【新刊速递】第49期|Chinese Journal of International Politics, No.1, 2020 / 开普饭

期刊简介

《中国国际政治杂志》（The Chinese Journal of International Politics）成立于2006年，主编是孙学峰教授，是由牛津大学出版社每季度出版的经同行评议的学术期刊，以现代方法论为基础研究国际关系，也发表历史研究和政策导向的论文。该期刊大部分文章或与中国有关，或对中国的外交政策有影响。

本期编委

【编译】吕紫烟刘颖哲石雨宸邵良戴赟

【审校】李博轩王国欣姚寰宇

【排版】高佳美

本期目录

1. 中国能改变世界秩序吗？道义领导的作用

Can China Change the International System? The Role of Moral Leadership

2. 现代性视角下的中国

China Through the Lens of Modernity

3. 害怕失败与焦虑衰落：解释俄罗斯和中国地位寻求的方法

Fears of Falling Short versus Anxieties of Decline: Explaining Russia and China’s Approach to Status-Seeking

4. 楔子战略的相互依赖理论

An Interdependence Theory of Wedge Strategies

5. 作为国际关系通用语的方法论：在核心对话中的边缘自我反思

Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-reflections on Dialogue with the Core

中国能改变世界秩序吗？道义领导的作用

【题目】Can China Change the International System? The Role of Moral Leadership

【作者】Deborah Welch Larson，加州大学洛杉矶分校政治科学教授。

【摘要】在《领导力与大国崛起》一书中，阎学通教授认为为了获得国际领导地位，中国应该在其外交政策中遵循道德价值观。引用中国古代的思想，阎学通教授提出中国应该争取“王权”，通过道德榜样来影响其他国家，通过提供利益而不是胁迫来吸引支持者。本文分析了中国实现“王权”的可行性，这与其地位密切相关。“王权”对竞争对手和友好国家遵循一致的规范，而霸权则采用双重标准。但由于双重标准源自内心的偏见，所以它可能不那么容易避免。在东亚地区已经存在有美国联盟体系，所以对于中国来说，通过提供安全保证来争取追随者的方案并不可行。阎学通预测中国的发展将导致两极格局的形成，但同时，他也指出构成冷战的条件不具备。然而，中美之间的技术竞争可能导致“新冷战”，这将阻碍中国扩大其追随者圈子的努力。要想实现“王权”，中国还应避免与美国发生战争。安全困境的驱动使得海军竞赛可能导致地区冲突。中美两国应通过分工管控地位竞争，以社会合作的方式接受对方在不同领域的优势地位。

Yan Xuetong’s Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers argues that China should follow moral values in its foreign policy in order to attain international leadership. Drawing on ancient Chinese thought, Yan makes the case that China should strive for humane authority, influencing other states by leading through moral example and attracting supporters through providing benefits rather than using coercion. This essay evaluates the feasibility of China’s attainment of humane authority, which is related to status. Humane authority follows norms consistently toward rivals as well as friendly states whereas a hegemon uses a double standard. But double standards may not be so easily avoided because they derive from inherent psychological bias. The option of acquiring followers by providing them with security guarantees is not available to China in East Asia because of the prior existence of the US alliance system. Yan predicts that China’s growth will lead to a bipolar structure but points out that the conditions for a Cold War are absent. Nevertheless, technological competition between the US and China could lead to a ‘new Cold War’, which would hamper China’s efforts to widen its circle of followers. To be a humane authority, China should also avoid a war with the USA. There is a risk that naval competition could lead to local conflicts as a result of security dilemma dynamics. The two states should control status rivalry through a division of labour, by accepting the other’s pre-eminence in different areas through social cooperation.

【编译】吕紫烟

【校对】李博轩

现代性视角下的中国

【题目】China Through the Lens of Modernity

【作者】巴里·布赞（Barry Buzan），英国社会科学院院士、伦敦政治经济学院国际关系学系荣誉教授，并在哥本哈根大学、中国外交学院、国际关系学院、吉林大学等知名大学担任名誉教授。布赞教授是国际关系领域和国际安全研究界世界级权威、哥本哈根学派创始者之一和英国学派领军人物。

乔治·劳森（George Lawson），澳大利亚国立大学国际关系学系教授。他聚焦于国际关系与历史社会学之间的交叉研究，以及激进的变革进程，尤其是大变革。

【摘要】本文考察了中国自19世纪以来的现代性（modernity）遭遇。它基于布赞和劳森（2015）提出的现代性历史叙事，以及两种理论视角：不平衡与综合发展理论（uneven and combined development）、分化理论（differentiation theory）。本文以现代性的短暂历史作为开篇，说明现代性并非静态现象，而是一个不断发展的过程。之后探讨了中国遭遇现代性的五个时期：帝国衰落和对现代化的抵抗、内战与日本侵略、激进共产主义时期、市场社会主义时期、当代融合历史思维的尝试。本文探讨了中国适应现代性的总体轨迹，以及中国如何从对现代性的拒绝态度发展到构建独特的“中国特色现代性” (modernity with Chinese characteristics）版本。本文最后总结了中国的现代性还存在哪些问题，以及它们如何适应（与不适应）全球国际社会已经建立的其他现代性形式。

This article examines China’s encounter with modernity from the 19th century to the present day. It builds on the historical narrative of modernity developed by Buzan and Lawson (2015), and two theoretical perspectives: uneven and combined development, and differentiation theory. The article opens with a short history of modernity, establishing that it is not a static phenomenon, but a continuously unfolding process. It then explores five periods of China’s encounter with modernity: imperial decline and resistance to modernization; civil war and Japanese invasion; Mao’s radical communist project; Deng’s market socialism; and Xi’s attempt to synthesize Confucius, Mao, and Deng. It explores both how China fits into the general trajectory of modernity, and how it has evolved from rejection of it to constructing its own distinctive version of ‘modernity with Chinese characteristics’. The article ends by reflecting on what issues remain within China’s version of modernity, and how it fits, and doesn’t fit with other forms of modernity already established within global international society.

【编译】刘颖哲

【审校】王国欣

害怕失败与焦虑衰落：解释俄罗斯和中国地位寻求的方法

【题目】Fears of Falling Short versus Anxieties of Decline: Explaining Russia and China’s Approach to Status-Seeking

【作者】Andrej Krickovic，俄罗斯国家研究型高等经济大学世界秩序研究和新区域主义国际实验室副教授；Chang Zhang，华威大学政治与国际研究系博士研究生

【摘要】尽管最近的学术研究已经提高了我们对地位的理解，但是影响国家寻求地位行为的因素仍很少被关注，现有的理论无法解释为什么俄罗斯在地位寻求方面比中国更加激进和对抗，地位寻求者的权力轨迹如何影响其寻求地位的行为仍旧缺少详细研究。寻求地位国家处于崛起或衰落状态影响着其追求地位的风险倾向、追求更高地位的效用计算以及使用非对抗性和非侵略性的策略诱使其他国家赋予其更高地位的能力。像俄罗斯这样的衰落大国需要积极地寻求地位以避免迫在眉睫的地位丧失，衰落国需要与其他国家对抗以迫使他们承认自己的地位。中国等崛起国则意识到积极的寻求地位会危害即将获得的收益及其可能带来的成本，因此对地位寻求更为谨慎和克制。此外，崛起国令人钦佩的成功和不断增长的实力使其他国家更加愿意赋予它们更高的地位。因此，崛起国无需诉诸激进或对抗的方法就可以提高自己的地位。

Although recent scholarship has advanced our understanding of status, little attention has been paid to the factors that shape states’ status-seeking behaviour. Consequently, existing theories are unable to explain why Russia has been more aggressive and confrontational in its status-seeking than China. What is missing is a detailed examination of the ways in which status-seekers’ power trajectories affect their status-seeking behaviour. Whether a status-seeker is rising or in decline shapes its propensity to take risks in pursuit of status, its calculations regarding the utility of attaining more status, and its ability to use non-confrontational and non-aggressive status-seeking strategies to induce other states to accord it higher status. Declining powers, such as Russia, engage in aggressive status-seeking to avoid imminent status losses. Decliners need to initiate confrontations with other states to compel them to recognise their status. Risers, such as China, are more cautious and restrained. Recognising that aggressive status-seeking can jeopardise imminent gains, they are conscious of the costs that accompany elevated status. Their admirable successes and growing power, moreover, make other states all the more willing to accord them higher status. Risers, therefore, can enhance their status without resorting to aggressive or confrontational methods.

【编译】石雨宸

【审校】王国欣

楔子战略的相互依赖理论

【题目】An Interdependence Theory of Wedge Strategies

【作者】黄宇兴，清华大学国际关系学系助理教授、特别研究员、博士生导师

【摘要】“楔子战略”（wedge strategy）是一个国家试图防止，破坏或削弱对自身不利的联盟的尝试。非对称联盟（asymmetric alignment）由大国（联盟领导者）和中小国家（较弱盟友）组成。那么，大国（挑拨者）的楔子战略什么时候能够成功离间非对称联盟？基于“克劳福德-泉川之争”，我提出了针对楔子战略的“相互依赖理论”。针对基于对称相互依赖的非对称联盟中较弱盟友进行离间的楔子战略最有可能成功。但是，针对基于不对称相互依赖的不对称联盟的楔子战略很可能会失败。通过分析美国，俄罗斯和中国的档案资料，我基于应用于冷战时期亚洲的四种楔子战略来评估理论。美日同盟和美台同盟基于不对称相互依赖，因此抵消了中国楔子战略的影响。因此，在1955年至1965年之间，中国的威逼利诱都无法使较弱的东亚美国盟友与美国分道扬镳。但是，中国成功利用了美巴同盟的对称相互依赖关系。1962年至1965年之间，中国对巴基斯坦的怀柔阻止了巴基斯坦成为遏制中国的美国基地。同样，苏联充分利用了中越联盟的对称相互依赖关系，通过对北越的援助使得中越关系出现裂痕，最终破坏了中越联盟。因此，根据该理论，鉴于“轴辐式体系”（hub-and-spokes system）的不对称相互依赖关系，中国任何试图削弱美国东亚联盟的尝试都是无效的。

A wedge strategy is a state’s attempt to prevent, break up, or weaken a threatening or blocking alliance. An asymmetric alignment consists of a great power (the alignment leader) and a small/middle power (the weaker ally). So when does the wedge strategy of a great power (a divider) towards a competitive asymmetric alignment work? I propose, based upon the ‘Crawford–Izumikawa debate’, an ‘interdependence theory’ of wedge strategies. In the case of an asymmetric alignment that is symmetrically interdependent, the wedge strategy of a divider that accommodates the weaker ally is most likely to succeed. However, a wedge strategy towards an asymmetric alignment that is asymmetrically interdependent is highly likely to fail. I evaluate the theory based upon four wedge strategies adopted in Cold War Asia through analysing American, Russian, and Chinese archival sources. As asymmetrically interdependent, the US–Japan and US–Taiwan alliances offset the impact of Chinese wedge strategies. Between 1955 and 1965, therefore, neither Chinese accommodation nor Chinese pressure could detach weaker American allies from the United States in East Asia. However, China successfully exploited the symmetric interdependence of the US–Pakistan alliance. Between 1962 and 1965, China’s accommodation of Pakistan prevented Pakistan from being used as an American base for containment purposes. Likewise, the Soviet Union took full advantage of the Sino–Vietnamese alignment’s symmetric interdependence, whereby Soviet aid to North Vietnam caused rifts in Sino–Vietnamese relations that eventually wrecked the Sino–Vietnamese alignment. According to the theory, therefore, given the asymmetric interdependence of the hub-and-spokes system, any Chinese attempts to weaken US-sponsored alliances in East Asia would not be effective.

【编译】邵良

【审校】姚寰宇

作为国际关系通用语的方法论：在核心对话中的边缘自我反思

【题目】Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-reflections on Dialogue with the Core

【作者】Ersel Aydinli比尔肯大学国际关系教授

【摘要】近几十年来，许多学科界的“核心”与“边缘”或“西方/非西方”之间的学术对话已成为一个热门话题，部分原因是许多处于边缘地带的群体越来越期待在核心期刊上发表文章，而英语的语言霸权和对准入门槛的注意等因素又使情形复杂化。国际关系（IR）学科一直处于该热点话题的最前沿。尽管人们普遍意识到这一问题，并致力于推动更多地强调外围地区的本地理论，但全球国际关系学术的前沿仍然核心地区占据主导地位。本文提出，从最广泛的意义上讲，关注“质量”方法论，即具有透明和有效的应用研究设计，也可以作为一种通用语言，促进思想交流，减少对边缘学者的不利影响。文章接着以土耳其国际关系界方法管理的案例为重点，探讨这一问题。它考察了目前土耳其国际关系教学和学术界对方法论问题的看法，然后对土耳其国际关系学科方法的质量进行了自我反思。最后，它对土耳其国际关系学科界该如何更好地解决方法论的问题提出了建议，并最终可能会对全球国际关系学界产生巨大影响。

Scholarly dialogue between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ or ‘West/non-West’ in many disciplinary communities has become an issue of discussion in recent decades, spawned in part by increased expectations in many periphery communities of being published in core journals, and complicated by factors such as the linguistic hegemony of English and concerns about access. The International Relations (IR) discipline has been at the forefront of this discussion. However, despite widespread awareness of the issue, and a dedicated push for greater emphasis on local theorising out of the periphery, the cutting edge of global IR scholarship still remains core dominant. This article proposes that a focus on ‘quality’ methodology, in the broadest possible sense of having transparent and effectively applied research designs, could serve as a lingua franca to promote the exchange of ideas in a way less prone to disadvantage periphery scholars. The article goes on to examine this issue by focusing on the case of the Turkish IR disciplinary community. It looks at how methodological issues are currently considered in Turkish IR pedagogy and scholarship and then offers a self-reflective assessment of the quality of methodology in Turkish IR. It concludes by offering suggestions on how the Turkish IR disciplinary community could better address methodological issues and, ultimately, perhaps achieve greater impact within the global IR community.

【编译】戴赟

【审校】姚寰宇

文章观点不代表本平台观点，本平台评译分享的文章均出于专业学习之用, 不以任何盈利为目的，内容主要呈现对原文的介绍，原文内容请通过各高校购买的数据库自行下载

添加“国小政”微信

获取最新资讯

【新刊速递】第49期|Chinese Journal of International Politics, No.1, 2020

相关推荐