空間訊息與鄰近效果：臺灣總統選舉的配適與預測分析

The Spatial Signals Approach and Neighborhood Effect: The Model Fitting and Prediction of the Presidential Elections in Taiwan

國際關係建構主義理論將「主權」視為是「國際規範」（international norm），藉以說明主權是由國際實務或實踐（international practices）所組成的社會規範建構體。建構主義主張國際規範源自於理念與認同體，對國家行為產生組成作用，國際規範合法化了國家目標，同時界定國家身分認同體與利益的形成。國際規範是國際社會對國家適當行為的共同期待，建立在維護國際安全及秩序現狀的前提下，以符合大多數現狀國家的共同利益與期待，和國家之間的互惠與相互承諾，而能合理期待其他國家的行為與國際規範體系的運作與程序，使得國際規範與機制更加制度化，並更具有國際法律的意涵與拘束力，從而影響國際行為主體（主要是國家）的行為。建構主義認為，主權的產生源自國家間「相互主體的共享理解」的國際實務，進而發展成為國家內化或社會化的國際規範，組成與約制國家的行為。在國家遵守順從國際規範的觀點之下，國家間的互動關係形成規範、認同體與利益為其主要內涵，產生約制和組成雙重性質的國際規範約制國家的行為，國家進而藉由國際社會化或學習而內化主權為規範。換言之，在順從「國家主權」國際規範下，國家以「主權國家」的身份認同互動，形塑國家利益與各種國際規範，這些國際規範約制與組成國家的行為，經由國家間的社會化或學習，而使「國家主權」內化成主權國家需要順從的國際規範。本文嘗試以人道干預對國家主權的挑戰，作為說明建構主義的國家主權觀點如何詮釋這樣的挑戰，以強調建構主義認為主權是一個國際實務的論述，是一個社會建構體。本文論述主要為四部分，第一部分從國家主權理論的傳統論述開始，說明西方國家主權理論發展的歷史過程；第二部分再說明建構主義的國家主權論述，以呈現其強調主權為國際實務論述及社會建構體的主張；第三部分說明人道干預對國家主權理論的挑戰，以呈現國際實務對於主權理論的影響；第四部分說明建構主義如何詮釋人道干預的挑戰，並就其詮釋提出評論。

Constructivism takes sovereignty as a discourse of international norm to explain sovereignty as a social construction of international practices. Constructivism- argued international norms come from ideas and identities, and have constitutive and regulatory effects on state's behaviors. International norms give the legitimacy to the states' objectives, and define the formations of states' identities and interests. International norms are collective expectations of international society on state's proper behaviors; their premises are based on maintaining the international security and order of existing status which to be content with the majority of states' interests and expectations. With reciprocities and mutual commitments able to reasonably expect each other's behaviors and the operational procedures, the international norms and mechanisms are more institutionalized, and more legalized implications are binds to restrain international agencies' (states are the majority) behaviors. Basically, the constructivism approach to sovereignty is based on the perspectives that sovereignty comes from the shared understanding which exist intersubjectively in international practices; states socialize and internalize it as an international norm. States' compliance to international norms, and the interactions among states form norms, identities, and interests; these social constructions produce the international norms to restrain and to constitute states' behaviors. States internalize the sovereignty as an international norm by way of international socialization and learning. This article tries to illustrate how constructivism interprets the challenges of humanitarian intervention to the state sovereignty, in order to emphasize constructivism's argument in which the sovereignty is a discourse of international practice and a social construction. This article proceeds in four sections: the first section starts from the traditional discourse of state sovereignty theories to show the historical development of Western state sovereignty theories; the second section explores the discourse of constructivism on state sovereignty to emphasis its perspectives which sovereignty is a discourse of international practice and a social construction; the third section illustrates the challenges of humanitarian intervention to express the influence on state sovereignty theory; the fourth section illustrates how the constructivism interprets the challenges, and gives my own comments on the interpretations.