人類安全自其概念提出以來至今已逾十年，始終沒有獲得安全研究領域的重視。冷戰結束後，雖有非傳統安全在研究上對傳統安全侷限於軍事問題的缺漏進行修補，但依舊忽略「個人」對於安全研究的價值。本文認為，目前既有的安全研究已不能迎合全球化時代國際關係的發展趨勢，而把「個人」排除在安全研究的討論之外或是予以邊緣化，則為一種理解上的疏失。實際上，無論傳統安全所強調的軍事領域，或是非傳統安全所關注的貧窮、發展、疾病等問題，其核心與基礎的安全價值均構築在每一個「個人」身上，這歸因於安全概念就像一道不可分割的光譜，儘管歸結出許多不同面向，但當其中一個安全面向受到影響時，其他面向也會受到波及；互賴現象不只適用於經濟關係，也同樣適用安全領域。對此，本研究論證了何以人類安全具備在判斷安全是否落實、因應全球化的國際局勢，以及回應「內部」威脅來源等三方面的優勢，用以彰顯安全研究宜從「國家」到「個人」之必要性。 此外，本文建議以建構主義來詮釋人類安全，認為人類安全的形塑過程，就是一種建構主義的觀點。儘管國際關係中的建構主義目前在安全所涉及的範疇，只著力於安全社群或安全文化論點，但建構主義是探索人類意識與國家認同與利益的形成，如果透過建構主義來解釋國際社會現象，尤其是人類安全，那將使人類安全觀點更趨意義，爰本論文在釐清人類安全概念與回顧建構主義理論基礎後，同時說明了建構主義與人類安全的關連，並勾勒起兩者間之對話。 / Even though the concept of Human Security first emerged more than a decade ago, it never gained much attention in the field of security study. In the post-Cold War era, non-traditional security study somehow rectifies the defect of traditional security study, which focuses simply on military affairs, but it is not comprehensive enough to understand the crucial role which ‘People’ play in security study. From authors’ view, the present comprehension of security study can no longer catch up with the main development trend of international relations in the age of globalization. To exclude ‘People’ from discussing or to marginalize it is a definite miscalculation of what ‘security’ really is. Either traditional security, which pays mainly attention to territorial matters, or non-traditional security, which cares more about poverty, development, disease and so on, its core and essential value of security is no doubt based on ‘People’. Actually, the concept of security is a spectrum which cannot be divided; also, the spectrum has considerable inter links and overlaps. An effect to one dimension of security is likely to travel to all forms of security. The phenomenon of interdependency on economic dimension is also relevant to security studies. This article demonstrates that the study of human security can help resolve threats from both internal and external forces, respond to the challenges of globalization, and achieve true security. It manifests the necessity of the study of security from focusing on “state” to the “people”. Besides, the main purpose of this article is exploring human security by constructivism. The emergence of human security also can be seen as a view of constructivism. This article argues that although the orthodox of security study on constructivism focus on security community or security culture, the constructivism also explores the issues of human consciousness and national identity and interest formation. Hence, the contents of human security will be more meaningful if through applying constructivism to explaining phenomena of international society. In the light of this analysis, three specific issues will be examined: the emergence of the concept of human security, review of the theory of constructivism, and enabling a dialogic interaction between constructivism and human security.

國際關係理論歷經第三次的理論大辯論後，理論的發展已朝向「自然主義－反自然主義」、「理論－實踐」、「基礎主義－反基礎主義」議題的論爭中。從這些論爭之中使我們發現做為國際關係學科的本體論、知識論及方法論，已經開始向社會學的方向轉折。其中，尤以新自由制度主義及建構主義的轉折更為明顯。然而，從更深層的視野來看目前各學派的理論，多多少少都含有霸權主義的成分於其中。基於此，本論文借用葛蘭西「文化霸權」的理論觀點，檢視現實主義、新現實主義、自由主義、新自由制度主義及建構主義等主流國際關係理論中的文化霸權因素，同時運用哈伯馬斯的「溝通行動理論」的概念，對上述主流國際關係理論的霸權性質進行反思，以期建構出一個在本體論、知識論、方法論上都能獲得解放的國際關係理論。 基於以上理念，本論文的發展與架構鋪陳共分為8章35節。 第一章為緒論，主要敍述論文的整個架構及重要理論說明，包括葛蘭西的「文化霸權」及哈伯馬斯的「溝通行動理論」，藉由上述兩種理論的哲學基礎，以分析說明目前國際關係理論的爭論議題，及其未來可能的發展趨勢。 第二章介紹國際關係理論三次大辯論及其理論的發展現況，然後闡明國際政治各個學派的哲學與後設基礎。 第三章概述葛蘭西「文化霸權」的理論，主要探討葛蘭西的文化霸權；它並不是一個實體的權力，而是一個意識形態及實體相互結合的領導權概念。 第四章是藉由葛蘭西的文化霸權概念，論析目前國際關係理論無論是在物質及精神意識方面，都具有文化霸權的成分。換言之，目前的國際關係理論並無法完達到解放國家受到壓迫的目標。 第五章介紹哈伯馬斯的「溝通行動理論」，主要研究溝通行動理論所涵蓋的範圍：包括了主體與主體、主體與客體及主體與社會之間的溝通關係。 第六章是運用哈伯馬斯溝通行動理論分析主體與主體（國家╱國家）、主體與客體（國家╱客觀世界）、主體與社會（國家╱國際社會、組織、制度…）之間的溝通關係，藉以解放國際關係理論所受到的壓迫與不公平現象。 第七章陳述反思下的國際關係理論其本體論、知識論及方法論。 第八章章為結論，提出本論文的主要貢獻：第一，以溝通行動為媒介的國際關係理論，會出現以國際社會的整體做為各個行動體溝通行動的場域，這個場域是一個「實體（物質）結構」、是一個「關係（權力、制度）結構」、也是一個「觀念（意義）結構」，更是經由實踐所織構出的「網絡結構」；第二，國際關係的本體論、知識論及方法論之間是一個相互辯證的過程，他們彼此之間可以相互辯證轉換。 關鍵詞：文化霸權、溝通行動理論、國際關係理論、國際政治、社會理論 / After three times of intensive debates, the direction of International Relations theory has moved to “naturalism-anti-naturalism”,”theory-implementation”, ”fundamentalism-anti-fundamentalism”. From the debates we can realize the International Relations is supported by Ontological, Epistemological, Methodological and it has change into sociology. Although the direction of neo- Liberalism and Constructivism has become clear and if we read of those theories, all of them have included some degree of Cultural Hegemony. This research takes Antonio Gramsci’s “Cultural Hegemony” theory to exam Realism, neo-Realism、Liberalism、neo-Liberalism and Constructivism. At the same time, I also use “theory of Communication” of Jurgen Habermas to talk about the hegemony among those theories, in order to let the ontological, epistemological and methodological can be applied to the theories. This research paper is divided into 8 sections and 35 chapters. Chapter one is introduction, of both theories of “Cultural Hegemony” of Gramsci and “theory of Communication” of Jurgen Habermas to illustrate today’s international disputes for International Relations and the possible development for the future. Chapter two is the three intensive debates for International Relations and the development of those theories, including international politics fundamental philosophy. Chapter three is the theory of “Cultural Hegemony” of Gramsci. It’s not an existing power but an ideal form in connection with concept of leading power. Chapter four is the use of the theory of “Cultural Hegemony” of Gramsci in the concepts of today’s international relations. Both substantial and spiritual aspects include hegemony. In other words, today’s theories of international relations can’t reach the goals of resolve the nations under pressure. Chapter five is the theory of Communication” of Jurgen Habermas, focusing on the relations of communication of Subjective to subjective, subjective to objective and subjective to community. Chapter six is the use of theory of Communication” of Jurgen Habermas in terms of the communicate relations among subjective to subjective(nation/nation), subjective to objective(nation/objective world), subjective to social(nation/ international community, organization, institution…) and then to prevent from the pressure and unfairness of theory of international relations. Chapter seven is the theory of international relations of ontology, epistemology and methodology. Chapter eight is the conclusion, with two major points: First, the use of communication actions on the theory of international relations will make the global community into a unique arena in order to provide it for different communication groups. These areas are a entity (substantial) structure, a relation(power, institutional) structure and also a aspect(meaning) structure and furthermore it can be implemented into network-structure；Second, the theory of international relations on ontology, epistemology and methodology is a dialogue and development process, that can be interacted and transfered to others. Key Word: Cultural Hegemony, Theory of Communication, International Relations theory, International Politic, Social Thiory