构建综合理论的萌动源于我学习国际政治学以来一直面临的“身份困惑”。在我2003年入读人大硕士研究生的时候，中国国关学界正处于对西方理论大加引进的阶段。对那些对理论感兴趣的初学者来说，选择一个理论流派作为自己的理论归属或研究对象是学界流行的现象。而在我对三大流派的初步学习过程中，似乎并没有被任何一个理论所深深吸引。于是我刻意在2003—2004年期间先后系统地阅读了汉斯·摩根索、肯尼斯·华尔兹、约瑟夫·奈、罗伯特·基欧汉、亚历山大·温特的经典代表作，但仍然没有成为任何一个理论流派的追逐者。当时的我深感“身份困惑”。与此同时，通过阅读王逸舟相关著述，“学会在不同理论岛之间穿行”的总结在让我深以为然的同时又颇感不满意。在2004年暑假，或许是受当时学界对马克思主义回归实践的讨论的影响，我突然觉得，国际关系何尝不是典型的人类实践呢？为此，“把实践引入国际政治，探索国际政治的实践理论以超越三大理论”成为我当时朦胧、激动的想法，并为此阅读了有关“马克思主义实践观”的文章或论著，但深感迷茫进而放弃。在2005年毕业进而任性地选择工作而不是读博之后，我的学术之路似乎终结。或许是毕业做老师而没有远离校园的原因，继续求学进而从事研究逐渐成了我的人生目标。在2007年重新考入人大之后，中国外交成为我最为关注的领域。20世纪60年代“革命外交”曾是我选定的研究对象，但在对“革命外交”的探索中，我逐渐转向了外交决策的根源的探讨，进而关注到了国家—社会关系、“施动者—结构”问题、国家自主性等议题而舍弃了“革命外交”本身。也正是这一转向，我逐渐找到了攻克的目标，“如何从国家—社会关系角度探究一国外交政策的根源？”2010年5月在中国人民大学国际关系学院答辩通过的博士毕业论文《国家自主性视角下的外交政策分析——结构、模式与行为》正是从国际社会—国家—国内社会视角思考的结果。但当时并未试图构建任何理论。

尽管此论文曾经获得2011年中国人民大学优秀博士学位论文和2012年全国优秀博士学位论文提名，但基于种种主客观原因，我觉得有必要从理论构建角度对原论文进行诸多改造。

基于近几年国际国内客观形势的剧变以及对时代形势变化的主观判断，我试图从内外联动视角去深入分析各国外交政策的趋势与性质。在我看来，以“阿拉伯之春”为代表的底层革命运动和世界各国内部底层民众的不断觉醒，加上信息技术的推波助澜，尽管存在种种民粹主义的躁动因素和右翼的保守因素以及外部的鼓噪因素，但其寻求民主的主流仍是其中决定性因素，21世纪正在开启人类新一轮民主化浪潮。在全球化与民主化双重作用下，我们见证了国际国内因素在外交决策中同时增强的两个趋势。21世纪是全球化时代，也是和平与发展的时代，更是内政与外交频繁、密切互动的内外联动时代，内外联动正在成为当今国际政治的新常态。而国际政治理论的时代性决定了，如何分析内外联动时代的外交行为已经成为当今国际关系研究者的重要课题。而既有侧重国际体系因素的结构理论和侧重国内因素的外交政策理论均已难以令人满意地解释内外联动时代的外交现象，我深感我们需要新的理论工具去观察和分析这一现象及其本质。这构成了修改原论文的最主要理论诉求。

十八大以来，以习近平同志为总书记的中共党中央统筹国内国际两个大局、统筹发展安全两件大事，以积极进取、奋发有为的姿态开展中国特色大国外交与和平外交，有力地促进了中国的和平发展与和平崛起。中国特色大国外交及其和平崛起需要中国特色的国际政治理论的支撑与说明。这构成了修改原论文的最主要现实背景。

正是长期以来对国际关系理论、“中国学派”与中国外交的兴趣，促使我试图构建既具有中国特色又凸显外交行为一般性规律的外交理论。在我看来，经过多年的理论论战和实践检验，国际关系三大主流理论显然只是“片面的真理”，如何建构一个能够超越这三大理论的综合分析范式虽然一直是国际关系学界的追求，却一直没有出现。正是在此背景下，在西方国际关系理论界，“分析折中主义”一度成为主流理论家的主要选择，国际政治实践理论则成为诸多具有后现代、解构主义倾向的理论家的新探索；而在不满足于一味应用西方理论的当今中国国际关系学界，中国学者或者通过借用其他学科的理论成果或者通过焕发传统文化的活力，提出了“国际政治的关系理论”“国际政治的进化理论”“道义现实主义”“天下主义”“国际共生论”等综合理论形式。尽管这些理论努力各有洞见与理据，但鉴于种种原因，迄今为止，各种综合理论努力仍然没有得到广泛认可。相反，冷战结束以来，伴随全球治理的兴起，各种针对具体问题的研究越发受到学界重视并取得了不少成果。针对这种大理论贫乏局面，一些人甚至宣称“理论死了”，国际关系应该“多研究些问题，少谈些主义”。虽然“多研究些问题，少谈些主义”不失为在没有找到理论突破口的时候的明智选择，但对理论研究采取鸵鸟态度显然又是不明智的短视选择，因为没有理论的指引，人类很难找到正确的方向。而对正试图开辟和平崛起伟业、避免大国政治悲剧的中国来说，没有源于自身又包容世界的理论，必将难于达至复兴与和平的彼岸。

面对内外联动的新常态和中国和平发展的新伟业，我在本书中试图回答的核心问题是，“如何分析内外联动时代的外交政策及其行为？”试图达到的理论目的是尝试“构建一个分析内外联动时代外交行为的综合理论模式，实现国际关系理论的综合”，试图达到的政策目的是“为统筹内外联动新时代的国内国际两个大局提供理论指南，并提供相关政策建议”。基于此，我借鉴哲学社会科学有关施动者—结构论战的智识成果和政治学的国家主义研究视角，以具有本体论地位的国家为中心尝试构建了“自主性外交理论”（stateautonomydiplomacytheory，SAD）模式，试图在实现国际关系理论综合的同时，为中国和平发展提供理论性说明和政策启示。

自主性外交理论的核心假设是，各国基于自主性的追求而与不同层面、不同属性、不同主体间的结构性因素的互联互动决定了各国外交行为。换言之，各国外交行为取决于国家与不同结构性因素互联互动的性质、过程与结果。如果说结构现实主义的核心假设是“权力分布决定国家行为”，新自由制度主义的核心假设是“制度分布决定国家行为”，结构建构主义的核心假设是“观念分布决定国家行为”，那么，自主性外交理论的核心假设就是“自主性的分布决定国家行为”。基于这一核心假设，本书还对内外联动时代外交行为的基本性质、总体趋势与战略机制进行了理论分析与案例检验，据此提出了观察、预测外交行为的十四个假设，最后本书还从自主性外交角度对中国特色大国外交的转型提出了诸多政策改进建议。

尽管理论的思考是终身难以穷尽和完善的，自主性外交理论或许也存在诸多偏颇之处，但我仍然希望这一尚不完善的理论能够有所贡献。在我看来，以施动者—结构问题和国家主义视角切入外交政策分析及其理论构建，拓展了既有理论研究视野，实现了施动者理论与结构理论的综合，具有一定的理论创新意义，为大理论的创建提供了新的分析视角，为中国学派的建设贡献了绵薄之力。自主性外交理论基于内政外交紧密互联互动的国际政治新常态，是理解内外联动时代外交行为的有益视角，将有助于我们更好地理解日益全球化、民主化的各国外交行为，具有较强的实践价值。

当今中国已经成为国际社会积极参与者、关键塑造者和重要领导者，但尚未形成与之相匹配的国际话语权。其根源之一在于面对中国和平崛起这一历史性大事件，世界尤其是中国自身尚未形成自成体系的国际政治理论予以合理解释。2016年5月习近平在哲学社会科学工作座谈会上指出，中国“哲学社会科学发展战略还不十分明确，学科体系、学术体系、话语体系建设水平总体不高，学术原创能力还不强”。“发挥我国哲学社会科学作用，要注意加强话语体系建设。在解读中国实践、构建中国理论上，我们应该最有发言权，但实际上我国哲学社会科学在国际上的声音还比较小，还处于‘有理说不出、说了传不开’的境地。要善于提炼标识性概念，打造易于为国际社会所理解和接受的新概念、新范畴、新表述，引导国际学术界展开研究和讨论。”在我看来，本书构建的自主性外交理论不仅基于中国外交的持续思考，而且也基于国际社会广泛接受的概念范畴，这种源于中国又包容世界的理论范畴必将促进中国特色外交理论的发展，从而成为中国和平发展的重要理论支撑。与此同时，重视内外联动和自主性国家构建的自主性外交理论必将有利于中国改进国内社会治理质量、提升统筹内外两个大局和塑造全球治理的能力，进而有利于中华民族伟大复兴的“中国梦”的和平实现与世界和平的维护，从而成为中国和平发展的重要实践指南。

总之，本书在原博士论文的基础上，经过长期的反复思考与推敲，不仅较大地调整了章节布局，新增了章节内容，而且修改了思考维度，转换了视角立意，拓展了主题范围，突出了理论构建的研究任务，彰显了理论应用的政策价值，虽然没有把原博士论文全盘推翻，但确实使得新书焕然一新、迥然不同。当然，构建兼具中国特色与一般性的综合理论乃笔者初衷，这一理论任务是否真的完成还需实践检验。因此，自主性外交理论仅仅是“一孔之见”，其中一定存在诸多值得商榷之处。笔者暂以此稿了却长期的思想萌动并受教于各位专家，并将尽力从善如流，希图日后不断提升改进。

李志永

2016年7月18日于贸大

The idea of constructing a comprehensive theory stemmed from the "identity confusion" I had been facing since studying international politics. When I enrolled in the NPC in 2003 as a master's student, China's international relations academic circles were in the stage of introducing Western theories. For those beginners who are interested in theory, choosing a theoretical school as their theoretical affiliation or research object is a popular phenomenon in the academic community. In my initial study of the three major genres, I didn't seem to be deeply attracted by any of the theories. So I deliberately and systematically read the classic masterpieces of Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, Joseph Nye, Robert Keohan and Alexander Winter in 2003-2004, but still did not become a chaser of any theoretical school. At that time, I was deeply "confused about identity". At the same time, through reading Wang Yizhou's related works, the summary of "learning to travel between different theoretical islands" made me feel deeply satisfied and dissatisfied. In the summer of 2004, perhaps influenced by the discussion of the return of Marxism to practice in the academic circles at that time, I suddenly felt that international relations is not a typical human practice. For this reason, "introducing practice into international politics and exploring the practical theory of international politics to surpass the three major theories" became my hazy and exciting idea at that time, and I read articles or treatises on the "Marxist view of practice" for this purpose, but I was deeply confused and gave up. After graduating in 2005 and choosing a job instead of a Ph.D., my academic career seemed to come to an end. Perhaps because I graduated and became a teacher instead of going away from campus, continuing my studies and engaging in research has gradually become my goal in life. After re-entering the NPC in 2007, China's diplomacy became my most important area. In the 60s of the 20th century, "revolutionary diplomacy" was my chosen research object, but in the exploration of "revolutionary diplomacy", I gradually turned to the discussion of the root causes of diplomatic decision-making, and then paid attention to the issues of state-society relations, "agent-structure" issues, and national autonomy, and abandoned "revolutionary diplomacy" itself. It was this shift that led me to the goal of overcoming, "How to explore the roots of a country's foreign policy from the perspective of state-society relations?" In May 2010, he defended his doctoral dissertation "Foreign Policy Analysis from the Perspective of State Autonomy: Structure, Patterns and Behaviors" at the School of International Studies, Chinese Minmin University, which is the result of thinking from the perspective of the international community, the state and the domestic society. But no attempt was made to construct any theory at the time. Although this thesis was nominated for the 2011 Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of Chinese Min University and the 2012 National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation, for various subjective and objective reasons, I feel that it is necessary to carry out many transformations to the original thesis from the perspective of theoretical construction. Based on the drastic changes in the international and domestic objective situations in recent years and the subjective judgment of the changes in the times, I try to deeply analyze the trend and nature of foreign policies of various countries from the perspective of internal and external linkage. In my opinion, the revolutionary movements at the bottom represented by the "Arab Spring" and the continuous awakening of the people at the bottom in countries around the world, coupled with the impetus of information technology, despite all kinds of populist agitation factors, right-wing conservative factors and external agitation factors, the mainstream of its search for democracy is still the decisive factor, and a new wave of democratization is beginning in the 21st century. Under the dual effects of globalization and democratization, we have witnessed two trends in the simultaneous strengthening of international and domestic factors in foreign policymaking. The 21st century is an era of globalization, peace and development, and an era of internal and external linkage in which internal and external affairs and diplomacy interact frequently and closely, and internal and external linkage is becoming the new normal of today's international politics. The epochal nature of international political theory determines that how to analyze diplomatic behavior in the era of internal and external linkage has become an important topic for international relations researchers today. While both structural theories that focus on factors in the international system and foreign policy theories that focus on domestic factors have been unable to satisfactorily explain the diplomatic phenomenon in the era of internal and external linkages, I feel that we need new theoretical tools to observe and analyze this phenomenon and its nature. This constitutes the most important theoretical appeal for revising the original paper. Since the 18th National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as its general secretary has coordinated the overall situation at home and abroad, coordinated the development of security, and carried out major-country diplomacy and peaceful diplomacy with Chinese characteristics with a positive and enterprising attitude, which has effectively promoted China's peaceful development and peaceful rise. Major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics and its peaceful rise need the support and explanation of international political theory with Chinese characteristics. This constitutes the most important realistic background for revising the original paper. It is precisely my long-standing interest in international relations theory, the "China School" and Chinese diplomacy that has prompted me to try to construct a diplomatic theory with Chinese characteristics and highlighting the general law of diplomatic behavior. In my opinion, after years of theoretical controversy and practical testing, the three mainstream theories of international relations are obviously only "one-sided truths", and how to construct a comprehensive analysis paradigm that can surpass these three theories has always been the pursuit of international relations scholars, but it has never appeared. It is in this context that in the Western international relations theory circle, "analytical eclecticism" once became the main choice of mainstream theorists, and the theory of international political practice became a new exploration of many theorists with postmodern and deconstructivist tendencies. In today's Chinese international relations circles, which are not satisfied with blindly applying Western theories, Chinese scholars have either borrowed the theoretical achievements of other disciplines or revitalized traditional culture to put forward comprehensive theoretical forms such as "relationship theory of international politics", "evolutionary theory of international politics", "moral realism", "tianxiaism" and "international symbiosis theory". While these theoretical efforts have their own insights and rationale, for a variety of reasons, the various integrated theoretical efforts have not been widely recognized to date. On the contrary, since the end of the Cold War, with the rise of global governance, various research on specific issues has received more and more attention from the academic circles and achieved many results. In view of this lack of major theories, some people even claim that "theories are dead" and that international relations should "study more issues and talk less about doctrines." Although "study more problems, talk less about isms" is a wise choice when there is no theoretical breakthrough, it is obviously an unwise short-sighted choice to adopt an ostrich attitude towards theoretical research, because without the guidance of theory, it is difficult for human beings to find the right direction. For China, which is trying to open up the great cause of peaceful rise and avoid the political tragedy of a great power, it will be difficult to reach the other side of rejuvenation and peace without a theory that stems from itself and embraces the world. In the face of the new normal of internal and external linkage and the new great cause of China's peaceful development, the core question I try to answer in this book is, "How to analyze foreign policy and its behavior in the era of internal and external linkage?" The theoretical purpose of the attempt is to "build a comprehensive theoretical model for analyzing diplomatic behavior in the era of internal and external linkage and realize the synthesis of international relations theory", and the policy purpose of the attempt is to "provide theoretical guidance and provide relevant policy suggestions for the overall situation of domestic and international in the new era of internal and external linkage". Based on this, drawing on the intellectual achievements of philosophy and social sciences on actor-structure polemics and the perspective of statist research in political science, I tried to construct the "stateautonomy diplomacy theory" (SAD) model centered on the country with ontological status, in an attempt to provide theoretical explanations and policy enlightenment for China's peaceful development while realizing the synthesis of international relations theory. The core assumption of the theory of autonomous diplomacy is that the interconnection and interaction between countries and structural factors at different levels, different attributes, and different subjects based on the pursuit of autonomy determine the diplomatic behavior of countries. In other words, the diplomatic behavior of States depends on the nature, process and outcome of the State's interconnected interaction with different structural factors. If the core assumption of structural realism is that "the distribution of power determines state behavior", the core assumption of neoliberal institutionalism is that "institutional distribution determines state behavior", and the core assumption of structural constructivism is that "the distribution of ideas determines state behavior", then the core assumption of autonomous diplomacy theory is that "the distribution of autonomy determines state behavior". Based on this core hypothesis, this book also makes a theoretical analysis and case test on the basic nature, overall trend and strategic mechanism of diplomatic behavior in the era of internal and external linkage, and puts forward 14 hypotheses for observing and predicting diplomatic behavior. Although theoretical thinking is difficult to exhaust and perfect for life, and the theory of autonomous diplomacy may have many biases, I still hope that this imperfect theory can make a contribution. In my opinion, the analysis of foreign policy and its theoretical construction from the perspective of actor-structural issues and statism expands the existing theoretical research horizon, realizes the synthesis of actor theory and structural theory, has certain theoretical innovation significance, provides a new analytical perspective for the creation of grand theory, and contributes to the construction of the Chinese school. Based on the new normal of international politics with close interconnection and interaction between domestic and foreign affairs, the theory of autonomous diplomacy is a useful perspective for understanding diplomatic behavior in the era of internal and external linkage, which will help us better understand the diplomatic behavior of increasingly globalized and democratized countries, and has strong practical value. Today, China has become an active participant, key shaper and important leader in the international community, but it has not yet formed an international discourse to match it. One of the root causes lies in the fact that in the face of the historic event of China's peaceful rise, the world, especially China itself, has not yet formed a self-contained international political theory to rationally explain. In May 2016, Xi Jinping pointed out at the Philosophy and Social Sciences Work Forum that China's "philosophy and social science development strategy is not very clear, the overall level of discipline system, academic system and discourse system construction is not high, and the academic original ability is not strong". "To give play to the role of philosophy and social science in our country, we should pay attention to strengthening the construction of the discourse system. We should have the most say in interpreting China's practice and constructing Chinese theory, but in fact, the voice of China's philosophy and social sciences in the international community is still relatively small, and it is still in a situation where 'reason cannot be said, and what is said cannot be spread'. We should be good at refining identifying concepts, creating new concepts, new categories and new expressions that are easy to understand and accept by the international community, and guide international academic circles to carry out research and discussion. In my opinion, the theory of independent diplomacy constructed in this book is not only based on the continuous thinking of China's diplomacy, but also on the conceptual category widely accepted by the international community, which is derived from China and inclusive of the world, which will surely promote the development of diplomatic theory with Chinese characteristics, and thus become an important theoretical support for China's peaceful development." At the same time, the theory of independent diplomacy that attaches importance to internal and external linkage and the construction of an autonomous state will certainly help China improve the quality of domestic social governance, enhance its ability to coordinate the overall situation of internal and external affairs and shape global governance, and then contribute to the peaceful realization of the "Chinese Dream" of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the maintenance of world peace, thus becoming an important practical guide for China's peaceful development. In short, on the basis of the original doctoral dissertation, after long-term repeated thinking and scrutiny, this book not only greatly adjusts the chapter layout, adds the chapter content, but also modifies the thinking dimension, changes the perspective and concept, expands the scope of the theme, highlights the research task of theoretical construction, and highlights the policy value of theoretical application. Of course, the author's original intention is to build a comprehensive theory with both Chinese characteristics and generality, and whether this theoretical task is really completed needs to be tested in practice. Therefore, the theory of autonomous diplomacy is only a "hole in the hole", and there must be many debatable points in it. The author has used this manuscript for the time being, but the long-term thinking has been inspired and taught by experts, and I will try my best to improve and improve in the future. Li Zhiyong at the University of International Trade on July 18, 2016（AI翻译）