英国学派中的基本制度概念与国际社会观念的关联：共识与争鸣

基本制度概念是国际社会理论的基石，也是英国学派有别于新自由制度主义的核心概念。长期以来，国际关系学界重视英国学派的制度概念与新自由制度主义机制理论的比较研究，而相对忽视该学派学者在基本制度概念上的认识差异及其与国际社会观念之间关系的研究。实际上，英国学派学者在基本制度概念的理解上虽然存有一些共识，如基本制度包括宪政性制度和共处制度两个层次，主权是国际社会的宪政性制度，外交和国际法等共处制度是从主权原则中派生出来的；但同时，他们在基本制度如何构成以及怎样互动的认识上，尤其是在主权与人权关系的认识上存在明显分歧，而这些分歧是导致他们在国际社会的认识上存在多元主义、社会连带主义等多元化发展的重要原因。英国学派学者关于基本制度概念及其与国际社会观念之间关系的争论，对当今国际社会推动人类命运共同体建设有着重要启示。

The Correlation Between the Fundamental Institutions and the Notion of International Society on the English School: Consensus and Differences

Although the concept of “fundamental institutions” is the corner stone of the International Social Theory and “international society” is the core concept of the English School, the English School’ scholars have reached no agreement on what is meant by international society. For a long time, scholars of international relations have devoted themselves to telling the similarity/difference between the concept of institution proposed by the English School and the regime theory by Neo-Liberal Institutionalism, paying little attention to the inter-connection between understandings of the English School’s scholars on the concepts of fundamental institution and the notion of international society. This paper, departing from defining fundamental institution, gives a detailed analysis of the internal connection between the two, especially the scholars’ consensus/dispute over the concept. Their noteworthy consensus is a recognition that, fundamental institutions consist of “constitutional institution” and “coexistence institution” and make up a hierarchical system in which sovereignty is the constitutional institution of international society while diplomacy and international law is something derived from principle of sovereignty. This consensus defines what is meant by fundamental institution and what international society is, and tells institutionalism by the English School apart from the regime theory by Neo-Liberal Institutionalism. Their dispute lies in what fundamental institution consists of and how they interact with each other, rather than the type of institution in Buzan’s term. These differences are the important reasons that lead to the diversified understandings as pluralism and solidarism, etc. in their understanding of the idea of the international society. The English School Scholars headed by Hedley Bull, James Mayall and Robert Jackson divided over what consists of fundamental institution, insist that sovereignty and non-intervention be the basic principles of international society; nation state be the subject of the international law and human rights not be put before state sovereignty. International society should maintain a plural order in which nations coexist and compete with each other. The second group, headed by Tim Dunne and Nicholas J. Wheelers, believe that the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention are compatible to, rather than conflicting with, respecting human rights and international society should be a universal solidarism one that values human right and is open to intervention. The third group, headed by Andrew Hurrell, inherit many ideas from the classical school. Besides, they adopt the ideas of comparative studies in regionalism to make up for the deficiency resulting from classical school’s little efforts in regional studies and economic researches. And so they choose a middle way between traditional pluralism and liberal-solidarism to understand international society. Barry Buzan, with his unique understanding of what consists of fundamental institution and how sovereignty is related to human rights, advocates a state-centered solidarism position toward international society, aiming to reshape the English school by revising the ideas of fundamental institution, reinterpreting international society and pushing the structuring of international society. The diversified understandings of international society demonstrate that the English School is still undergoing a flourishing development in theory. The debate between the English School’s concept of the fundamental institutions and the notion of the international society provide important lessons for a world working towards building up a universal community of shared destiny for the entire humanity. The realistic basis for the formation of a universal community of shared destiny is a high degree of commonalities and interdependency among all countries and peoples. The contemporary international society has many actual common interests and is facing common problems that threaten the survival of the humanity as a whole. This requires countries around the world to strengthen international cooperation in the fields involving the common interests of the international society and the interests of the humanity as a whole, and to develop common human values in these fields. Although theoretically a community of common destiny for all humanity should take the entire humanity as the main body, advocating not only the common interests and common responsibilities, but also the common values of the humanity, the building of a community of common destiny for the entire humanity in practice must be based on this stage of sovereignty where a win-win cooperation, rights and responsibilities, common interests and responsibility can be effectively promoted. The “China plan” is signifying that China advocates building a new type of international relations featuring a win-win cooperation, to jointly build up a community of common destiny for all humanity in line with the UN Charter about the purpose and principle of sovereign equality, and consistent with the development trend of the era. It not only helps to limit overbearing power hegemony, to highlight fair distribution and exercise of interests and rights, and to promote international justice, but also to foster the spirit of solidarity, power and responsibility, to curb nationalism, enhance the common interests of the humanity. It is a practical path forward for international society that is advancing towards building up a universal community of shared destiny.