國際關係學中一個有名的爭論是發生在理性主義與建構主義之間，前者認為國家的行動是遵循「後果論的邏輯」，而後者則認為是遵循「適當性的邏輯」。近年來有些建構主義者嘗試引入哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論，主張國家的行動還遵循第三種邏輯—即「尋求真理或論證的邏輯」，其具體的表現是所謂的「溝通行動」。這些建構主義者認為引入哈伯瑪斯的溝通行動理論可以加強建構主義對於改變發生的「微觀機制」—即解釋國家的偏好與利益如何在互動中發生改變—的說明，並主張這種改變有可能是因為「較佳論據」所造成的。本文的目標是要探討建構主義者如何將溝通行動理論與國際關係的研究加以結合，並從經驗上檢視溝通行動是否確實在國際關係中發揮作用，進而探討這個結合會面臨什麼質疑，最後對這個研究領域的成果與限制做出評估。透過這樣的回顧與評估，本文試圖說明：溝通行動理論與建構主義的結合雖然開闢了一個新的研究綱領，但目前的實證研究結果顯示，建構主義的解釋並不必然優於理性主義的解釋。換言之，溝通行動理論與實證的建構主義的結合無可避免地會遭遇理性主義的質疑與挑戰。因此本文認為，既然國際哈伯瑪斯的學說本質上是一種批判理論，將它在國際關係學中做實證主義的應用並不是最好的方式。
One of the well-known debates in International Relations is between rationalism and constructivism, in which rationalism submits that the actions of states observe ”the logic of consequentialism” while constructivism ”the logic of appropriateness”. In recent years a branch of constructivism attempts to appropriate Habermas's theory of communicative action and argues that the actions of states follow a third logic, the ”logic of truth seeking or arguing,” which takes the form of communicative action. These constructivists believes that the theory of communicative action can help to illuminate the ”micro-mechanism” through which states' preferences or interests change over the course of interaction, and they argue this change can be caused by ”the force of better argument”. This paper aims to explore how the theory of communicative action is appropriated by this branch of constructivism and examine whether communicative actions actually take place in international arena. It further investigates what challenges and queries that this approach may encounter, and then provides an assessment of the achievements and limits of this approach. By so doing this paper aims to show that even though the appropriation of the theory of communicative action by constructivists has produced a new research program, empirical studies suggest that constructivist explanation, which relies on the idea of communicative action, does not overwhelmingly prevail over rationalist explanation, which relies of the idea of strategic action, and constructivist explanations will continue to be beset by rationalist explanations. This leads to the conclusion that since Habermas's theoretical enterprise is by nature a critical theory, its positivist appropriation in IR is not very productive.
