「成熟無政府狀態」、「文明衝突論」與全球化：主流國際關係理論之偏狹研究議程 

黃競涓 

摘            要

     Samuel P. Huntington在1993年所主張之「文明衝突論」，其重要性不在於該主張內容是否經得起批判與考驗，而在於其做為西方世界(尤其是美國)於後冷戰時期面對廣大第三世界國家人民之各種不幸時最好的策略，藉之將世界衝突的根源神秘化，進而敷衍甚至遮掩經濟分配議題的重要性。911事件後續之「反恐戰爭」反映的是延續「威斯法利亞秩序」(the Westphalian Order)所確立主權國家之排他性，以及西方世界正當化其近兩百年來對非西方世界之軍事侵略與經濟剝削之後果。本文從主權之排他性、後冷戰國際關係理論中「成熟無政府狀態」(mature anarchy) 及其所延伸之「和平區」(the zone of peace) 與「衝突區」(the zone of conflict)之論述，以及近二十年來甚囂塵上的全球化論述之經濟與文化面向切入，來探討「文明衝突論」的根源及其所衍生的問題意識與議程，並指出主導美國國際關係學門之新現實主義與新自由主義之內涵亦能包容「文明衝突論」並與新自由主義所標示之全球化趨勢相輔相成，繼續維護與鞏固既存之主權國家體系，並充分服務霸權美國及其西方盟邦之利益，幾乎漠視第三世界人民的權益及其所遭受各種宰制的迫害，並壓縮學術研究議程之內容，從而產生道德上之嚴重瑕疵。

 關鍵字 成熟無政府狀態  和平區與衝突區 

       文明衝突論  歷史終結論  全球化

Abstract

The events occurred on 11 September 2001 did not reflect the so-called ‘the clash of civilizations’ thesis. Instead, it reconfirmed the inclusion/exclusion demarcation implied by the sovereign order (or the Westphalian Order) and revealed the outcome of the long-term Western military domination and economic exploitation over the non-Western world.  There is a close relationship between ‘the clash of civilizations’ thesis and the sovereign order.  Both of them make a distinction between inside (order) and outside (disorder), and make a difference between a superior self and the inferior others.  They also assume that violent confrontation is deemed as a normal and regular occurrence in international relations.  After the events of 11 September 2001, on the one hand, ‘the clash of civilizations’ thesis has been consolidated because it just feeds the practical and moral consumptions of the US government; on the other hand, it has been convincingly criticized and deconstructed by many critical intellectuals.  The mainstream IR theories also accommodate ‘the clash of civilizations’ thesis pretty well.  Together, they serve the existing interests of the US hegemony and collateral interests of the Western world, and ignore the interests of the people in the third world and silence their voices.