they relate to 'ethnic conflict' and highlights their limitations that have common root in a politics of indifference. The approaches to be analysed are the Copenhagen School 'securitization' approach, David Campbell's post-structuralist deconstruction approach, and the Critical Security Studies emancipatory approach. The main claim is that calls to look beyond theoretical debates and take real political consequences seriously cannot be accused of being 'excessively political' or 'bringing politics into the classroom', because IR academia already is political, but in a way that the vast majority of IR academics do not acknowledge. This paper suggests that these three approaches suffer from the same shortcoming, despite the differences between them, namely that they are complicit in oppression and that this is likely a fundamental betrayal of the spirit of international relations academia.

並列關鍵字

securitization ； post-structuralist deconstruction ； emancipatory ； national security

主題瀏覽