FUDAN JOURNAL (Social Sciences),,,,,,

Transcription

1 ( ) FUDAN JOURNAL (Social Sciences) No (, ) [ ],, ;,,,, [ ] [ ] D870 [ ] A [ ] (2006) ,, : ; ;, ;,,,,, [1 ],, :, [2 p518 ] : [3 p241 ],,,,,, [ ] [ ] (1975 ),,,, (1940 ),,,,, 11

2 ,, (argue),,, [4 ],, :,,, [5 ], 20 :,,,, [6 ] 19,,, : ( ) [7 ] : : [8 ] ( ), 19,,,,,,,, (an organized peace),,, 18 19,,,1917 p264 ] [9,,,,,, : :,, : 2003,, [ ] : :, [ ], : 12, :,2001,

3 : : p113 ], [10, ,, :,,,,,, ;,,, [11 ],, 1964 :,,, [12 85 % p262],,, (The Imperial Presidency) [13], ,, 20,, [14 ], J (, ) , 6 [15 p ] 1973, (Donald Fraser),, , 1973 [16 ] [17 ],20 70 : [18 ],,70,, [19 ],1976,, 13

4 ,,, 1977, ; [20 ], [21 ],, ; ;,,, :,, p154 ], : [22, 180, [23 ], 20 80,, 30,,,, p3 ] [24, 20 80,, 2004,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?,? :,,,,,,, [25 p12 ],, :, 14

5 , [26 ],,,,,, :,,,,,,,,, ( Yeas) (Nays),,,,,,,,, :, [27 ] ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,, [28 ], ;,,,,, ( ), [29 ],,,,, (priority),,, ;,,,,,, 15

6 20 90,,,, 2004,,,,,,, 1989 p3 ] 20 [24 80, 10, 1989,,, 10,,, ; ;, ; ; ; ; ; ; 90,, [30 p3 5 ] , (Robert B. Zoellick), ( stake2holder), [31 ],,,, :,,,,,,, 9. 11,,,,,, :,,,,, [32 p339 ] ,,,,,,,,,, [33 p282 ],, 16

7 , :,,,,,, : [34 ],, [35 ], :, [36 ],,,, :,,,, p45 ] [37,,,,,,, WTO WTO, , (USTR) , 306,,,,, :,,,,,,,,,,, , : :,, ; :,,2001 ; :,,

8 ,,,,,,,, :,, :,,,,,,, [ ] [ 1 ] H. L. Harts, Between Utility and Right, Alan Ryan ed., The Idea of Freedom ( Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1979), P. 77. [ 2 ]. [M]. :,1988. [ 3 ]. [M]. :, [ 4 ]. [M]. :, [ 5 ] Walter Lafebe,ed., John Quency Adams and American Conti2 nental Empire : Letters, Speeches and Papers. Chicago : Times Book,1965,p. 45. [ 6 ]. [M]. :,1995. [ 7 ] Frederick E. Schortemeier,ed. Rededicating America :Life and Recent Speeches of Warren G Harding. Indianapolis : Boobbs2 Merrill Co., 1920, p [ 8 ] Joseph L. Blau, Social Theories of Jacksonian Democracy. New York : The Liberal Aress, 1947, p. 58. [ 9 ] J. : ( ) [ M]. :,1988. [10 ].. [M]. :,2002. [ 11 ] See Robert Keohane, International Liberalism Reconsid2 ered, in John Dunn, ed., The Economic Limits to Modern Politics, New York : Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 174 ; Andrew Moravcsik, Taking Preferences Seriously : A Liberal Theory of International Politics, International Orga2 nization, Vol. 51, No. 4, Autumn 1997, pp [12 ]. ( ) [ M].,2004. [13 ] Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Compa2 ny, pp [14 ] James Sundquist, The Decline and Resurgence of Congress. Washington,D. C. :The Brookings lnstitution,1981,p. 1. [15 ]. ( ) [M]. :,2004. [16 ] Tony Evans, US Hegemony and the Project of Universal Human Rights. New York :St. Martinπs Press,Inc.,1996,p [ 17 ] Tom J. Farer, ed., Toward a Humanitarian Diplomacy : A Primer for Policy. New York and London :New York University Press,1980,p. 57. [18 ] Cyrus R. Vance, Human Rights Policy, Human Rights and U. S. Foreign Policy, ed. Barry M. Rubin and Elizabeth P. Spiro,p [19 ]. [A], [ C],1980(2). [20 ] Sandra Vogelgesang, What Price Principle? U. S. Policy on Human Rights, Human Rights and American Foreign Policy, ed. Fred E. Baumann. Gambier, Ohio : Public Affairs Con2 ference Center, Fenyon, 1982,p. 15. [21 ] Richard A. Melanson, Reconstructing Consensus, American Foreign Policy since the Vietnam War,p. 88. [22 ]. : [M]. :,1980. [23 ]. (138). 1976, [24 ]. [ M]. :,2000. [25 ]. [ M]. :, [26 ] Charles A. Beard, The Idea of National Interest : An Analyti2 cal Study in American Foreign Policy. 1934, reprint, Chica2 go : Quadrangle Books, [ 27 ] Samuel P. Huntington, The Lonely Superpower, From For2 eign Affairs, March/ April [28 ] G. John lkenberry, Why Export Democracy? The Hidden Grand Strategy of American Foreign Policy, The Wilson Quarterly (Vo1. 23,no. 2 (Spring l999). [29 ]. [J ].,2002. [30 ],. [M]. :,2000. [31 ] Robert B. Zoellick, Whither China : From Membership to Responsibility? Remarks to National Committee on U. S. - China Relations, New York City, September 21, http :/ / www. state. gov/ s/ d/ rem/ htm [32 ],. [M]. :,2001. [33 ]. [ C]. :,1996. [34 ] [35 ] Charles Krauthammer, Why We Must Contain China, Time 31 July [36 ] David Shambaugh, The United States and China :Cooperation Or Confrontation?, Current History,September [37]. [M].,1976. ( 33 ) 18

9 [ 3 ]. : [M]. :,2002. [ 4 ]. [M]. :,2003. [ 5 ]. [J ].,1992 (2). [ 6 ]. 4[M]. :,1978. [ 7 ]. [M]. :,1980. [ 8 ]. [M]. :,1979. [ 9 ]. [M]. :,1976. [10 ]. [M]. :,1966. [11 ]. [M]. :,1999. [12 ]. [M]. :,1961. [13 ] 1[M]. :,1995. [14 ] [J ].,2001 (3). [15 ]. [M]. :,2000. [16 ] 3[M]. :,2002. On the Difference in Historical Principle bet ween Marx and Hegel by the Question of Subjectivity J IANG You2fu ( Department of Philosophy, Fudan University, Shanghai , China) Abstract : History as principle or historicality as fundamental ontological horizon, means a combination of the consciousness of ground and the consciousness of history in philosophy foundation, which is a long period from Augustine, Vico to Hegel. The crucial difference in historical principle between Marx and Hegel lies in the ground of world2history and its historicality based on sensible activity. In this paper, the crucial difference is clarified especially by the question of subjectivity, because, in our opinion, the difference between the spec2 ulative subjectivity and the subjectivity of objective essential powers is the internal character of the differ2 ence in historical principle between Marx and Hegel. Key words : history as principle ; difference between Marx and Hegel ; speculative subjectivity ; subjectivity of objective essential powers [ ] ( 18 ) The Influence of Liberalism on the Foreign Policy of U. S. A. ZHAO Ke2jin NI Shi2xiong ( Center for American Studies, Fudan University, Shanghai , China) Abstract : Liberalism is derived from Europe, and had developed into the liberalism with American character2 istics. Influenced by the realism and conservatism in US foreign ideology, it has been ideologized as the so2 called liberal2democracy grand strategy in foreign policy2process. The main objectives of liberalism, conser2 vatism and realism were the same : they are all devoted themselves into promoting the enterprise of exporting liberal2democracy system abroad and remaking the world through American model. However, their priority, means and policy measures are different. When we explore the implications of liberalism in the Sino2US rela2 tions we could come to the conclusion : the policy preference set by liberalists makes three incompatible areas and also creates two opportunity areas. So, how to balance the two sides will be one of the important tasks of Chinaπs diplomacy to America in the new era. Key words : liberalism ; foreign policy ; US diplomacy ; Sino2US relation [ ] 33