国际政治科学

参考文献

[1]相关著作包括:J.K.Fairbank and S.Y.Teng,“On the Ch'ing Tributary System,”Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies,Vol.6,No.2(June1941),pp.135-246;J.K.Fairbank,“Tributary Trade and China's Relations with the West,”The Far Eastern Quarterly,Vol.1,No.2(February1942),pp.129-149;John King Fairbank,Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast:The Opening of the Treaty Ports,1842-1854(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1953),esp.chap.2;and John K.Fairbank,ed.,The Chinese World Order:Traditional China's Foreign Relations(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1968),esp.chap.1。中译本见陶文钊编选,林海、符致兴等译:《费正清集》,天津人民出版社1993年版。对费正清学术生涯的简介,见陶文钊:《费正清与美国的中国学》,《历史研究》1999年第1期。

[2]John E.Wills,Jr.,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency:Uses and Limits of Some Basic Ideas About Mid-Qing Dynasty Foreign Relations,”American Neptune,Vol.48,1988,pp.225-229,at p.229;Michael H.Hunt,“Chinese Foreign Relations in Historical Perspective,”in Harry Harding,ed.,China's Foreign Relations in the1980s(New Haven:Yale University Press,1984),pp.1-42,at p.37,fn.14.

[1]例如:Michael D.Swaine and Ashley J.Tellis,Interpreting China's Grand Strategy:Past,Present,and Future(Santa Monica,Calif.:RAND,2000).

[2]Alastair Iain Johnston,Cultural Realism:Strategic Culture and Grand Strategy in Chinese History(Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1995);Victoria Tin-bor Hui,War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2005);中文版见许田波著:《战争与国家形成:春秋战国与近代早期欧洲之比较》(徐进译),上海人民出版社2009年版。

[3]Brantly Womack,China and Vietnam:the Politics of Asymmetry(New York:Cambridge University Press,2006).

[4]秦亚青:《国际关系理论中国学派生成的可能和必然》,《世界经济与政治》2006年第3期。

[1]这些批评包括:Joseph F.Fletcher,“China and Central Asia,1368-1884,”in Fairbank,ed.,TheChinese World Order,pp.206-224;Morris Rossabi,ed.,China among Equals:The Middle Kingdom and ItsNeighbors,10th-14th Centuries(Berkeley,Calif.:University of California Press,1983);John E.Wills,Jr.,Pepper,Guns,and Parleys:The Dutch East India Company and China,1662-1681(Cambridge,Mass.:1974);John E.Wills,Jr.,Embassies and Illusions:Dutch and Portuguese Envoys to K'ang-hsi,1666-1687(Cambridge,Mass.:Council on East Asian Studies,Harvard University,1984);John E Wills,Jr.,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency:Uses and Limits of Some Basic Ideas About Mid-Qing DynastyForeign Relations,”American Neptune,Vol.48(1988),pp.225-229;Arthur Waldron,The Great Wall ofChina:From History to Myth(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990),p.31;James L.Hevia,Cherishing Men from Afar:Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of1793(Durham and London:DukeUniversity Press,1995);James A.Millward,“Qing Silk-Horse Trade with the Qazaqs in Yili and Tarbaghatai,1758-1853,”Central and Inner Asian Studies7(1992),pp.1-42;James A.Millward,Beyond the Pass:Economy,Ethnicity,and Empire in Qing Central Asia,1759-1864(Stanford:Stanford University Press,1998);Peter C.Perdue,“A Frontier View of Chineseness,”in Giovanni Arrighi,Takeshi Hamashita andMark Selden,ed.,The Resurgence of East Asia:500,150and50Year Perspective(London:Routledge,2003),pp.51-77;Peter C.Perdue,China Marches West:The Qing Conquest of Central Eurasia(Cambridge,Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,2005);Nicola Di Cosmo,“Kirghiz Nomads on theQing Frontier:Tribute,Trade,or Gift-Exchange?”in Nicola Di Cosmo and Don J.Wyatt,eds.,PoliticalFrontiers,Ethnic Boundaries,and Human Geographies in Chinese History(London:Curzon Press,2003),pp.351-372。

[2]参见Paul M.Evans,John Fairbank and the American Understanding of Modern China(New York:Basil Blackwell,1988)。

[3]同上书,第56页。

[1]Mark Mancall,“The Ch'ing Tribute System:An Interpretive Essay,”in Fairbank,ed.,The ChineseWorld Order,pp.63-89,at p.63.

[2]参见权赫秀:《中国古代朝贡关系研究评述》,《中国边疆史地研究》2005年9月第3期。

[1]Fairbank and Teng,“On the Ch'ing Tributary System,”pp.137,139.

[2]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”pp.1-2.也可参见C.P.Fitzgerald,The Chinese View ofTheir Place in the World(London:Oxford University Press,1964);and John Cranmer-Byng,“The ChineseView of Their Place in the World:An Historical Perspective,”The China Quarterly,No.53(Jan.-Mar.,1973),pp.67-79,at p.68。

[3]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”p.2.

[4]Ibid.,p.9.

[5]Ibid.,p.4.

[6]Fairbank and Teng,“On the Ch'ing Tributary System,”pp.140-141.

[1]Fairbank,“Tributary Trade,”p.137.

[2]Ibid.,p.145.

[3]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”p.10.

[4]Evans,John Fairbank,p.5.

[6]代表性著作包括:李云泉:《朝贡制度史论—中国古代对外关系体制研究》,北京,新华出版社2004年版;付百臣:《中朝历代朝贡制度研究》,长春,吉林人民出版社2008年版;喻常森:《试论朝贡制度的演变》,《南洋问题研究》2000年第1期。一个值得注意的例外是何芳川:《华夷秩序论》,《北京大学学报》1998年第6期。

[1]李云泉:《朝贡制度史论》。

[2]陈尚胜主编:《中国传统对外关系的思想、制度与政策》,济南,山东大学出版社2007年版。

[3]Hedley Bull,The Anarchical Society:A Study of order in World Politics(London:Macmillan,1977),p.74.

[1]Yongjin Zhang,“System,Empire and State in Chinese International Relations”,in Michael Cox,TimDunne and Ken Booth,eds.,Empires,Systems and States:Great Transformation in International Politics(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2001),pp.43-63,at p.57.

[2]参见Christian Reus-Smit,The Moral Purpose of the State:Culture,Social Identity,and InstitutionalRationality in International Relations(Princeton,N.J.:Princeton University Press,1999)。

[1]甘怀真:《皇权、礼仪与经典诠释:中国古代政治史研究》,台北喜马拉雅基金会2003年版,第508页。亦见罗志田:《后现代主义与中国研究:〈怀柔远人〉的史学启示》,《历史研究》1999年第1期,第111页。

[2]高明士:《东亚古代的政治与教育》,台北喜马拉雅基金会2003年版。

[1]关于中国优越性观念的演变,见Wang Gungwu,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia:ABackground Essay,”in Fairbank,ed.,The Chinese World Order,pp.34-62。

[2]Wang Gungwu,“The Rhetoric of a Lesser Empire:Early Sung relations with Its Neighbors,”inRossabi,ed.,China among Equals,pp.47-65,at p.62.

[3]Ibid.,p.57。

[4]Wang,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia,”p.36.

[5]Wills,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency,”p.226.

[6]Jing-shen Tao,Two Sons of Heaven:Studies in Sung-Liao Relations(Tucson:University of ArizonaPress,1988),p.8;cited in Q.Edward Wang,“History,Space,and Ethnicity:The Chinese Worldview,”Journal of World History,Vol.10,No.2(Fall1999),pp.285-305,at p.295.

[1]Michael H.Hunt,“Chinese Foreign Relations in Historical Perspective,”in Harry Harding,ed.,China's Foreign Relations in the1980s(New Haven:Yale University Press,1984),pp.1-42,at pp.6-7.

[2]宋成有:《东北亚传统国际体系的变迁—传统中国与周边国家及民族的互动关系论述》,台北中央研究院2002年版,第41页。

[3]Wills,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency,”p.226.

[4]有学者指出“传统天下观具有开放和封闭两种模式”。金观涛、刘青峰:《观念史研究:中国现代重要政治术语的形成》,北京,法律出版社2009年版,第227页。

[5]Wills,Embassies and Illusions;Wills,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency.”

[6]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”p.11.

[7]John K.Fairbank,“China's Foreign Policy in Historical Perspective,”Foreign Affairs,Vol.47,No.3(April1969),pp.449-463,at p.459.

[1]Wills,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency,”p.226.

[2]基于中华中心主义,费正清写道:“粗野的外来人,不管他们是多么的愚钝,无法不欣赏中华文明的优越性,并很自然的寻求‘来化’以分享其中的好处”。Fairbank,“Tributary Trade,”p.132。

[3]Paul A.Cohen,Discovering History in China:American Historical Writing on the Recent Chinese Past(New York:Columbia University Press,1984),p.189.

[1]Fairbank,“Tributary Trade,”p.137.

[2]David C.Kang,“Getting Asia Wrong:The Need for New Analytical Frameworks,”InternationalSecurity,Vol.27,No.2(Spring2003),pp.57-85;David C.Kang,China Rising:Peace,Power and Orderin East Asia(New York:Columbia University Press,2007).

[1]Wang,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia,”p.60.

[2]孙卫国:《大明旗号与小中华意识—朝鲜王朝尊周思明问题研究,1637—1800》,北京,商务印书馆2007年版;葛兆光:《渐行渐远—清代中叶朝鲜、日本与中国的陌生感》,《书城》2004年第9期。

[3]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”p.13.

[1]Wang Zhen-ping,Sino-Japanese Relations before the Eleventh Century:Modes of DiplomaticCommunication Reexamined in Terms of the Concept of Reciprocity(PhD Diss.,Princeton University,1989).See also Perdue,“A Frontier View of Chineseness,”p.66.

[2]Di Cosmo,“Kirghiz Nomads on the Qing Frontier.”

[3]Millward,Beyond the Pass,p.158.

[4]Fairbank and Teng,“On the Ch'ing Tributary System,”p.137;Mancall,China at theCenter,p.13;Wills,Embassies and Illusions,p.14.

[1]这一时期的官方话语可见李国祥等编:《明实录类纂:涉外史料卷》,武汉出版社1991年版。

[2]Fletcher,“China and Central Asia,1368-1884.,”p.214.

[3]王赓武指出,在历史不同时期中国有着“一种完全实用与灵活的对外政策”。Wang Gungwu,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia,”p.43。

[1]章培恒、喻遂生编:《明史,第十册》,上海,汉语大词典出版社2004年版,第6727页。

[2]相关史实参见Wang Yi-T'ung,Official Relations Between China and Japan,1368-1549(Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1953);and Edward L.Dreyer,Early Ming China:A PoliticalHistory,1355-1435(Stanford,Calif.:Stanford University Press,1982)。

[3]但是必须指出,所谓所有官方关系都必须基于朝贡也是有例外的。例如,朝贡并不是清朝与中亚游牧部落建立官方关系的唯一方式。参见Ning Chia,“The Lifanyuan and the Inner Asian Rituals in theEarly Qing(1644-1795),”Late Imperial China,Vol.14,No.1(June1993),pp.60-92,at p.80。

[4]Wang Yi-T'ung,Official Relations Between China and Japan,pp.52-53.

[5]参见Dreyer,Early Ming China。

[1]Wills,Embassies and Illusions,p.4.

[2]Mark Mancall,China at the Center:300Years of Foreign Policy(New York:The Free Press,1984),p.13.

[1]黄枝连:《东亚的礼仪世界:中国封建王朝与朝鲜半岛关系形态论》,北京,中国人民大学出版社1994年版,第185页。

[2]Wang Gungwu,China and the Chinese Overseas(Singapore:Times Academic Press,1991),p.112.

[3]John D.Langlois,Jr.,“The Hung-wu Reign,1368-1398,”in Frederick W.Mote and DenisTwitchett,eds.,The Cambridge History of China,Volume7:The Ming Dynasty,1368-1644,Part I(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988),p.166.

[4]Donald Neil Clark,Autonomy,Legitimacy,and Tributary Politics:Sino-Korean Relations in the Fallof Koryǒand the Founding of the Yi(Ph.D.diss.,Harvard University,1978),p.136.

[5]黄枝连:《东亚的礼仪世界》,第280页。

[6]参见Dreyer,Early Ming China.

[1]黄枝连:《东亚的礼仪世界》,第373—375页。

[2]L.Carrington Goodrich and Chaoying Fang,eds.,Dictionary of Ming Biography:1368-1644(NewYork:Columbia University Press,1976),pp.1600-1601.

[3]Henry Serruys,Sino-Jurchen Relations during the Yong-lo Period(1403-1424)(Wiesbaden,1955).

[4]李国祥等编:《明实录类纂》,第19页;章培恒、喻遂生编:《明史》,第6862页。

[1]章培恒、喻遂生编:《明史》,第6836—6837页。

[2]参见Millward,Beyond the Pass,p.9。

[3]Fairbank,“A preliminary Framework,”p.12.

[4]Mancall,China at the Center,p.30.

[5]参见Wills,Embassies and Illusions,pp.177-178。

[6]参见陈志刚:《中国古代封贡体系的本质属性:中原王朝陆基性国土防御体系—以封贡体系的理论框架与内部组成、运作规律为中心》,载于陈尚胜主编:《中国传统对外关系的思想、制度与政策》,第154—156页。

[7]Perdue,China Marches West;Millward,“Qing Silk-Horse Trade;”Millward,Beyond the Pass;DiCosmo,“Kirghiz Nomads on the Qing Frontier.”

[1]Perdue,“A Frontier View of Chineseness,”p.66.

[2]Rossabi,ed.,China among Equals.

[3]Wang,“The Rhetoric of a Lesser Empire,”p.62.

[4]这一描述即便对中晚清而言也可能失之精确。晚清外交政策也有灵活甚至机会主义的一面。参见Hunt,The Genesis of Chinese Communist Foreign Policy(New York:Columbia University Press,1996),p.31。

[1]Hevia,Cherishing Men from Afar.

[2]Perdue,“A Frontier View of Chineseness,”p.67.

[3]Ying-shih Yü,Trade and Expansion in Han China:A Study in the Structure of Sino-BarbarianEconomic Relations(Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press,1967).

[5]Wang,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia,”p.62.

[1]相似观点也见于陈尚胜:《中国传统对外关系研究刍议》,载于陈尚胜主编:《中国传统对外关系的思想、制度与政策》,第15页。

[2]参见Craig Parsons,How to Map Arguments in Political Science(Oxford:Oxford University Press,2007),chap.3.

[1]Wang,“Early Ming Relations with Southeast Asia,”p.61.

[2]Prasenjit Duara,The Global and Regional in China's Nation-Formation(London and New York:Routledge,2009),p.99.

[1]Wills,Embassies and Illusions,p.172.

[2]Wills,“Tribute,Defensiveness,and Dependency,”p.225.

[1]罗志田:《天下与世界:清末士人关于人类社会认知的转变—侧重梁启超的观念》,中国社会科《学》2007年第5期,第203页。另见陈尚胜:《中国传统对外关系研究刍议》。

[2]如罗志田所言:“‘朝贡’的确是当年确立国际关系的一个主要象征,同时也还有许多不为‘朝贡’所包含的面相”。罗志田:《天下与世界:清末士人关于人类社会认知的转变—侧重梁启超的观念》,《中国社会科学》2007年第5期,第203页。另见陈尚胜:《中国传统对外关系研究刍议》。

[3]Hevia,Cherishing Men from Afar,p.xi.