國立臺灣大學政治科學論叢

The 19th century was a time when European imperialism flourished. In particular, the British Empire Britain, with its many territories and dependencies around the world, was a veritable imperial organisation. Behind this imperial organisation, however, there were complex interconnections between the idea of universal humanity and the interests of the nation-states. In the light of this, this article argues against Nazli Pinar Kaymaz’s claim that the influential British philosopher F. H. Bradley was a military imperialist., and furtherIt argues, firstly, that Bradley did not support the British Empire’s aggression against other nations based onbecause hishe beliefved in a universal purpose for humanity;, but, on the contrary, he believed that too much emphasis on the tenets of the abstract idea of universal humanity might have rationalised imperial oppression abroad. Secondly, Bradley argues that the establishment of a world government and an international tribunal is necessary to prevent such acts of aggression against nations and places in the name of universal humanity., This is because the world, states, nations, and individuals are in a dynamic and inter-constructive process of development., and it is oOnly through this process canthat the idea of the so-called universal humanity can be concretely realised, and it is through this that the conflict between the obligations of the individual as a citizen of the world and as a citizen of a national community can be resolved.