請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37730
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 石之瑜(Chih-yu Shih) | |
dc.contributor.author | Ming-Chieh Kuo | en |
dc.contributor.author | 郭銘傑 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-13T15:40:48Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2008-07-09 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2008-07-09 | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2008-07-07 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 中文論文
牛軍,2006。「世界的中國:21世紀出的中國外交研究」,《國際政治研究》,2006年第1期,頁112-121。 王建朗、酈永慶,1999。「50年來的近代中外關係史研究」,《近代 史研究》,1999年第5期,頁131-156。 李恩涵,1988。「中國外交史的研究」,載於《六十年來的中國近代史研究。台北:中央研究院近代史研究,頁47-72。 明居正,1995。「中國外交史分析架構之再思考」,《政治科學論叢》,第6期,頁259-278。 邱坤玄,2005。「國際關係理論與中共外交研究的對話」,發表於「回顧與前瞻:在台灣的中國研究」研討會。台北:國立政治大學中國大陸研究中心,頁1-14。 唐啟華,2004。「全球化下外交史研究的省思」,《興大歷史學報》,第15期。台中:國立中興大學歷史系,頁201-217。 翁松燃,2005。「中國研究的過去與展望」,《中國大陸研究中心通訊》,第1期,頁32-34。 陸柏彬,2006。「從冷戰到中國的崛起:美國對中國外交政策研究的變化與延續」,《世界經濟與政治》,2006年第10期,頁66-74。 蔣廷黻,1977。「外交史與外交史料」,《蔣廷黻選集》,第一冊。台北:傳記文學,頁117-130 。 魏思齊,2007。「美國漢學研究的概況」,《漢學研究通訊》,第26卷,第2期,頁30-40。 中文專書 王曾才,1993年。《中國外交史要義》。台北:經世文化。 石之瑜,1995年。《大陸問題研究》。台北:五南。 甘懷真,2007年。《東亞歷史上的天下與中國概念》。台北:台灣大 學出版社。 李恩涵,1993年。《北伐前後的「革命外交」》。台北:中央研究院近史所。 李揚帆,2005年。《走出晚清:涉外人物及中國的世界觀念之研究》。北京:北京大學出版社。 胡秋原,1970年。《近百年來中外關係》。台北市:學術出版社。 唐啟華,1998年。《北京政府與國際聯盟(1919-1928)》。台北:東大。 傅啟學,1972年。《中國外交史》。台北:商務印書館。 楊公素,2002年。《當代中國外交理論與實踐(1949-2001)》。香港:勵志出版社。 張歷歷,1999年。《20世紀的中國:對外關係卷》。甘肅:甘肅人民出版社。 賈慶國,1998年。《未實現的和解:中美關係的隔闔與危機》。北京:文化藝術出版社。 廖光生,1988年。《排外與中國政治》。台北:三民。 葉自成,2000年。《新中國外交思想:從毛澤東到鄧小平》。北京大學出版社。 蔡東杰,2001年。《李鴻章與清季中國外交》。台北:文津。 蔡東杰,2000年。《中國外交史》。台北:風雲論壇。 濱下武志,1999年。《近代中國的國際契機:朝貢貿易體系與近代亞洲經濟圈》。北京:中國社會科學出版社。 藍玉春,2007年。《中國外交史-本質與事件、衝擊與回應》。台北:三民。 英文論文 Boardman, Robert. 1974. “Themes and Explanations in Sinology,” in Roger L. Dial ed., Advancing and Contending Approaches to the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy. Halifax, Canada: Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University. pp. 5-50. Dittmer, Lowell. 1977. “Political Culture and Political Symbolism,” World Politics, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 552-583. Haber, Stephen H, David M. Kennedy, and Stephen D. Krasner. 1997. “Brothers under the Skin: Diplomatic History and International Relations,” International Security, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 34-43. Fairbank, John K. 1969. “Assignment for the ‘70’s,” American Historical Review, Vol. 74, No. 3, pp. 861-879 Jervis, Robert. 2001. “International History and International Politics: Why They Studied Differently,” in Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. pp. 385-402. Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2005. “Trends in Theory and Method in the Study of Chinese Foreign Policy,” presented for the conference on China Studies on the occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. Cambridge, Mass.: Fairbank Center for East Asian Research. <http://old.iwep.org.cn/pdf/2006/johnston%20FCEAR.pdf.> Lustick, Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, No. 3, pp. 605-618. Mote, Frederick W. 1964. “The Case for the Integrity of Sinology,” The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 531-534. Oksenberg, Michel. 1969. “’Sources and Methodological Problems in the Study of Contemporary China,” in A. Doak Barnett ed., Chinese Communist Politics in Action. Seattle: University of Washington Press. pp. 273-317. Roberts, Geoffrey. 2006. “History, Theory and the Narrative Turn in IR,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 703-714. Ross, Robert S. and Paul H. B. Godwin. 1993. “New Directions in Chinese Security Studies,” in David Shambaugh ed., American Studies of Contemporary China. New York: M. E. Sharpe. pp. 138-160 Ruggie, John G., Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane, and Philippe C. Schmitter. 2005. “Transformations in World Politics: The Intellectual Contributions of Ernst B. Hass,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 276-277. Shambaugh, David. 2007. “Studies of China’s Foreign and Security Policies in the United States,” in Robert Ash, David Shambaugh, and Seiichiro Takagi eds., China Watching. London: Routledge. pp. 213-240. Schroeder, Paul W. 2001. “International History: Why Historians Do It Differently than Political Scientists,” in Colin Elman and Miriam F. Elman eds., Bridges and Boundaries: Historians, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Politics. Massachusetts, USA: The MIT Press. pp. 403-416. Taylor, George E. 1971. “Special Report: The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, 1959-69,” Asian Studies of Professional Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 47. Wilson, Richard W. 1971. “Chinese Studies in Crisis,” World Politics, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 295-317. 英文專書 Barraclough, Geoffery. 1955. History in a Changing World. London: Basil Blackwell & Mott. Chao, C. Y. 194-. A Brief History of Chinese Foreign Relations. Taipei: China Cultural Service. Carr, Edward H. 1962. What is History? New York: Knopf. Chi, Hsi-sheng. 1976. Warlord Politics in China, 1916-1928. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Elman, Colin and Miriam F. Elman eds. 2001. Bridges and Boundaries: Historian, Political Scientists, and the Study of International Politics. Massachusetts, USA: The MIT Press. Evera, Stephen Van. 1997. Guide to Method for Students of Political Science. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Fairbank, John K. ed. 1968. The Chinese World Order. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Feng, Huiyun. 2007. Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Confucianism, Leadership and War. London: Routledge. Harding, Harry. 1992. A Fragile Relationship: The United States and China Since 1972. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Hunt, Michael H. 1983. The Making of a Special Relationship: The United States and China to 1914. New York: Columbia University Press. Hunt, Michael H. 1996. The Genesis of Chinese Communist Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press. Ho, Ping-Ti and Tang Tsou eds. 1968. China in Crisis: China’s Heritage and the Communist Political System, I, Book I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Johnston, Alastair Iain. 1995. Cultural Realism: Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Johnston, Alastair Iain. 2008. Social States: China in International Institutions, 1980-2000. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kaplan, Morton A. 1979. Towards Professionalism in International Theory: Macrosystem Analysis. New York: Free Press. Katzenstein, Peter J. and Takashi Shiraishi eds., 2006. Beyond Japan: The Dynamics of East Asian Regionalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Kertzer, David I. 1988. Ritual, Politics and Power. New Heaven: Yale University Press,. King, Gary Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liu, Lydia H. 2006. The Clash of Empires: The Invention of China in Modern World Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mancall, Mark. 1984. China at the Center: 300 Years of Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press. Nathan, Andrew J. 1976. Peking Politics, 1918-1923: Factionalism and the Failure of Constitutionalism. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nathan, Andrew J. and Robert S. Ross, 1997. The Great Wall and Empty Fortress. New York: W.W. Norton. Pye, Lucian. 1971. Warlord Politics: Conflict and Coalition in the Modernization of Republican China. New York: Praeger. Ross, Robert. 1995. Negotiating Cooperation: The United States and China, 1969-1989. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Scobell, Andrew. 2003. China’s Use of Force: Beyond the Great Wall and Long March. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Shih, Chih-yu. 1990. The Sprit of Chinese Foreign Policy: A Psychocultural View. New York: St. Martin Press. Swaine, Michael D. and Ashley J. Tellis. 2000. Interpreting China’s Grand Strategy: Past, Present, and Future. Washington, D.C.: Rand. Satori, Anne E. 2005. Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Trachtenberg, Marc. 2006. The Craft of International History: A Guide to Method. Terrill, Ross. 2003. The New Chinese Empire: And What It Means for the United States. New York: Basic Book. Tucker, Nancy B. 1983. Patterns in the Dust: Chinese American Relations and the Recognition Controversy, 1949-1950. New York: Columbia Press. Zhang, Yingjin. 1998. China in International Society since 1949: Alienation and Beyond. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Zhao, Shuisheng. 1997. Power Competition in East Asia: From the Old Chinese World Order to Post-Cold War Regional Mutipolarity. London: Macmillan Press. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/37730 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 中國外交研究分別隸屬於崇拜史料的歷史學與對理論狂熱的政治學,是否中國外交研究可以超越既有學術分工,而將兩個學科領域加以整合?本論文辯稱,視中國為一個文明整體而具有特殊性的漢學,可以提供一個視中國為特例的知識框架,整合外交史與政治學的中國外交研究。
藉由對歷史學與政治學這兩個領域有關中國外交的文獻進行象徵分析,論文對所欲提出的論點進行了可否證的檢驗。正如初步的發現所示,這種漢學的知識框架,非但出現在外交史家對中國外交的敘事中,也見於政治學者對中國外交的經驗分析中。這也就是說,視中國為特例的作法,由於不受歷史學重視史料與政治學注意理論的方法論限制,足為兩個學科彼此整合的一個可能共同基礎。此一漢學的途徑因此也就揭露了一種介於歷史學與政治學之間的中國外交。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Is it possible to integrate two disciplines of studying Chinese diplomacy, say, Historiography with the fetish of historical materials and Political Science with the cult of parsimonious theory? Yes, it is. The thesis argues that Sinology, which has long considered China as a distinctive or even unique civilization, could offer an epistemological framework of treating China as a special case, integrating Historiography and Political Science.
A falsifiable research is designed to test the argument by symbolic analysis of literature on Chinese diplomacy or foreign policy in two fields. As the preliminary finding demonstrates, such a Sinological epistemological framework is not only appeared in diplomatic historians’ narratives of Chinese diplomacy, but also available in political scientists’ empirical analysis of Chinese foreign policy. That is to say, treating China as a special case is a possible common ground for two disciplines with different methodological concerns to integrate with each other. This Sinological approach thus uncovers the Chinese diplomacy lost between Historiography and Political Science. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-13T15:40:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R93322049-1.pdf: 1225333 bytes, checksum: 017d18c6c6d86eaad92d057ef5ab544b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 論文審定書 ii
誌謝 iii 摘要 iv 目錄 vi 圖表目錄 ix 第一章 導論 1 第一節 問題緣起 1 第二節 研究目的 1 第三節 主要觀點 2 第四節 章節安排 3 第二章 中國外交研究之現況 6 第一節 外交史家的回顧 6 第二節 政治學者的回顧 10 第三節 小結 14 第三章 研究之批判與重建 16 第一節 研究之批判 16 第二節 研究之重建 24 第三節 小結 29 第四章 方法論 31 第一節 研究假設 32 第二節 研究方法 36 第三節 研究範圍 39 第五章 中國作為特例 43 第一節 外交史家的看法 43 第二節 政治學者的看法 51 第三節 小結 61 第六章 中國作為通例 64 第一節 政治學者的看法 64 第二節 外交史家的看法 74 第三節 小結 75 第七章 結論 77 第一節 研究發現 77 第二節 研究限制 79 第三節 研究貢獻 81 後記 84 參考書目 89 中文論文 89 中文專書 90 英文論文 91 英文專書 93 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 在歷史學與政治學之間的中國外交 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Chinese Diplomacy Lost Between Historiography and Political Science | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 96-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 唐啟華(Chi-hua Tang),陳世民(Shih-min Chen) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 中國外交,外交史,政治學,漢學,知識框架,可否證的檢驗, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Chinese diplomacy,diplomatic history,political science,Sinology,epistemological framework,falsifiable test, | en |
dc.relation.page | 96 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2008-07-08 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 社會科學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 政治學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 政治學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-97-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.2 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。