「安全研究」論戰之評析

Exploring the Security Studies Debate

「安全研究」領域正方興未艾地發生一場學術論戰，主要是對於研究主題、層次與面向，乃至「安全」的定義，有著不同的觀點，各方的觀點可略分為「傳統派」、「擴展派」及「批判派」三派。本文探索此三派觀點及其對於安全研究典範發展的影響，以及論戰發生的原因，並論述個人對次論戰的主張。

The field of Security Studies is presently in deep debate over its definition, methodology, and research foci. Researchers who argue that Security Studies should keep its original definition of military security and focus on national-level variables belong to the Classic or Orthodox schools. Other Researchers claim that Security Studies should be extended to non-military aspects and examine variables at the individual and international levels of analysis. These proponents may be referred to as belongings to the Expansive, Radical or Comprehensive Security Studies schools. A third perspective, Critical Security Studies, is based on Critical theory and claims that security is emancipation, ie. the liberation of man's constraints. This paper explores these three different perspectives and argues that Security Studies should maintain its traditional focus on national military security.