周世瑀

學歷-
英國雪菲爾大學政治系/政治學博士
執行本計畫所在單位-
國立交通大學社會與文化研究所

博士論文主題與摘要

  Drawing upon Jutta Weldes’ Constructing National Interests and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, this thesis solves the puzzle of why Britain fought the Falklands war. It situates the loss of the Falkland Islands colony in the historical context of the Suez war. It subsequently draws out the interconnections between the aftermath of Suez and a discourse of the decline of Britain. The contrasting meanings of British interests in the years before and following Suez illustrate that meanings attached to national interests were made and remade rather than innate.
  After Britain lost the Falklands, British interests that had previously been constituted by the discourse of decline ceased to have any meaningful existence. Britain’s official representation of the Falklands crisis was a complete reversal of policy that traces back to the aftermath of Suez.
  This thesis argues that after Britain lost the Falklands, Britain’s official representation of the Falklands crisis was structured into a chain of hypothetical propositions. Britain’s official story of the Falklands crisis began with a false premise that the Falkland Islands were a ‘British sovereign territory.’ The validity of the conclusion that Britain must repossess the Falklands flowed not from empirical evidence but from the power held by British officials to define the first premise. As shown within this thesis, it can also examine the logical truths of national interests that arrive at a particular conclusion through pure deduction.

line2

論文改寫計畫說明

I. A New Chapter on Insights from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 
  This thesis draws upon Jutta Weldes’ Constructing National Interests and Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and Notebooks 1914-1916 in an attempt to conceptualise national interests through an analysis of the Falklands conflict. The usefulness of drawing upon his early philosophy is demonstrated in the analysis of the Suez war and the Falklands crisis. The applied perspective appears rather implicitly, however. I shall add a new chapter, coming after a general introduction of this thesis and before ‘Concepts and Methods’ chapter to justify why critical constructivists should look back to the Tractatus and Notebooks. This new chapter will directly engage with Wittgenstein’s writing and address why insights from the Tractatus and Notebooks merit serious consideration.
II. Redraft Concepts and Methods Chapter  
  With a new chapter on why the Tractatus, this thesis can better explicate a striking parallel between the deduction of one proposition from another and the construction of national interests in the midst of the Falklands crisis.
  References to other authors (from Roland Barthes, Ernest Hemingway, Walter Ong to Paul Ricoeur), whose insights do not bear much on the central theme of this thesis, should be dropped altogether.
  My discussions concerning ‘the functioning of national interests as a rhetorical device’ will be dropped.
III. Redraft Case Study: the Falkland’s Crisis  
  This thesis was completed in January 2012 before the eventual release of UK and US official records. The case study chapter will be redrafted to incorporate into my analysis: (1) US diplomatic cables on the Falklands war declassified in April 2012 and (2) British Cabinet Papers on the Falklands crisis declassified in December 2012.
  My reference to the term of ‘nodal point’ will be removed.

line2

著作目錄

(一)評論

  • 2013 ‘Britain’s Chemical Responsibility,’ OpenDemocracy, 10 September 2013.
  • 2012 Book Review: Adi Ophir, Michal Givoni, and Sari Hanafi eds., The Power of Inclusive Exclusion: Anatomy of Israeli Rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Ian J. Bickerton, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History. Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky eds., Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East. In Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40:2 (January 2012) 404-408.
  • 2010 「中文版導讀:美帝與以色列恐怖主義對巴勒斯坦人的暴行」收錄於薩依德(Edward W. Said),《薩依德的流亡者之書》(After the Last Sky: Palestinian Lives)(台北:立緒, 2010),285-293。
  • 2009 Book Review: Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash eds., Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide. In Millennium: Journal of International Studies 38:2 (December 2009) 448-450.
  • 2008 Book Review: Audie Klotz and Cecelia Lynch, Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations. In Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37:2 (December 2008) 485-486.

(二)翻譯

  • 2016 John Smith, ‘Southern Labour–‘Peripheral’ No Longer: A Reply to Jane Hardy,’ International Socialism 140 (2013) 185-200.〈南方勞工-不再「邊陲」:對Jane Hardy的回應〉與林封良合譯,《文化研究》2016春季。
  • 2015 John Smith, ‘Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century,’ Monthly Review 67:3 (2015) 82-97. 〈二十一世紀的帝國主義〉與林封良合譯,破土,11.9.2015。

Leave a Reply