ABSTRACT This analysis argues that two conceptual tools – the idea of international society used by English School theorists and a concept of health derived from Thucydides’ Hippocratic analysis in The History of the Peloponnesian War – provide a powerful explanation for why Great Powers make unreasonable demands on small states and why small states choose to resist them. Two examples – the Melian refusal to accede to Athenian demands in 416 BC and the Belgian refusal to grant the German Army free passage in 1914 AD – illustrate smaller Powers choosing to resist a far superior military force. By contextualising the Melian Dialogue in a larger analysis of the Peloponnesian War, this exegesis develops the concept of “health’ and relates it with the English School concept of international society. These concepts then apply to Belgium’s security dilemma of August 1914. Germany’s military leadership assumed that Brussels would acquiesce or defend its territory only nominally; however, Belgian leadership, like the Melians, chose to resist, denying Berlin its military objectives whilst encouraging Britain to intervene.

中文翻译：

---

国际社会、健康和反抗：美利安和比利时对战时最后通牒的反应的英语学校分析

摘要 该分析认为，两个概念工具——英国学派理论家使用的国际社会概念和源自《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》中修昔底德的希波克拉底分析的健康概念——为大国为何对健康提出不合理要求提供了有力的解释。小国以及为什么小国选择抵制它们。两个例子——公元前 416 年的美利安拒绝接受雅典的要求和公元 1914 年比利时拒绝给予德国军队自由通行——说明了较小的国家选择抵抗远为优越的军事力量。通过在对伯罗奔尼撒战争的更大分析中将美利安对话置于语境中，该释经发展了“健康”的概念，并将其与国际社会的英国学派概念联系起来。这些概念随后适用于比利时 1914 年 8 月的安全困境。德国的军事领导层假设布鲁塞尔只会在名义上默许或捍卫其领土；然而，像梅利安人一样，比利时领导层选择抵抗，否认柏林的军事目标，同时鼓励英国进行干预。