【新刊速递】第52期 | Review of International Studies,Vol.46, No.4,2020
期刊简介
本期编委
【编译】许文婷 赖永祯 赵雷 施榕 扎西旺姆
【校对】王川
【审核】周玫琳
本期目录
1. 食品民主化：以一种审议性方法为例
Democratising food: The case for a deliberative approach
2. 东亚地区的“文明”话语塑造：亚洲价值观、多元现代性与经济发展的政治学
Performing Civilizational Narratives in East Asia: Asian Values, Multiple Modernities, and the Politics of Economic Development
3. 不说就不会做？联合国的维和行动、话语以及机构的自我合法化
No action without talk? UN peacekeeping, discourse, and institutional self-legitimation
4.发展中国家、西方国家和历史上人道主义干预的含义
The South, the West, and the meanings of humanitarian intervention in history
5.“庄严而公正的要求”：在国际舞台上寻求道歉
‘Solemn and just demands’: Seeking apologies in the international arena
01
食品民主化：以一种审议性方法为例
【题目】Democratising food: The case for a deliberative approach
【作者】梅丽莎·汤普森（Merisa S. Thopmson），伯明翰大学政府学院国际发展系讲师，主要研究方向为批判发展研究（critical development studies）和女权政治经济学（feminist political economy）；阿拉斯代尔·科克伦（Alasdair Cochrane），谢菲尔德大学政治学系高级讲师，主要研究方向为当代政治理论、权利理论、人权、环境伦理、动物伦理和生物伦理；贾斯塔·霍普玛（Justa Hopma），独立研究者，致力于粮食安全（food security）领域研究，主要研究兴趣为粮食系统变化、治理与策略及面向小农的低成本农业技术。
【摘要】现今缺少一种普遍的用于批判和提出替代现有粮食体系的政治和道德方法。尽管粮食安全、粮食主权、粮食正义和粮食民主都为我们对全球粮食系统的思考提供了重要的内容，但它们都不能替代现状。本文对每种方法进行了分析，以找出采用这些替代方法进行食品治理的前提条件。其中包括重点关注诸如营养与健康、公平分配、支持生计、环境可持续性和社会正义的商品。但是，其他利益，例如非人类动物的利益，目前并未得到体现。而且，将所有这些利益都包含进去的要求非常高，并且有些处于矛盾状态。这就提出了一个问题，即如何适当地容纳和平衡每个人。该文章建议，应该通过审议性民主程序来做到这一点，该程序应纳入地方、国家、区域和全球各级所有有关方面的利益。换句话说，该文章呼吁对食品民主化进行审议。它还建议，将所有受影响的当事方的利益纳入考虑范围并解决权力不平衡的一种可能的前景在于围绕粮食的类型组织审议的范围和权限。
Prevailing political and ethical approaches that have been used to both critique and propose alternatives to the existing food system are lacking. Although food security, food sovereignty, food justice, and food democracy all offer something important to our reflection on the global food system, none is adequate as an alternative to the status quo. This article analyses each in order to identify the prerequisites for such an alternative approach to food governance. These include a focus on goods like nutrition and health, equitable distribution, supporting livelihoods, environmental sustainability, and social justice. However, other goods, like the interests of non-human animals, are not presently represented. Moreover, incorporating all of these goods is incredibly demanding, and some are in tension. This raises the question of how each can be appropriately accommodated and balanced. The article proposes that this ought to be done through deliberative democratic processes that incorporate the interests of all relevant parties at the local, national, regional, and global levels. In other words, the article calls for a deliberative approach to the democratisation of food. It also proposes that one promising potential for incorporating the interests of all affected parties and addressing power imbalances lies in organising the scope and remit of deliberation around food type.
【编译】许文婷
【校对】王川
02
东亚地区的“文明”话语塑造：亚洲价值观、多元现代性与经济发展的政治学
【题目】Performing Civilizational Narratives in East Asia: Asian Values, Multiple Modernities, and the Politics of Economic Development
【作者】李容旭（Yong Wook Lee），高丽大学政治学与国际关系学院教授，主要研究方向为东亚区域政治、国际关系理论。
【摘要】本文试图揭示“文明政治”下，作为新自由主义模式“替代选择”的东亚经济发展范式的社会建构的规范论基础。作者试图回答的问题是，为什么东亚国家在推广其经济发展的替代模式时会诉诸价值观论述。对此，作者提出两个相关的命题。首先，作者认为，“亚洲价值观”政治可以被理解为非西方社会展示其“通往现代性”的多种方式之一。其次，从更深的层次上说，作者认为亚洲价值观的话语与叙述是“文明”政治的一部分，它主张重塑东亚在一个由“文明”与“非文明”组成的世界中的地位，而这种分野自十九世纪欧洲对外扩张以来仍然以多种方式而存在。作者据此揭示作为“文明标准”的施展性权力（performative power）——即在世界政治中，促使行为体自我认同具有时序性与层秩性文明身份等级的权力。基于本文的一些发现，作者指出了世界政治领域中，一个重塑等级观念与进步话语的东亚身份所得出的启示。
This article aims to uncover the socially constructed normative foundation for the alternative East Asian economic development paradigm to neoliberalism in the context of civilizational politics. The question I seek to address is why East Asian states make value claims when promoting their alternative method of economic development. In addressing this question, I make two interrelated arguments. First, I argue that the politics of Asian values can be understood as another case of non-Western society’s struggle to demonstrate multiple paths to modernity. Second, on a deeper level, I show that the discourse and narratives on Asian values is part of civilization politics aimed to recalibrate the place of East Asia in a world consisting of the civilized and the uncivilized, a divide that still remains today in various forms following European expansion in the nineteenth century. In so doing, I shed light on the performative power of ‘the standard of civilization’, which naturalizes the temporal and sequential hierarchy of civilizational identities in world politics. On the basis of this article’s findings, I draw out implications of a recalibrated East Asia for the ideas of hierarchy and progress in world politics.
【编译】赖永祯
【校对】王川
03
不说就不会做？联合国的维和行动、话语以及机构的自我合法化
【题目】No action without talk? UN peacekeeping, discourse, and institutional self-legitimation
【作者】Sarah von Billerbeck 英国雷丁大学副教授
【摘要】在这篇文章中，作者认为，联合国内部可观察到的大部分话语既不是不必要的、毫无成效的“谈话”，也不是说服外部受众相信其合法性的努力，而是一种自我合法化的形式，而这正是联合国发挥作用的关键。以联合国和平行动部为例，作者表明，由于该组织具有多方面的组织特征，它面临着被迫在多种且同等的行动方案中做出选择的情况，它利用自我合法化和其他机制来克服这些紧张关系。本文列举了三种情况，说明和平行动部如何使用简化和例外的话语来调和或淡化这些矛盾，并在内部重新确立一个有凝聚力和合法的组织身份。这种简化和例外反过来又起到了促进作用，使和平行动部能够通过规避风险和向员工灌输深刻的职业忠诚感，继续在复杂的条件下开展工作。与此同时，这种话语过程代价高昂，可能会巩固低效的实践，使自我合法化的话语效果自相矛盾:它们可能促成行动，但却降低了行动的效率和效力。
In this article, I argue that much of the discourse observable within the UN constitutes neither unnecessary and unproductive ‘talk’ nor efforts to convince outside audiences of its legitimacy, but actually a form of institutional self-legitimation that is key to its ability to function. Using the case of the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), I show that because the organisation has a multifaceted organisational identity, it faces situations where it is forced to choose between multiple but equally appropriate courses of action, and it uses self-legitimation alongside other mechanisms to overcome these tensions. I specify three sets of circumstances in which this occurs, showing how DPKO uses discourse that simplifies and exceptionalises in a bid to reconcile or downplay these contradictions and reassert a cohesive and legitimate organisational identity internally. This simplification and exceptionalisation in turn serve an enabling function, allowing DPKO to continue operating in conditions of complexity by decreasing risk aversion and instilling a deep sense of professional loyalty in staff. At the same time, such discursive processes are costly and may entrench inefficient practices, rendering the effects of self-legitimising discourse paradoxical: they may enable action, but they reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of that action.
【编译】赵雷
【校对】王川
04
发展中国家、西方国家和历史上人道主义干预的含义
【题目】The South, the West, and the meanings of humanitarian intervention in history
【作者】Patrick Quinton-Brown，牛津大学圣安东尼学院国际关系博士生。
【摘要】正如人们所写的那样，人道主义干预的历史太过于辉格党主义和白人主义。通过用白人的方式将人道主义干预进行概念化，正统史学应该被视为陷入了关于人权起源的争论中，但或许更关键的是，它陷入了各种关于人权的形成和再创造的争论中。权利的替代性法典揭示了发展中国家在我们几乎可以肯定地称之为“人道主义干预”方面进行实践的历史可能性。关于第三世界国家将他者从殖民主义和极端种族主义的暴行中解救出来的激进实践的记录也是西方国家扮演坚定的主权支持者角色的记录、是西方国家近来效忠威斯特伐利亚体系的记录。勾勒出这样一种相反的历史就是要论证以下几点:当保护的责任在国际政治生活中面临抉择时，（我们）必须重新制定和评估有关干预争论的条件、范围和领域。
As it has been written, the history of humanitarian intervention is all too Whiggish and all too white. By conceptualising humanitarian intervention in the way that they do, orthodox histories should be seen as entangled in debates about the origins of human rights but also, perhaps more crucially, debates about the various formations and reinventions of human rights. Alternative codifications of rights reveal the historical possibility of a Southern practice of what we would almost certainly call ‘humanitarian intervention’. The record of a radical Third World practice to save strangers from the atrocities of colonialism and extreme racism is also a record of Western states playing staunchly sovereigntist roles, of the West’s late devotion to Westphalia. To sketch out such a counterhistory is to argue the following: at a threshold moment in the international-political life of the Responsibility to Protect, it is the terms, range, and domain of the intervention debate that must be re-formulated and re-evaluated.
【编译】施榕
【校对】王川
05
“庄严而公正的要求”：在国际舞台上寻求道歉
【题目】‘Solemn and just demands’: Seeking apologies in the international arena
【作者】Tracy Adams，希伯来大学社会学和人类学系的博士生，研究兴趣为集体记忆及其跨国家及跨时间的传播方式；Zohar Kampf, 希伯来大学社会科学系语言与传播学副教授和博士生项目负责人, 主要研究兴趣为语言、媒体及政治间的多方面联系。
【摘要】要求道歉是当代世界政治中指出过错行为（transgression）的一种突出的修辞手段。它们将“视而不见”(seen but unnoticed)的行为转变为“有目共睹”(seen and noticed)的过错行为，并为受损关系的复原贴上价格标签。然而，与被广泛讨论的道歉行为相比，对道歉的要求却很少受到学者的关注。在本文中，我们采用行为人导向的视角，将要求道歉这一言语行为置于国家间关系的微妙管理之中。通过对1999年至2019年间不同国家行为体在不同外交场合提出的57个要求道歉的案例内容进行深入分析，作者划分出过错行为的话语建构、告知要求行为的规范脚本、寻求补救的类型及其话语后果。最后，作者讨论了指导道歉要求的规范性外交脚本，以及这些言论行为如何重构国际政治中的权力关系。
Demands for apology are a prominent rhetorical means for pointing out transgressions in contemporary world politics. They transform ‘seen but unnoticed’ conduct into ‘seen and noticed’ transgression and attach a price tag to the restoration of damaged relations. Nevertheless, compared to the widely discussed practice of apologising, demands for apologies have received scant scholarly attention. In this article we adopt an actor-oriented perspective in order to situate the speech act of demanding an apology within the delicate management of interstate relations. In-depth content analysis of 57 cases of demands made by various state actors in a variety of diplomatic contexts between 1999 and 2019 let us delineate the discursive construction of transgressions, the normative scripts that inform acts of demands, the types of sought-after remedies, and their discursive consequences. We conclude by discussing the normative diplomatic scripts that guide demands for apology and how these speech acts reconfigure power relations in international politics.
【编译】扎西旺姆
【校对】王川
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