1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of International Affairs
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 脈絡下的保護責任：文本探勘的再詮釋
Contextualizing Responsibility to Protect: Re-Interpretation of Text Mining
作者 張道宜
Chang, Tao Yi
貢獻者 陳至潔
Chen, Titus C.
張道宜
Chang, Tao Yi
關鍵詞 保護責任
社會建構論
概念史
文本探勘
Responsibility to Protect
Social Constructivism
Conceptual History
Text Mining
日期 2015
上傳時間 1-Oct-2015 14:26:53 (UTC+8)
摘要 保護責任（R2P）是當前國際社會最受矚目，但同時也最受爭議的概念之一，有人認為這個概念有助於實踐國際人權，幫助國際社會向需要幫助的人民伸出援手；有學者認為這是為了解決主權與人權之間的爭端；更有人認為這只是「人道干涉」的借屍還魂，不過是西方強權為了干涉他國的手段而已。
隨著時間進展，當2005年保護責任在世界高峰會（World Summit）中得到聯合國會員國一致共識同時，有人認為R2P原本試圖修正「人道干涉困境」與國際法架構的雄心壯志，淪落對現有國際法架構的確認，無疑地呈現顯著的概念質變（conceptual change）。然而當民主春風吹過中東與北非地區，阿拉伯之春導致許多政府爆發侵犯人權情事，R2P再度受到矚目，甚至在2011年被聯合國安理會引用，作為干涉利比亞局勢的重要說辭，產生與2005年世界高峰會截然不同的內容。儘管被視為R2P概念成形以來的一大勝利，但也掀起新一波對R2P概念的爭辯。
本文主張，R2P面臨如此爭議，「定義」以及「與主權關係」不明是最主要的原因之一。對於支持者而言，這是有別於人道干涉，且根據現行「負責任主權」的全新人權執行機制，符合「即時性」、「有效性」的大原則。但對於反對者而言，這是人道干涉藉由「責任」一詞改頭換面，「換湯不換藥」，表面說詞再動人，都無法掩蓋他基於國家私利，干涉他國完整，破壞國家主權體系的意圖。
為了解決這項爭議，本研究試圖透過「語料庫語言學」的方法回答以下研究問題：第一，對於實際參與聯合國決策的各國代表而言，到底何謂「R2P」？在聯合國的場域中，「R2P」的出現是否真如部分學者所主張，漸漸改變「主權」的內涵？第二，如果主權概念與「R2P」的概念確實存在連動關係，那關係為何？
根據本研究的研究成果可以發現，第一，在聯合國安理會的場域中，2005年世界高峰會的共識確實取代既有概念，讓「R2P」內容產生質變。但過去的「預防」概念依舊得到存續。第二，「R2P」概念的出現確實為「主權」增加更多的「責任」，儘管在安理會的場域中幅度並不大，但當有意識地使用「R2P」時，會特別強調「責任」的重要性。第三，儘管許多學者主張「R2P」的概念已經形成共識，重點在於「實踐」而非「爭辯」，但實際上真正重視「實踐」者，恐怕只有聯合國秘書長本人。
Although generally recognized in World Summit Outcome Document, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is one of the most controversial concepts of International Relations (IR). Especially, its relationship with sovereignty is one of the most debatable ones. For answering the questions, it is purposed to inquiry texts of meeting verbatim record of United Nations (UN), with the assistance of discourse analysis and digital toolkits. While scholars of IR and Political Thoughts have analyzed its theoretical, definition, legal and implementation dimensions, little attention is paid to its discursive change to examine their mutual influence. For proceeding full and large-scale research, present techniques of text mining enable researchers to work on “big texts”, and to extract the linguistic context beyond them. In general, this thesis is intended to complete the following advancements of IR studies: firstly, establish the contextual understanding of conceptual change of R2P and sovereignty, and find if hidden information exists behind those texts; secondly, if text mining and related toolkits does assist fulfillment of this proposal, it might be possibly new research skill to be applied in IR. This thesis investigates the present understandings of Sovereignty and R2P in IR. It hypothesizes that, firstly, most of present researches on R2P neglected the role of language; secondly, the generation of R2P might be related to the conceptual change of sovereignty in twenty-first century.
參考文獻 中文專書
江佩純、項潔. (2014). 數位人文研究與技藝 臺北市: 臺灣大學出版中心.
倪世雄. (2010). 當代國際關係理論 (2 ed.). 台北市: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
翁稷安、Ching-chihChen、林滿紅等著. (2011). 數位人文在歷史學研究的應用: new approaches to historical studies. 台北: 國立臺灣大學出版中心.
梁文韜. (2012). 國際政治理論與人道干預 : 論多元主義與團合主義之爭辯. 高雄市: 巨流.
理查·羅逖. (1998). 偶然．反諷與團結–一個實用主義者的政治想像 (徐文瑞, Trans.). 台北: 麥田.
郭承天. (1996). 國際建制與國際組織. 台北: 時英.
陳怡君、蔡炯民、項潔. (2011). 數位人文研究的新視野 : 基礎與想像 臺北市: 臺灣大學出版中心.
瑪莉．麥金. (2012). 維根斯坦與《哲學研究》 (李國山, Trans.). 台北: 五南.
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2010). 比较视野中的槪念史 (周保巍, Trans.). 上海市: 華東師範大學出版社.
Smith, T. D. M. K. S. (2013). 國際關係理論 : 學科的面貌 (葉宗顯, Trans.). 新北市: 韋伯文化國際.
西文專書
Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter?: agency and power in Asian regionalism. New York: Cornell University Press.
Alston, P., & MacDonald, E. (2008). Human rights, intervention and the use of force. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Annan, K. (2000). We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century: United Nations, Department of Public Information New York, NY.
Ball, T., Farr, J., & Hanson, R. L. (1989). Political innovation and conceptual change (Vol. 11): Cambridge University Press.
Beck, R. J., Arend, A. C., Vander Lugt, R. D., & Kelsen, H. (1996). International rules: approaches from international law and international relations: Oxford University Press New York and Oxford.
Bellamy, A. (2012). R2P–Dead or Alive? The Responsibility to Protect–From Evasive to Reluctant Action? (pp. 11-28). Johannesburg, South Africa: HSF, ISS, KAS & SAIIA.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Global politics and the responsibilty to protect : from words to deeds. London ; New York: Routledge.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics : investigating language structure and use. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Byers, M. (1999). Custom, power, and the power of rules : international relations and customary international law. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2002). Explorations in political discourse : methodological and critical perspectives. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang.
Checkel, J. T. (2007). International institutions and socialization in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, R. H., & Voïnov Kohler, J. (2008). The responsibility to protect : the global moral compact for the 21st century (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dai, X. (2007). The study of international institutions
International Institutions and National Policies: Cambridge University Press.
Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey: Longman.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2013). International Relations Theories:Discipline and Diversity: Oxford University Press.
Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations : the state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, C. (2008). The power of words in international relations : birth of an anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Evans, G. (2009). The Responsibility to Protect: From an Idea to an International Norm. In J. V. K. Richard H. Cooper (Ed.), Responsibility to Rrotect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century (pp. 15-30). New York Palgrave Macmillan
Evans, G. J. (2008). The responsibility to protect : ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Fierke, K. M., & Jorgensen, K. E. (2001). Constructing International Relations: the next generation: ME Sharpe.
Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Second international handbook of science education: Springer.
Glanville, L. (2013). Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History: University of Chicago Press.
Hampsher-Monk, I., Tilmans, K., & van Vree, F. (1998). History of concepts: Comparative perspectives: Amsterdam University Press.
Hathaway, O. A., & Koh, H. H. (2005). Foundations of international law and politics. New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press : Thomson West.
Hobson, A. (2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words: Oxford University Press.
ICISS. (2001a). The responsibility to protect : report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
ICISS. (2001b). The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background : Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottwa: International Development Research Centre.
Jackson, R. H. (2007). Sovereignty : evolution of an idea. Cambridge: Polity.
Kalmo, H., & Skinner, Q. (2010). Sovereignty in fragments : the past, present and future of a contested concept. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Cultural norms and national security: police and military in postwar Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International institutions: two approaches: Springer.
Klosko, G. (2011). The Oxford handbook of the history of political philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in international relations : the struggle against apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Klotz, A., & Prakash, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in international relations : a pluralist guide. Basingstoke England ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krasner, S. D. (1983). International regimes: Cornell University Press.
Lehto, M. (2014). Slowly but surely? The challenge of the responsibility to protect. In R. L. a. J. Petman (Ed.), International Law-making (pp. 283-297). New York: Routledge.
Lowe, V. (2000). The Politics of Law-Making: Atre the Method and Character of Norm Creatuon Changing? In M. Byers (Ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics New York: Oxford University Press.
Melching, W., & Velema, W. (1994). Main Trends in Cultural History: Ten Essays: Rodopi.
Miner, G. (2012). Practical text mining and statistical analysis for non-structured text data applications (1st ed.). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1992). Liberalism and international relations theory: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University Cambridge, MA.
Morgenthau, H. J., Thompson, K. W., & Clinton, W. D. (2006). Politics among nations : the struggle for power and peace. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
percy, S. (2007). Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations. NY: oxford Unversity Press.
Sandholtz, W., & Stiles, K. W. (2008). International Norms and Cycles of Change.
Sandholtz, W., & Stiles, K. W. (2009). International norms and cycles of change. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Shawki, N., & Cox, M. (2009). Negotiating sovereignty and human rights : actors and issues in contemporary human rights politics. Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.
Sinclair, A. (2010). International relations theory and international law : a critical approach. Cambridge ;: New York : Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Cambridge University Press.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2012). International relations theory (5th ed.). Boston: Longman.
中文期刊論文（含研討會論文）
李宏图. (2004). 西方思想史研究方法的演进. 浙江學刊, 1, 82. Retrieved from http://sfx.lib.nccu.edu.tw/sfxlcl41?sid=google&aulast=%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%8F%E5%9B%BE&atitle=%E8%A5%BF%E6%96%B9%E6%80%9D%E6%83%B3%E5%8F%B2%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E7%9A%84%E6%BC%94%E8%BF%9B&title=%E6%B5%99%E6%B1%9F%E5%AD%A6%E5%88%8A%2F%23%2F%E6%B5%99%E6%B1%9F%E5%AD%B8%E5%88%8A&volume=1&date=2004&spage=82&issn=1003-420X
莫大華. (2003). 理性主義與建構主義的辯論: 國際關係理論的另一次大辯論? 政治科學論叢(19), 113-138.
陳建守. (2013). 語言轉向與社會史: 科塞雷克及其概念史研究. 東亞觀念史集刊(4), 171-221.
黃俊傑. (1977). 思想史方法論的兩個側面. 臺大歷史學報, 04, 357-383.
楊正顯、魏綵瑩、黃克武、梁裕康. (2014). 發刊辭. 思想史, 2, i-vi. Retrieved from http://www.linkingbooks.com.tw/lnb/top/9789570842661p1.aspx
楊貞德. (1997). 歷史, 論述與 [語言] 分析-波卡克之政治思想研究方法述要. 中國文哲研究通訊, 7(4), 151-179.
鄭端耀. (1997). 國際關係 [新自由制度主義] 理論之評析. 問題與研究, 36(12), 1-22.
盧業中. (2002). 論國際關係理論之新自由制度主義. 問題與研究, 41(2), 43-67.
西文期刊論文（含研討會論文）
Acharya, A. (2013). The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards A Framework of Norm Circulation. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 466-479.
Annan, K. (1999). Two concepts of sovereignty. The economist, 18(9), 1999.
Armitage, D. (2004). THE FIFTY YEARS`RIFT: INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Modern Intellectual History, 1(01), 97-109.
Axelrod, R. (1986). An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095-1111.
Bellamy, A. J. (2006). Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(2), 143-169.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), 263-269. doi:10.1017/s0892679411000219
Devetak, R. (2014). Historiographical foundations of modern international thought: Histories of the European states-system from Florence to Göttingen. History of European Ideas(ahead-of-print), 1-16.
Diehl, G. G. a. P. F. (1992). Toward a Theory of International Norms: Some Conceptual and Measurement Issues. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 634-664.
Epstein, C. (2013). Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations. Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 499-519.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-416.
Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 363-389.
Gallagher, A. M. (2012). A Clash of Responsibility: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P. Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(3), 334-357.
Gries, S. T. (2015). Some Current Quantitative Problems in Corpus Linguistics and a Sketch of Some Solutions. [語料庫語言學量化研究的問題及其解決方案]. 語言暨語言學, 16(1), 93-117. doi:10.1177/1606822x14556606
Gurowitz, A. (2006). The Diffusion of International Norms: Why Identy Matters. International Politics, 43(3), 305-341.
Harris, G. E. (2007). Persuading Consensus: legitimating norms and norms legitimating-Some Implications for Diplomacy. Cross-sections, 3, 16.
Herrmann, R. K., & Shannon, V. P. (2001). Defending international norms: The role of obligation, material interest, and perception in decision making. International Organization, 55(03), 621-654.
Hirsch, M. B.-J. (2014). Ideational change and the emergence of the international norm of truth and reconciliation commissions. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 810-833.
Hofferberth, M., & Weber, C. (2015). Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(1), 75-103.
Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200.
Howard, P. (2004). Why not invade North Korea? Threats, language games, and US foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 805-828.
Keohane, R. O. (1998). International institutions: Can interdependence work? Foreign Policy, 82-194.
Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security, 20(1), 39-51.
Koslowski, R., & Kratochwil, F. V. (1994). Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet empire`s demise and the international system. International Organization, 48(02), 215-247.
Krasner, S. D. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics, 28(03), 317-347.
Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(02), 185-205.
Kvastad, N. B. (1977). Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, 157-174.
Mandelbaum, M. (1965). The history of ideas, intellectual history, and the history of philosophy. History and Theory, 5, 33-66.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). A realist reply. International Security, 82-93.
Miglietti, S. (2014). Meaning in a Changing Context: Towards an Interdisciplinary Approach to Authorial Revision. History of European Ideas, 40(4), 474-494.
Moses, J. (2013). Sovereignty as irresponsibility? A Realist critique of the Responsibility to Protect. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 113-135. doi:10.1017/s0260210512000113
O`Connor, B., David Bamman and Noah A. Smith. (2011). Computational Text Analysis for Social Science: Model Assumptions and Complexity. Paper presented at the NIPS Workshop on Computional Social Science and the Widsom of Crowds.
Orchard, P. (2012). The evolution of the responsibility to protect: at a crossroads? International Affairs, 88(2), 377-386. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01077.x
Piiparinen, T. (2012). Sovereignty-building: three images of positive sovereignty projected through Responsibility to Protect. Global Change, Peace & Security, 24(3), 405-424.
Richter, M. (1990). Reconstructing the history of political languages: Pocock, Skinner, and the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. History and Theory, 38-70.
Slaughter, A.-M., Tulumello, A. S., & Wood, S. (1998). International law and international relations theory: a new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship. American Journal of International Law, 367-397.
Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(3), 374-402.
Weeds, J., & Weir, D. (2005). Co-occurrence retrieval: A flexible framework for lexical distributional similarity. Computational Linguistics, 31(4), 439-475.
Weiss, T. G. (2006). R2P after 9/11 and the World Summit. Wis. Int`l LJ, 24, 741.
Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(01), 175-193. doi:doi:10.1017/S0260210509008377
Williams, P. D., & Bellamy, A. J. (2012). Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force. Global Governance, 18(3), 273-297. Retrieved from ://WOS:000307484800003
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
外交研究所
100253004
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1002530043
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 陳至潔zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Titus C.en_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張道宜zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Tao Yien_US
dc.creator (作者) 張道宜zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Tao Yien_US
dc.date (日期) 2015en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Oct-2015 14:26:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Oct-2015 14:26:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Oct-2015 14:26:53 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1002530043en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/78797-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 外交研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100253004zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 保護責任（R2P）是當前國際社會最受矚目，但同時也最受爭議的概念之一，有人認為這個概念有助於實踐國際人權，幫助國際社會向需要幫助的人民伸出援手；有學者認為這是為了解決主權與人權之間的爭端；更有人認為這只是「人道干涉」的借屍還魂，不過是西方強權為了干涉他國的手段而已。
隨著時間進展，當2005年保護責任在世界高峰會（World Summit）中得到聯合國會員國一致共識同時，有人認為R2P原本試圖修正「人道干涉困境」與國際法架構的雄心壯志，淪落對現有國際法架構的確認，無疑地呈現顯著的概念質變（conceptual change）。然而當民主春風吹過中東與北非地區，阿拉伯之春導致許多政府爆發侵犯人權情事，R2P再度受到矚目，甚至在2011年被聯合國安理會引用，作為干涉利比亞局勢的重要說辭，產生與2005年世界高峰會截然不同的內容。儘管被視為R2P概念成形以來的一大勝利，但也掀起新一波對R2P概念的爭辯。
本文主張，R2P面臨如此爭議，「定義」以及「與主權關係」不明是最主要的原因之一。對於支持者而言，這是有別於人道干涉，且根據現行「負責任主權」的全新人權執行機制，符合「即時性」、「有效性」的大原則。但對於反對者而言，這是人道干涉藉由「責任」一詞改頭換面，「換湯不換藥」，表面說詞再動人，都無法掩蓋他基於國家私利，干涉他國完整，破壞國家主權體系的意圖。
為了解決這項爭議，本研究試圖透過「語料庫語言學」的方法回答以下研究問題：第一，對於實際參與聯合國決策的各國代表而言，到底何謂「R2P」？在聯合國的場域中，「R2P」的出現是否真如部分學者所主張，漸漸改變「主權」的內涵？第二，如果主權概念與「R2P」的概念確實存在連動關係，那關係為何？
根據本研究的研究成果可以發現，第一，在聯合國安理會的場域中，2005年世界高峰會的共識確實取代既有概念，讓「R2P」內容產生質變。但過去的「預防」概念依舊得到存續。第二，「R2P」概念的出現確實為「主權」增加更多的「責任」，儘管在安理會的場域中幅度並不大，但當有意識地使用「R2P」時，會特別強調「責任」的重要性。第三，儘管許多學者主張「R2P」的概念已經形成共識，重點在於「實踐」而非「爭辯」，但實際上真正重視「實踐」者，恐怕只有聯合國秘書長本人。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Although generally recognized in World Summit Outcome Document, Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is one of the most controversial concepts of International Relations (IR). Especially, its relationship with sovereignty is one of the most debatable ones. For answering the questions, it is purposed to inquiry texts of meeting verbatim record of United Nations (UN), with the assistance of discourse analysis and digital toolkits. While scholars of IR and Political Thoughts have analyzed its theoretical, definition, legal and implementation dimensions, little attention is paid to its discursive change to examine their mutual influence. For proceeding full and large-scale research, present techniques of text mining enable researchers to work on “big texts”, and to extract the linguistic context beyond them. In general, this thesis is intended to complete the following advancements of IR studies: firstly, establish the contextual understanding of conceptual change of R2P and sovereignty, and find if hidden information exists behind those texts; secondly, if text mining and related toolkits does assist fulfillment of this proposal, it might be possibly new research skill to be applied in IR. This thesis investigates the present understandings of Sovereignty and R2P in IR. It hypothesizes that, firstly, most of present researches on R2P neglected the role of language; secondly, the generation of R2P might be related to the conceptual change of sovereignty in twenty-first century.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
表次 V
圖次 VI
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究動機 1
第二節 文獻回顧 3
一、 R2P概念演變 4
二、 R2P與主權的關係：相互建構或是彼此衝突？ 6
三、 小結 9
第三節 預期研究成果 11
第四節 研究範圍與限制 12
一、 研究範圍 12
二、 研究限制 13
第二章 保護責任與國際關係規範變遷 15
第一節 國際關係裡的規範研究 16
一、 何謂規範 16
二、 不同理論視角下的規範 18
第二節 規範的形成與變化－不同學派之間的對話 28
一、 規範的演變 29
二、 理性主義視角 30
三、 建構主義視角 33
第三節 規範研究與概念史 35
第四節 小結：規範研究在國關的優勢與劣勢 37
第三章國際關係裡的概念史 40
第一節 概念史及其分支 41
一、 劍橋學派 43
二、 德國概念史學派（BEGRIFFSGESCHICHTE） 45
第二節 概念史相關研究成果 47
一、 語言統計分析 47
二、 文本探勘 48
三、 台灣相關研究成果：數位人文 49
第三節 概念史與國際關係 51
一、 語言在國際關係學的角色 53
二、 概念史如何研究「保護責任」 55
第四章 研究與結果分析 57
第一節 研究方法概述 57
一、 資料來源 58
二、 共現詞彙歷時變化及語料庫比較 60
第二節 「主權」的共現詞彙歷時分析 61
第三節 「保護責任」的共現詞彙分析 66
第五章 結論 73
第一節「保護責任」的概念演變 73
第二節「主權」的概念演變 76
第三節 國際關係是否適用數位概念史研究 77
第四節 未來展望 79
附錄 81
參考文獻 89		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 3657147 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1002530043en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 保護責任zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會建構論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 概念史zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 文本探勘zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Responsibility to Protecten_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Social Constructivismen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Conceptual Historyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Text Miningen_US
dc.title (題名) 脈絡下的保護責任：文本探勘的再詮釋zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Contextualizing Responsibility to Protect: Re-Interpretation of Text Miningen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文專書
江佩純、項潔. (2014). 數位人文研究與技藝 臺北市: 臺灣大學出版中心.
倪世雄. (2010). 當代國際關係理論 (2 ed.). 台北市: 五南圖書出版股份有限公司.
翁稷安、Ching-chihChen、林滿紅等著. (2011). 數位人文在歷史學研究的應用: new approaches to historical studies. 台北: 國立臺灣大學出版中心.
梁文韜. (2012). 國際政治理論與人道干預 : 論多元主義與團合主義之爭辯. 高雄市: 巨流.
理查·羅逖. (1998). 偶然．反諷與團結–一個實用主義者的政治想像 (徐文瑞, Trans.). 台北: 麥田.
郭承天. (1996). 國際建制與國際組織. 台北: 時英.
陳怡君、蔡炯民、項潔. (2011). 數位人文研究的新視野 : 基礎與想像 臺北市: 臺灣大學出版中心.
瑪莉．麥金. (2012). 維根斯坦與《哲學研究》 (李國山, Trans.). 台北: 五南.
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2010). 比较视野中的槪念史 (周保巍, Trans.). 上海市: 華東師範大學出版社.
Smith, T. D. M. K. S. (2013). 國際關係理論 : 學科的面貌 (葉宗顯, Trans.). 新北市: 韋伯文化國際.
西文專書
Acharya, A. (2009). Whose ideas matter?: agency and power in Asian regionalism. New York: Cornell University Press.
Alston, P., & MacDonald, E. (2008). Human rights, intervention and the use of force. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Annan, K. (2000). We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century: United Nations, Department of Public Information New York, NY.
Ball, T., Farr, J., & Hanson, R. L. (1989). Political innovation and conceptual change (Vol. 11): Cambridge University Press.
Beck, R. J., Arend, A. C., Vander Lugt, R. D., & Kelsen, H. (1996). International rules: approaches from international law and international relations: Oxford University Press New York and Oxford.
Bellamy, A. (2012). R2P–Dead or Alive? The Responsibility to Protect–From Evasive to Reluctant Action? (pp. 11-28). Johannesburg, South Africa: HSF, ISS, KAS & SAIIA.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Global politics and the responsibilty to protect : from words to deeds. London ; New York: Routledge.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics : investigating language structure and use. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Byers, M. (1999). Custom, power, and the power of rules : international relations and customary international law. Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cap, P. (2002). Explorations in political discourse : methodological and critical perspectives. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: P. Lang.
Checkel, J. T. (2007). International institutions and socialization in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, R. H., & Voïnov Kohler, J. (2008). The responsibility to protect : the global moral compact for the 21st century (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dai, X. (2007). The study of international institutions
International Institutions and National Policies: Cambridge University Press.
Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R. L. (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey: Longman.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (2013). International Relations Theories:Discipline and Diversity: Oxford University Press.
Dunoff, J. L., & Pollack, M. A. (2013). Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations : the state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Epstein, C. (2008). The power of words in international relations : birth of an anti-whaling discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Evans, G. (2009). The Responsibility to Protect: From an Idea to an International Norm. In J. V. K. Richard H. Cooper (Ed.), Responsibility to Rrotect: The Global Moral Compact for the 21st Century (pp. 15-30). New York Palgrave Macmillan
Evans, G. J. (2008). The responsibility to protect : ending mass atrocity crimes once and for all. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Fierke, K. M., & Jorgensen, K. E. (2001). Constructing International Relations: the next generation: ME Sharpe.
Fraser, B. J., Tobin, K. G., & McRobbie, C. J. (2012). Second international handbook of science education: Springer.
Glanville, L. (2013). Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: A New History: University of Chicago Press.
Hampsher-Monk, I., Tilmans, K., & van Vree, F. (1998). History of concepts: Comparative perspectives: Amsterdam University Press.
Hathaway, O. A., & Koh, H. H. (2005). Foundations of international law and politics. New York, N.Y.: Foundation Press : Thomson West.
Hobson, A. (2004). The Oxford Dictionary of Difficult Words: Oxford University Press.
ICISS. (2001a). The responsibility to protect : report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
ICISS. (2001b). The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background : Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. Ottwa: International Development Research Centre.
Jackson, R. H. (2007). Sovereignty : evolution of an idea. Cambridge: Polity.
Kalmo, H., & Skinner, Q. (2010). Sovereignty in fragments : the past, present and future of a contested concept. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Cultural norms and national security: police and military in postwar Japan. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1989). International institutions: two approaches: Springer.
Klosko, G. (2011). The Oxford handbook of the history of political philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Klotz, A. (1995). Norms in international relations : the struggle against apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Klotz, A., & Prakash, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in international relations : a pluralist guide. Basingstoke England ; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krasner, S. D. (1983). International regimes: Cornell University Press.
Lehto, M. (2014). Slowly but surely? The challenge of the responsibility to protect. In R. L. a. J. Petman (Ed.), International Law-making (pp. 283-297). New York: Routledge.
Lowe, V. (2000). The Politics of Law-Making: Atre the Method and Character of Norm Creatuon Changing? In M. Byers (Ed.), The Role of Law in International Politics New York: Oxford University Press.
Melching, W., & Velema, W. (1994). Main Trends in Cultural History: Ten Essays: Rodopi.
Miner, G. (2012). Practical text mining and statistical analysis for non-structured text data applications (1st ed.). Waltham, MA: Academic Press.
Moravcsik, A. (1992). Liberalism and international relations theory: Center for International Affairs, Harvard University Cambridge, MA.
Morgenthau, H. J., Thompson, K. W., & Clinton, W. D. (2006). Politics among nations : the struggle for power and peace. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
percy, S. (2007). Mercenaries: The History of a Norm in International Relations. NY: oxford Unversity Press.
Sandholtz, W., & Stiles, K. W. (2008). International Norms and Cycles of Change.
Sandholtz, W., & Stiles, K. W. (2009). International norms and cycles of change. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.
Shawki, N., & Cox, M. (2009). Negotiating sovereignty and human rights : actors and issues in contemporary human rights politics. Farnham, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub.
Sinclair, A. (2010). International relations theory and international law : a critical approach. Cambridge ;: New York : Cambridge University Press.
Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of Politics: Cambridge University Press.
Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2012). International relations theory (5th ed.). Boston: Longman.
中文期刊論文（含研討會論文）
李宏图. (2004). 西方思想史研究方法的演进. 浙江學刊, 1, 82. Retrieved from http://sfx.lib.nccu.edu.tw/sfxlcl41?sid=google&aulast=%E6%9D%8E%E5%AE%8F%E5%9B%BE&atitle=%E8%A5%BF%E6%96%B9%E6%80%9D%E6%83%B3%E5%8F%B2%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%96%B9%E6%B3%95%E7%9A%84%E6%BC%94%E8%BF%9B&title=%E6%B5%99%E6%B1%9F%E5%AD%A6%E5%88%8A%2F%23%2F%E6%B5%99%E6%B1%9F%E5%AD%B8%E5%88%8A&volume=1&date=2004&spage=82&issn=1003-420X
莫大華. (2003). 理性主義與建構主義的辯論: 國際關係理論的另一次大辯論? 政治科學論叢(19), 113-138.
陳建守. (2013). 語言轉向與社會史: 科塞雷克及其概念史研究. 東亞觀念史集刊(4), 171-221.
黃俊傑. (1977). 思想史方法論的兩個側面. 臺大歷史學報, 04, 357-383.
楊正顯、魏綵瑩、黃克武、梁裕康. (2014). 發刊辭. 思想史, 2, i-vi. Retrieved from http://www.linkingbooks.com.tw/lnb/top/9789570842661p1.aspx
楊貞德. (1997). 歷史, 論述與 [語言] 分析-波卡克之政治思想研究方法述要. 中國文哲研究通訊, 7(4), 151-179.
鄭端耀. (1997). 國際關係 [新自由制度主義] 理論之評析. 問題與研究, 36(12), 1-22.
盧業中. (2002). 論國際關係理論之新自由制度主義. 問題與研究, 41(2), 43-67.
西文期刊論文（含研討會論文）
Acharya, A. (2013). The R2P and Norm Diffusion: Towards A Framework of Norm Circulation. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5(4), 466-479.
Annan, K. (1999). Two concepts of sovereignty. The economist, 18(9), 1999.
Armitage, D. (2004). THE FIFTY YEARS`RIFT: INTELLECTUAL HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. Modern Intellectual History, 1(01), 97-109.
Axelrod, R. (1986). An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095-1111.
Bellamy, A. J. (2006). Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit. Ethics & International Affairs, 20(2), 143-169.
Bellamy, A. J. (2011). Libya and the Responsibility to Protect: The Exception and the Norm. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), 263-269. doi:10.1017/s0892679411000219
Devetak, R. (2014). Historiographical foundations of modern international thought: Histories of the European states-system from Florence to Göttingen. History of European Ideas(ahead-of-print), 1-16.
Diehl, G. G. a. P. F. (1992). Toward a Theory of International Norms: Some Conceptual and Measurement Issues. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 36(4), 634-664.
Epstein, C. (2013). Constructivism or the eternal return of universals in International Relations. Why returning to language is vital to prolonging the owl’s flight. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 499-519.
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-416.
Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 363-389.
Gallagher, A. M. (2012). A Clash of Responsibility: Engaging with Realist Critiques of the R2P. Global Responsibility to Protect, 4(3), 334-357.
Gries, S. T. (2015). Some Current Quantitative Problems in Corpus Linguistics and a Sketch of Some Solutions. [語料庫語言學量化研究的問題及其解決方案]. 語言暨語言學, 16(1), 93-117. doi:10.1177/1606822x14556606
Gurowitz, A. (2006). The Diffusion of International Norms: Why Identy Matters. International Politics, 43(3), 305-341.
Harris, G. E. (2007). Persuading Consensus: legitimating norms and norms legitimating-Some Implications for Diplomacy. Cross-sections, 3, 16.
Herrmann, R. K., & Shannon, V. P. (2001). Defending international norms: The role of obligation, material interest, and perception in decision making. International Organization, 55(03), 621-654.
Hirsch, M. B.-J. (2014). Ideational change and the emergence of the international norm of truth and reconciliation commissions. European Journal of International Relations, 20(3), 810-833.
Hofferberth, M., & Weber, C. (2015). Lost in translation: a critique of constructivist norm research. Journal of International Relations and Development, 18(1), 75-103.
Hopf, T. (1998). The promise of constructivism in international relations theory. International Security, 23(1), 171-200.
Howard, P. (2004). Why not invade North Korea? Threats, language games, and US foreign policy. International Studies Quarterly, 48(4), 805-828.
Keohane, R. O. (1998). International institutions: Can interdependence work? Foreign Policy, 82-194.
Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (1995). The promise of institutionalist theory. International Security, 20(1), 39-51.
Koslowski, R., & Kratochwil, F. V. (1994). Understanding change in international politics: the Soviet empire`s demise and the international system. International Organization, 48(02), 215-247.
Krasner, S. D. (1976). State power and the structure of international trade. World Politics, 28(03), 317-347.
Krasner, S. D. (1982). Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. International Organization, 36(02), 185-205.
Kvastad, N. B. (1977). Semantics in the Methodology of the History of Ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, 157-174.
Mandelbaum, M. (1965). The history of ideas, intellectual history, and the history of philosophy. History and Theory, 5, 33-66.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1994). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (1995). A realist reply. International Security, 82-93.
Miglietti, S. (2014). Meaning in a Changing Context: Towards an Interdisciplinary Approach to Authorial Revision. History of European Ideas, 40(4), 474-494.
Moses, J. (2013). Sovereignty as irresponsibility? A Realist critique of the Responsibility to Protect. Review of International Studies, 39(1), 113-135. doi:10.1017/s0260210512000113
O`Connor, B., David Bamman and Noah A. Smith. (2011). Computational Text Analysis for Social Science: Model Assumptions and Complexity. Paper presented at the NIPS Workshop on Computional Social Science and the Widsom of Crowds.
Orchard, P. (2012). The evolution of the responsibility to protect: at a crossroads? International Affairs, 88(2), 377-386. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01077.x
Piiparinen, T. (2012). Sovereignty-building: three images of positive sovereignty projected through Responsibility to Protect. Global Change, Peace & Security, 24(3), 405-424.
Richter, M. (1990). Reconstructing the history of political languages: Pocock, Skinner, and the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. History and Theory, 38-70.
Slaughter, A.-M., Tulumello, A. S., & Wood, S. (1998). International law and international relations theory: a new generation of interdisciplinary scholarship. American Journal of International Law, 367-397.
Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: still an American social science? The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 2(3), 374-402.
Weeds, J., & Weir, D. (2005). Co-occurrence retrieval: A flexible framework for lexical distributional similarity. Computational Linguistics, 31(4), 439-475.
Weiss, T. G. (2006). R2P after 9/11 and the World Summit. Wis. Int`l LJ, 24, 741.
Wiener, A. (2009). Enacting meaning-in-use: qualitative research on norms and international relations. Review of International Studies, 35(01), 175-193. doi:doi:10.1017/S0260210509008377
Williams, P. D., & Bellamy, A. J. (2012). Principles, Politics, and Prudence: Libya, the Responsibility to Protect, and the Use of Military Force. Global Governance, 18(3), 273-297. Retrieved from ://WOS:000307484800003		zh_TW