宗教与外交:作为历史诽谤的“文明冲突”

IF 0.4 0 ARCHITECTURE
R. Denemark, M. Hoffmann, Hasan Yonten
{"title":"宗教与外交:作为历史诽谤的“文明冲突”","authors":"R. Denemark, M. Hoffmann, Hasan Yonten","doi":"10.3390/histories3010005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis suggested that global politics would revert to inter-civilizational (inter-religious) conflict with the end of the Cold War. Conceptual and empirical refutations followed, but the idea that pre-Cold War inter-polity interaction was generally characterized by such conflict was not addressed. We consider this a possible historical libel. First, we briefly review the position of major faith traditions toward making and keeping agreements with those of other faith traditions. Most forms of agreements are sanctioned, and there is inconsistent and minimal support for duplicity. Second, using the MATRS database of multilateral treaties, we identify 79 sovereign entities active between 1750 and 1900 (when multilateral treaties were numerous and official state religions were prominent), link states to their official religions, and analyze the pattern of 385 multilateral treaties’ signings. We conclude that there is no tendency among states with one official religion to avoid entering into treaties with those of other official religions. The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis is a historical myth.","PeriodicalId":41517,"journal":{"name":"Architectural Histories","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Religion and Diplomacy: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as Historical Libel\",\"authors\":\"R. Denemark, M. Hoffmann, Hasan Yonten\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/histories3010005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis suggested that global politics would revert to inter-civilizational (inter-religious) conflict with the end of the Cold War. Conceptual and empirical refutations followed, but the idea that pre-Cold War inter-polity interaction was generally characterized by such conflict was not addressed. We consider this a possible historical libel. First, we briefly review the position of major faith traditions toward making and keeping agreements with those of other faith traditions. Most forms of agreements are sanctioned, and there is inconsistent and minimal support for duplicity. Second, using the MATRS database of multilateral treaties, we identify 79 sovereign entities active between 1750 and 1900 (when multilateral treaties were numerous and official state religions were prominent), link states to their official religions, and analyze the pattern of 385 multilateral treaties’ signings. We conclude that there is no tendency among states with one official religion to avoid entering into treaties with those of other official religions. The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis is a historical myth.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Architectural Histories\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Architectural Histories\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/histories3010005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHITECTURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Architectural Histories","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/histories3010005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“文明冲突”假说认为,随着冷战的结束,全球政治将恢复到文明间(宗教间)冲突。随后出现了概念上和经验上的反驳,但冷战前的政治间互动通常以这种冲突为特征的观点没有得到解决。我们认为这可能是对历史的诽谤。首先,我们简要回顾一下主要信仰传统在与其他信仰传统达成和遵守协议方面的立场。大多数形式的协议都是经过批准的,表里不一的人很少得到支持。其次,利用MATRS多边条约数据库,我们确定了1750年至1900年间活跃的79个主权实体(当时多边条约众多,官方国教突出),将国家与其官方宗教联系起来,并分析了385个多边条约的签署模式。我们的结论是,在只有一个官方宗教的国家中,没有避免与其他官方宗教的国家签订条约的倾向。“文明冲突”假说是一个历史神话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Religion and Diplomacy: The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as Historical Libel
The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis suggested that global politics would revert to inter-civilizational (inter-religious) conflict with the end of the Cold War. Conceptual and empirical refutations followed, but the idea that pre-Cold War inter-polity interaction was generally characterized by such conflict was not addressed. We consider this a possible historical libel. First, we briefly review the position of major faith traditions toward making and keeping agreements with those of other faith traditions. Most forms of agreements are sanctioned, and there is inconsistent and minimal support for duplicity. Second, using the MATRS database of multilateral treaties, we identify 79 sovereign entities active between 1750 and 1900 (when multilateral treaties were numerous and official state religions were prominent), link states to their official religions, and analyze the pattern of 385 multilateral treaties’ signings. We conclude that there is no tendency among states with one official religion to avoid entering into treaties with those of other official religions. The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ hypothesis is a historical myth.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Architectural Histories
Architectural Histories ARCHITECTURE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信