重新思考戰略研究：國家參考架構內武裝衝突的取向

Strategic Studies Reconsidered: An Armed Conflict approach within the Referential Framework of State

人類社會一天不能擺脫武裝衝突，戰略研究就要負起理解衝突的學術責任。本文從批判性安全研究對戰略研究發起的攻擊，與戰略學者以Clausewitz及Schelling理論反駁的論戰中，整理出本體論與認識論上的分歧。試圖擺脫武斷的二分法論戰邏輯，建立新戰略研究的理論基礎。冷戰期間戰略研究被實證主義認識論所支配，僅專注於美蘇對抗與核威攝研究，遠離了從Clausewitz以來兼顧主、客觀取向的研究傳統；而批判性安全研究則將安全研究與戰略研究混淆，採用國際關係領域中實證／反思二分的論戰策略來為擴大安全研究範圍提供正當性。實證主義的物質主義本體論前提也被用來攻擊戰略研究，忽視了Clausewitz與Schelling都注意精神與意志的作用。我們嘗試從不同戰略層級中地理因素的意義建構為例，說明主客觀認知、物質與精神因素如何在一個較為折衷的認識、本體論立場上進行研究。最後，在國家本體地位的討論上，我們提出國家參考架構內武裝衝突的取向為戰略研究的內涵。

If human society cannot eliminate all armed conflicts, then the Strategic Studies are responsible for understanding the conflictual phenomena. This article points out the main epistemological and ontological discords between those who advocate the Critical Security Studies and, strategists who tried to counterattack by evoking the essential theoretical elements from Clausewitz and Schelling. By breaking out of the arbitrary dichotomy of this debate, we seek to reinstall a theoretical foundation for new Strategic Studies. During the Cold War period, Strategic Studies were dominated by the positivist epistemology. By concentrating on the US-Soviet rivalry and the nuclear deterrence, Strategic Studies moved away from Clausewitz's tradition of combining both subjective and objective approaches. But on the other side, the Critical Security Studies scholars identify Security Studies with Strategic Studies, and try to legitimate their project of Security Studies enlargement by adopting the dichotomous strategy of positivism/reflectivism from International Relations debates. The materialist ontological assumption of positivism has been used for attacking Strategic Studies by Critical Security Studies as well, however, they neglected that both Clausewitz and Schelling have paid attention to the effects of moral and will. Our example of meaning construction of geographic factors in different strategic levels shows how subjective/objective cognition and moral/material factors can be studied upon an eclectically inclusive posture of both ontology and epistemology. Finally, based on the discussion on the ontological status of state, we propose an armed conflict approach within the referential framework as the connotation of Strategic Studies.