19世紀，是歐洲帝國主義興盛的時代。尤其，在世界各地擁有眾多領地、屬國的英國，更是名符其實的帝國組織。然而，在此帝國組織背後，其所涉及的往往是普世人性理念與民族國家利益之間的連結。承此，本文以反駁Nazli Pinar Kaymaz稱F. H. Bradley為軍事帝國主義者之論辯出發，進而指陳：首先，Bradley未因主張人類共有一個普世目的，而支持大英帝國對其他民族地域之侵略行為，反之，他認為過於重視抽象普世人性理念的信條，反倒可能合理化帝國對外的壓迫；其次，Bradley認為，為了防範此種假普世人性之名、侵略不同民族地域的行為，世界政府與國際法庭之設置有其必要，因為世界、國家、民族、個人乃處在一個動態互構的發展過程中，唯有藉此過程，所謂的普世人性才可獲得具體的落實，也正是經此，個人作為世界公民和國家社群公民的義務衝突，便有了調解之道。

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.