國際典則：理論與經驗的對話──以國際銀行監管中的巴塞爾協議及協定為例

Abstract

國際典則一詞提出已逾四分之一個世紀，學者們在應用時也發展出不同理論和看法，本文前半部梳理新現實主義、新自由主義和社會學式途徑三種主要對國際典則的觀點，並區分學派內部對國際典則是否發揮獨立影響作用的細微區別。其差基本教義派的新現實主義認為國際典則是毫無作用的、修正新現實主義則承認其可算是中介變數；新自由主義不只承認其發生獨立作用，同時也存在於國際事務上的各個議題叢中；修正新自由主義則認為國際典則的存在是視議題而定。社會學途徑則以認知過程說明國際典則的存在及如何發生獨立作用，而可區分為國際社會途徑、弱認知主義和建構主義三派。本文後半部則以巴塞爾協議及協定的形成作歷史性的經驗敘述，與各典則論作一對話，並對各典則觀加以評估其解釋力。本文指出除了揉合各典則觀、提出全整性的模式外，還提出各典則觀可以「水平式」、「垂直式」解釋典則形成的結論。

There are three schools of thought regarding international regimes since this concept was presented in 1975. The first is neorealism (based on power), the second is neoliberalism (based on interests), and the third is a sociological approach (based on cognition). This paper reviews the theories of international regimes and their debates. The author also provides a historical description of the formation of the Basel Concordat and Basel Accord, the most two important documents on international banking supervisions, as a base of dialogue between the theories. All of the schools have their strengths and weaknesses in explaining regimes. The author concludes that three schools can interpret the formation both ´horizontally ´ and ´vertically ´, yet the synthesis approach of the three schools is inconsistent in theoretical logic.