自1980初期開始，有鑑於國際環境面臨的巨大轉變，許多國際關係理論的學者開始反省過去半世紀以來，由英美、國家中心、軍國主義、陽性特質、實證主義之方法論與現實主義的哲學思維相互作用下而產生的主流安全概念；「威爾斯學派之批判安全研究」即為其中之重要安全途徑。威爾斯學派主要承襲了法蘭克福學派之批判意涵、認識論的立場與解放的傳統，並將其帶入安全研究的次學門中。由於威爾斯學派將研究焦點分為「安全」、「解放」與「共同體」三面向，因而本文目的將羅列並檢討其主要內涵。
首先，威爾斯學派批判安全研究為安全概念進行「深化」，意即解構國家主義，並將安全指涉對象回歸於個人面向；進而以此概念「擴展」安全議程，藉此處理全球化下的諸多傳統與非傳統議題。此外，威爾斯學派更強調理論落實到實踐面向的重要性，希望以此安全視角達到「解放政治」的目標；藉由解放之共同體的建構，有助於人類脫離壓迫的不平等安全狀態，以期為人類創造一充滿人性與自由平等的政治環境。
儘管當代的國際制度與安全環境仍以國家為主要的安全主體，亦無法真正地落實威爾斯學派之解放意涵；然而對於處於發展初期的批判安全研究而言，其首要之務在於提供一個批判與反省的安全視角，並為人類尋求更為全面與符合人類整體利益的安全思維。

Since the initial stages of 1980s, the global world faced the huge shift. Many security scholars try to challenge and review the mainstream security studies that derived from a combination of Anglo-American, statist, militarized, masculinized, methodologically positivist, and philosophically realist thinking. “The Welsh School” of Critical Security Studies is one of the most important approach. The Welsh School thinks about security as developing in the light of the Frankfurt School, and brings the tradition of “critical”, “epistemology position”, and “emancipation” to the security studies. The Welsh School separate the core of critical security studies(CSS) into three concepts: security, emancipation, and community, therefore, this study try to explain and review these concepts.
Firstly, CSS tried to “deepen” the concepts of “security”, deconstruct statism and bring the referent to individual, and then “broaden” the agenda of security to discuss the traditional and non-traditional issues in the globalization world. Secondly, CSS emphasize the relationship of theory and practice, and expect to achieve their goal-“emancipatory politics”. Via the construction of emancipatory community, people could released from contingent and structural oppressions, and create a free and equal environment.
Despite the states still the major referent in international institution and security environment, and the main concept of The Welsh School still not practice in contemporary politics, but the first task of CSS is to bring a revision of the world, and then create a comprehensive and humanity security thinking.

第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機…………………………………………………1
第二節 研究目的…………………………………………………5
第三節 文獻回顧………………………………………………..14
第四節 研究方法………………………………………………..15
第五節 章節安排………………………………………………..16
第二章 威爾斯學派安全研究之理論淵源及其與廣義批判安全之區別……………………………………………………………..17
第一節 批判安全研究的理論淵源－法蘭克福學派…………..18
第二節 法蘭克福學派與批判安全研究之關聯－理論的延續..23
第三節 威爾斯學派批判安全與廣義批判安全研究之差異…..29
第三章 威爾斯學派批判安全研究「安全概念」之深化與擴展…..35
第一節 反思安全概念之必要性暨方法………………………..36
第二節 威爾斯學派批判安全研究深化之內涵………………..41
第三節 批判安全研究擴展之內涵－安全議程的設定………..47
第四章 威爾斯學派批判安全研究之最終目標－解放的共同體…..55
第一節 威爾斯學派安全研究之解放概念……………………..56
第二節 威爾斯學派之解放的共同體…………………………..64
第三節 對批判安全研究藍圖的反省與期許…………………..73
第五章 威爾斯學派與主流安全研究之對話………………………..77
第一節 延伸安全概念之辯論……………………………..........78
第二節 對政治關聯性與政治實踐力之辯論…………………..89
第三節 對解放一詞之爭論……………………………………..94
第六章 結論…………………………………………………………..97
第一節 研究發現………………………………………………..97
第二節 期許與省思……………………………………………101
參考文獻………………………………………………………………105

王逸舟，1998，〈論綜合安全〉，《世界經濟與政治》，第4期，5-14。
王逸舟，2006，〈點評2005年全球政治與安全〉，取自http://theory.people.com.cn/BIG5/40764/63787/63791/4388461.html#，上網時間：2007/5/8。
李學保，2005，〈全球化視角下的安全：兩種不同的理解及分歧的原因〉，《教學與研究》，第7期，71-77。
倪世雄，2003，《當代國際關係理論》，台北：五南。
凌海衡，2006，〈批判理論〉，《國外理論動態》，第7期，54-56。
莫大華，1998，〈「安全研究」理論之評析〉，《問題與研究》，第37卷第8期，19-33。
莫大華，2001，〈千禧年後的台海安全－批判性安全觀的看法〉，《遠景季刊》，第2卷第1期，35-65。
陳欣之，2003，〈國際安全研究之理論變遷與挑戰〉，《遠景季刊》，第4卷第3期，1-14。
郭樹勇，2005，〈國際關係研究中的批判理論：淵源、理念及影響〉，《世界經濟與政治》，第7期，7-14。
維基百科，http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/，上網時間：2007/5/2。
劉學源，2007，〈探索蘇丹達佛危機，潘基文認禍起氣候變遷〉，取自http://news.yam.com/afp/life/200706/20070617394773.html，上網日期：2007/07/02。
劉復國，1999，〈綜合性安全與國家安全：亞洲安全概念適用性之檢討〉，《問題與研究》，第38卷第2期，21-36。
鄭先武，2004，〈人的解放與「安全共同體」－威爾士學派的「批判安全研究」探悉〉，《現代國際關係》，第6期，55-61。
蕭俊明，2001，〈關於法蘭克福學派批判理論的重新思考〉，《國外社會科學》，第1期，38-43。
嚴震生，2005，〈蘇丹種族滅絕危機〉，《校園雜誌》，取自http://www.africa-taiwan.org/fast_tw/perspectives/detail.php?o_id=8，上網日期：2007/07/02。
Alker, Hayward. 2005. “Emancipation in the Critical Security Studies Project,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 189-213.
Ayoob , Mohammed. 1997. “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases.121-146.
Behnke, Andreas. 2000. “The Massage of the Messenger? Reflection on the Role of Security Experts and the Securitization of Political Issues,” Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 35, No. 1, 89-105.
Booth, Ken. 1991. “Security and Emancipation,” Review of International Studies. Vol. 17, No.2, 313-326.
Booth, Ken. 1997. “Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. 83-119.
Booth, Ken. 2005. “Critical Explorations,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics.1-18.
Booth, Ken. 2005. “Introduction to Part 1,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics.21-25.
Booth, Ken. 2005. “Part 2: Community,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 109-112.
Booth, Ken. 2005. “Part 3: “Emancipation,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 181-187.
Booth, Ken. 2005. “Beyond Critical Security Studies,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 259-278.
Booth, Ken. et al eds. 2005. Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Booth, Ken. and Peter Vale. 1997. “Critical Security Studies and Regional Insecurity: The Case of Southern Africa,” in Krause and Williams, eds. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. 329-358.
Booth, Ken. and Steve Smith, eds., 1995. International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity.
Bottomore, Tom. 1984. The Frankfurt School. 《法蘭克福學派》，廖仁義譯，台北：桂冠。
Buzan, Barry. 1983. People, states, and fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Buzan, Barry. 1991. People, states, and fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. 2nd ed. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Buzan, Barry. Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde. 1998. Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Cheeseman, Graeme. 2005. “Military Force(s) and In/security,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 63-87.
Cox, Robert. 1981. “Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory,” Millennium: Journal of International studies. Vol. 10, No. 2, 126-155.
Cox, Robert. 1983. “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International studies. Vol. 12, No. 2, 162-175.
Cox, Robert. 2002.〈社會力量、國家與世界秩序：超越國際關係理論〉，收錄於Keohane, Robert編《現實主義及其批判》，187-231。
Croft, Stuart. and Terry Terriff, eds. 2000. Critical Reflection on Security and Change. London: Frank Cass.
Deudney, Daniel. 2000. “The Case against Linking Environment Degradation and Nation Security,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 19, No. 3. 461-476.
Eriksson, Johan. 1999. “Observers or Advocates? On the Political Role of Security Analysis,” Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 34, No. 3, 311-330.
Hoffman, Mark. 1987. “Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate,” Millennium: Journal of International studies. Vol.16, No. 2, 232-249.
Horkheimer, Max. 1972. Critical Theory: Selected Essays, translated by Matthew J. O’Connell and others. New York: Seabury Press.
Keohane, Robert. 2002. Neorealism and its Critics. 《新現實主義及其批判》，郭樹勇譯，北京：北京大學出版社。
Krause, Keith. 1998. “Critical Theory and Security Studies: The Research Programme of Critical Security Studies,” Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 33, No.3, 298-333.
Krause, Keith. and Michael C. Williams. 1996. “Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods,” Mershon International Studies Review. Vol. 40, No. 2, 229-254.
Krause, Keith. and Michael C. Williams. 1997. “From Strategy to Security: Foundations of Critical Security Studies,” in Krause and Williams, eds. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. 33-59.
Krause, Keith. and Michael C. Williams, eds. 1997. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Linklater, Andrew. 2005. “Political Community and Human Security,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 113-131.
Morgan, Patrick. 2000. “Liberalist and Realist Security Studies at 2000: Two Decades of Progress?” in Stuart Croft and Terry Terriff, eds., Critical Reflection on Security and Change. 39-71.
Patomaki, Heikki. and Colin Wigh. 2000. “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism,” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 44, No.2, 213-237.
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1992. “Realist and Resistance Utopias: Community, Security and Political Action in the New Europe,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 24. No.1. 53-85.
Smith, Steve. 1996. “Positivism and Beyond,” in Steve Smith, eds., International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. 11-44.
Smith, Steve. 2005. “The Contested Concept of Security,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 27-62.
Smith, Steve. Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski. 1996. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Terriff, Terry. Stuart Croft, Lucy James and Patrick M. Morgan. 1999. Security Studies Today. Cambridge: Polity.
Tickner, J. Ann. 1995. “Re-visioning Security,” in Ken Booth and Steve Smith, eds., International Relations Theory Today. 175-197.
Walt, Stephen. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies,” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 35, 211-239.
Walker, R. B. J. 1990. “Security, Sovereignty, and the Challenge of World Politics,” Alternatives. Vol.15, No.1, 3-27.
Walker, R. B. J. 1997. “The Subject of Security,” in Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams, eds., Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. 61-81.
Williams, Michael. 1999. “The Practices of Security: Critical Contribution,” Cooperation and Conflict. Vol. 34, 341-344.
Wyn Jones, Richard. 1999. Security, strategy, and critical theory. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Wyn Jones, Richard. 2005. “On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity, and Concrete Utopias,” in Ken Booth, ed., Critical Security Studies and World Politics. 215-235.