【新刊速递】第47期 | International Organization, Volume 74, No.3, 2020
期刊简介
International Organization（《国际组织》），简称“IO”，是一份经过同行评议的季刊，涵盖国际事务的领域包括：外交政策、国际关系、国际与比较政治经济学、安全政策、环境争端与解决、欧洲一体化、联盟模式与战争、谈判与冲突解决、经济发展与调整、国际资本流动等。它成立于1947年，由剑桥大学出版社代表国际组织基金会出版，主编是乔治城大学的Erik Voeten。根据Journal Citation Reports显示，2019年其影响因子为5，在95种国际关系期刊中排名第2。
本期编委
【编译】杨稚珉 胡瑞琨 任潇依 赵怡雯
【审校】胡瑞琨 杨稚珉 赵怡雯 任潇依 李源
【排版】马璐
本期目录
1.支配权：旧主权观如何对世界秩序提出新挑战
The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order
2.后冷战时代的叛乱团体，国际人道主义法和内战结果
Rebel Groups, International Humanitarian Law, and Civil War Outcomes in the Post-Cold War Era
3.国际经济参与中的外国干涉和群体态度
Foreign Meddling and Mass Attitudes Toward International Economic Engagement
4.边战边谈：理解战时谈判的作用
Talking While Fighting: Understanding the Role of Wartime Negotiation
01
支配权：旧主权观如何对世界秩序提出新挑战
【题目】The Right to Dominate: How Old Ideas About Sovereignty Pose New Challenges for World Order
【作者】Roland Paris，渥太华大学公共与国际事务研究生院教授。
【摘要】冷战结束后，全球化的综合效应和国际制度及网络的扩散对国家主权的削弱成为国际关系研究的一个重要主题。近年来，许多学者也注意到一种与之相反的趋势：对传统的威斯特伐利亚式国家主权的重申。然而，作者则强调了近期另一个被忽视的趋势：目前世界上三个最强大的国家——俄罗斯、中国和美国都在重提“法外主权（extralegal sovereignty）”及“组织主权（organic sovereignty）”这两个旧有的主权概念。作者通过对这些概念的溯源，解释了在这三个国家的官方话语中此类概念获得重视的方式与原因。同时，作者还探讨了产生这一转变的内涵：这种转变不仅说明了“规范检索（norm retrieval）”在国际事务中的重要性，并且也对国际秩序的构成基础提出了质疑。威斯特伐利亚式的国家主权强调法律上的国家平等和不干涉内政原则。相反，“法外主权”及“组织主权”则对国家行为的约束力很小。即使有所限制，这些观念似乎也给强国控制他国提供了合理性。
A principal theme of international relations scholarship following the Cold War was the apparent erosion of state sovereignty caused by globalization’s integrative effects and the proliferation of international institutions and networks. In recent years, however, scholars have noted a reverse trend: the reassertion of traditional, or Westphalian, state sovereignty. By contrast, I highlight another recent trend that has gone largely overlooked: the reaffirmation of older “extralegal” and “organic” versions of sovereignty by three of the world’s most powerful states—Russia, China, and the United States. After tracing the genealogy of these older concepts, I consider how and why they have gained prominence in the official discourse of all three countries. I also explore the implications of this shift, which not only illustrates the importance of “norm retrieval” in international affairs, but also raises questions about the foundations of international order. Contrary to Westphalian sovereignty, which emphasizes the legal equality of states and the principle of noninterference in domestic affairs, the extralegal and organic versions offer few constraints on state action. If anything, they appear to license powerful states to dominate others.
【编译】杨稚珉
【校对】胡瑞琨
【审核】李源
02
后冷战时代的叛乱团体，国际人道主义法和内战结果
【题目】Rebel Groups, International Humanitarian Law, and Civil War Outcomes in the Post-Cold War Era
【作者】Jessica A. Stanton，美国天普大学全球研究所政治科学助理教授。
【摘要】叛乱团体如果在内战中违反国际人道主义法，特别是出现对非参战平民的袭击行为，会影响战争的结果吗？作者认为，在后冷战时代，不针对平民的叛乱团体通常会利用国际人道主义法寻求西方国家和政府间组织的外交支持。然而，这种方式需要在叛乱团体对平民的克制与政府对平民的暴行形成对比的情况下才最有可能奏效，从而更有利于叛乱团体赢得砝码。作者通过分析1989年至2010年所有内战中有关叛乱团体针对平民使用暴力的原始数据，发现在对平民使用暴力的政府面前，对平民采取克制措施的叛乱团体更有可能获得有利的战争结果。作者还探究了叛乱团体行为与冲突结果之间的因果机制，发现当叛乱团体对平民采取克制措施，而同时政府对平民实施暴行时，西方国家和政府间组织更有可能对该国政府采取强制性外交行动。这也表明，叛乱团体可以将此类日益高涨的外交支持转化为利于己方的政治结果。
Do rebel group violations of international humanitarian law during civil war—in particular, attacks on noncombatant civilians—affect conflict outcomes? I argue that in the post-Cold War era, rebel groups that do not target civilians have used the framework of international humanitarian law to appeal for diplomatic support from Western governments and intergovernmental organizations. However, rebel group appeals for international diplomatic support are most likely to be effective when the rebel group can contrast its own restraint toward civilians with the government's abuses. Rebel groups that do not target civilians in the face of government abuses, therefore, are likely to be able to translate increased international diplomatic support into more favorable conflict outcomes. Using original cross-national data on rebel group violence against civilians in all civil wars from 1989 to 2010, I show that rebel groups that exercise restraint toward civilians in the face of government violence are more likely to secure favorable conflict outcomes. I also probe the causal mechanism linking rebel group behavior to conflict outcomes, showing that when a rebel group exercises restraint toward civilians and the government commits atrocities, Western governments and intergovernmental organizations are more likely to take coercive diplomatic action against the government. The evidence shows that rebel groups can translate this increased diplomatic support into favorable political outcomes.
【编译】胡瑞琨
【校对】杨稚珉
【审核】李源
03
【题目】Foreign Meddling and Mass Attitudes Toward International Economic Engagement
【作者】Sarah Sunn Bush，耶鲁大学政治学系副教授；Lauren Prather，加利福尼亚大学圣迭戈分校全球政策与战略学院助理教授。
【摘要】是什么解释了对外经济参与中个体偏好的差异呢？尽管有大量且不断增加的文献涉及了这个问题，但很少有研究去考察伙伴国(partner countries)如何影响公众对于贸易、对外援助和投资等政策的看法。作者构建了一个新的理论，该理论主张外部势力(outside powers)的政治立场(political side-taking)决定了个人对于国家间经济交往的支持程度。作者使用针对美国和突尼斯的原始调查来检验这个理论。在这两个案例中，被调查国的潜在伙伴国在该国党派政治中的立场极大影响了（该国公众对于）对外经济关系的支持程度。新的援助国、投资者和贸易伙伴的兴起为经济伙伴关系创造了新的选择，因而作者的理论和研究结果对于理解群体态度对开放经济参与的偏好是至关重要的。
What explains variation in individual preferences for foreign economic engagement? Although a large and growing literature addresses that question, little research examines how partner countries affect public opinion on policies such as trade, foreign aid, and investment. We construct a new theory arguing that political side-taking by outside powers shapes individuals’ support for engaging economically with those countries. We test the theory using original surveys in the United States and Tunisia. In both cases, the potential partner country’s side-taking in the partisan politics of the respondents’ country dramatically shapes support for foreign economic relations. As the rise of new aid donors, investors, and trade partners creates new choices in economic partners, our theory and findings are critical to understanding mass preferences about open economic engagement.
【编译】任潇依
【校对】赵怡雯
【审核】李源
04
边战边谈：理解战时谈判的作用
【题目】Talking While Fighting: Understanding the Role of Wartime Negotiation
【作者】Eric Min，美国加州大学洛杉矶分校政治学助理教授。
【摘要】当代冲突研究采取的方法是将战争期间谈判的重要性最小化，或将其视为一种持续的机械性活动。这与缺乏能够追踪和说明战时外交复杂性的系统数据密切相关。作者通过创建和探究一个每日更新的数据集来解决这些问题，该数据集包含1816年至今所有国家间战争中的谈判。有强烈的迹象表明在1945年后的战争中，谈判更为频繁，而且这些谈判对于战争结束的预测性更弱。有证据表明，二战后日益增加的追求和平与稳定的国际压力，特别是来自核武器和国际联盟的压力，是造成这一趋势的原因。这些原始的数据及观点建立了一个动态的研究议程，使得针对冲突管理的研究更具政策相关性，强调了冲突解决的历史视角，并证明了将外交视为理解战争的一个基本维度的效用。
Contemporary studies of conflict have adopted approaches that minimize the importance of negotiation during war or treat it as a constant and mechanical activity. This is strongly related to the lack of systematic data that track and illustrate the complex nature of wartime diplomacy. I address these issues by creating and exploring a new daily-level data set of negotiations in all interstate wars from 1816 to the present. I find strong indications that post-1945 wars feature more frequent negotiations and that these negotiations are far less predictive of war termination. Evidence suggests that increased international pressures for peace and stability after World War II, especially emanating from nuclear weapons and international alliances, account for this trend. These original data and insights establish a dynamic research agenda that enables a more policy-relevant study of conflict management, highlights a historical angle to conflict resolution, and speaks to the utility of viewing diplomacy as an essential dimension to understanding war.
【编译】赵怡雯
【校对】任潇依
【审核】李源
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