【新刊速递】《中国国际政治杂志》, Vol.14, No.2, 2021
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：陈勇 张彦赪 王嘉许 施榕 赖永祯
审校：赵雷 陈想
排版：何婕
美编：彭雯昕
本期目录
1、新战场上的非对称竞争？中美对抗的中东视角
Asymmetric Competition on a New Battleground? Middle Eastern Perspectives on Sino-US Rivalry
2、权力投射的政治：重返亚洲战略的失败与美国霸权的未来
The Politics of Power Projection: The Pivot to Asia, Its Failure and the Future of American Primacy
3、对世界政治中修正主义的再思考
Rethinking Revisionism in World Politics
4、发展融资的分层和置换:亚洲基础设施投资银行和“一带一路”倡议
Layering and Displacement in Development Finance: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative
5、揭示修昔底德陷阱：无意的冲突升级还是有意的战争？
Unravelling the Thucydides’ Trap: Inadvertent Escalation or War of Choice?
01
题目：Asymmetric Competition on a New Battleground? Middle Eastern Perspectives on Sino-US Rivalry
作者：佘纲正，清华大学国际关系学系助理教授。主要研究方向为中东地区战争与变革、以色列内政与外交、中国—中东关系、冷战国际关系史。
摘要：近年来，特别是新冠肺炎疫情爆发以来，越来越多的中东学者和分析人士密切关注中美紧张关系的升级，以及其在双边关系以外的影响。考虑到这些观察者在研究关注点和方法上有明显差异，本文旨在从全球和地区层面系统地回顾这些中东视角对正在兴起的中美竞争的看法。某些中东分析人士认为，北京和华盛顿在很大程度上是“同质”的地区外大国，在国际政治、经济和技术上相互竞争。还有许多人强调他们的“异质性”，认为中美对抗的本质在于两种模式的冲突。大多数中东学者指出，与影响力逐渐减弱的美国相比，过去十年内中国在该地区的影响力日益增长，促使中东成为两个大国的“新战场”。尽管中美在某些地区事务中仍有共同利益，但大多数学者共同关注和确认了中美在中东地区陷入不对称竞争的五个领域。鉴于中美竞争带来的机遇和挑战，中东观察人士提出了各种政策建议，并就一些议题展开了辩论，例如地区行为体是否应该主动利用这一大国竞争，同时谨慎防范战略不确定性和风险；或是（如何）建设性地参与，帮助减少中美之间的敌意。
During the last few years, and especially since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, growing number of Middle East scholars and analysts have been closely observing an escalation of tensions between China and the United States and their impact beyond bilateral ties. Considering the major differences of focus and approach among these observers, this article aims to review systematically such Middle Eastern perspectives, both globally and regionally, on the emerging Sino-US rivalry. Certain Middle East analysts regard Beijing and Washington as largely “homogeneous” extra-regional powers competing in international politics, economy, and technology. Many others emphasise their “heterogeneity,” arguing that the essence of Sino-US confrontation lies in the clash of two models. Most Middle East scholars note that, in contrast to Washington’s waning influence, Beijing’s growing presence in the region during the past decade has rendered the Middle East a “new battleground” for the two great powers. Although China and the United States still have shared interests in certain regional affairs, most intellectuals focus on and collectively identify five domains across the Middle East wherein Beijing and Washington are locked in asymmetric competition. In light of both the opportunities and challenges that the emerging Sino-US rivalry engenders, Middle Eastern observers raise various policy suggestions, and debate on whether regional players should proactively take advantage of this great power competition, cautiously hedge against strategic uncertainty and risk, or constructively help reduce hostility between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.
编译：陈勇
校对：赵雷
审核：陈想
02
题目：The Politics of Power Projection: The Pivot to Asia, Its Failure and the Future of American Primacy
作者：Peter Harris，科罗拉多州立大学政治科学副教授，研究领域包括国际安全、美国外交政策和国际关系理论；Peter Trubowitz，伦敦政治经济学院国际关系学教授，研究领域包括国际安全和美国外交政策。
摘要：为什么奥巴马政府的“重返亚洲”战略失败了？本文归咎于三个彼此关联的国内因素：华盛顿当局的超党派现象；缺乏令人信服的外交政策叙事使得该战略未能吸引广泛的政治阶层和国内公众；以及未能说服足够多的美国人相信转向亚洲对于提高其经济财富是必要的。这些国内因素牵绊了奥巴马政府，使其无法将美国的权力资产投入针对亚太地区的长期计划性努力。目前对于“重返亚洲”战略失败的解释重点落在国际层面的阻碍、其战略的设计和实施、以及特朗普作为奥巴马继任者的意外当选。本文则对现有解释做出改善，着眼于美国国内基础对其权力投射的影响。本文以美国在超越亚太乃至东亚地区的权力投射的影响作为结尾，认为美国的政治体系难以成为其建立任何野心勃勃的外交政策等上层建筑的强有力支撑。
Why did the Obama administration's attempted pivot (or “rebalance”) to Asia fail? In this article, we argue that three interrelated domestic factors are to blame: hyper-partisanship in Washington, DC; the lack of a compelling foreign-policy narrative to make the pivot intelligible and attractive to a broad slice of the political class and domestic public; and the related failure to convince enough Americans that the pivot was necessary to boost their economic fortunes. These domestic stumbling blocks made it impossible for the Obama administration to invest US power assets toward a long-term programmatic endeavor in the Asia-Pacific. In making this argument about the domestic foundations of US power-projection, we improve upon existing explanations of the pivot's undoing that focus on international-level obstacles, problems with the pivot's design and implementation, or the unexpected election of Donald Trump as Obama's successor. We conclude by drawing implications for US power projection beyond the pivot and, indeed, beyond East Asia—suggesting that the US political system has become a weak foundation upon which to build any ambitious foreign-policy superstructure.
编译：张彦赪
校对：赵雷
审核：陈想
03
题目：Rethinking Revisionism in World Politics
作者：Kai He，Huiyun Feng，Steve Chan，Weixing Hu
贺凯，澳大利亚格里菲斯大学国际关系教授兼治理和公共政策中心主任，中国南开大学周恩来政府学院国际关系客座教授（2018-2020年）；澳大利亚研究理事会（ARC）未来研究员（2017-2020年）；普林斯顿哈佛中国和世界项目（2009-2010）博士后研究员；冯惠云，澳大利亚格里菲斯大学政府和国际关系学院副教授；著作包括《中国战略文化和外交政策决策：儒家、领导力与战争》、《亚太地区前景理论与外交政策分析：理性领袖与风险行为》、《中国如何看待世界：中国国际关系学者的见解》。
摘要：修正主义是国际关系话语中的一个重要概念。在讨论中美关系以及潜在的权力转移时，这个概念尤其常见，但直到最近才有了相关的系统性研究。本文提出了修正主义国家可能追求的不同策略。它以其他的新晋学术成果为基础，取材于一个更大的学术项目：从历史上研究修正主义并从概念上发展修正主义。本文认为，与过去相比，军事征服和颠覆，或者学术术语中的“硬修正主义”，在当今世界已经变得不太可能了。相反，旨在推动体制变革的各种“软修正主义”才值得更多的关注。本文提供了这些“软修正主义”策略的类型，并借用近期中美两国的行为来进行阐释。
Revisionism is an important concept in international relations discourse, and it is especially prevalent in discussions about relations between China and the United States in the context of a possible power transition. Yet, this concept has until recently not received the systematic research attention that it deserves. We present in this essay different strategies that a revisionist state may pursue. It builds on recent scholarship by other colleagues and is drawn from a larger project of ours to study revisionism historically and develop it conceptually. We argue that military conquest and subversion—or in our terminology, hard revisionism—have become less likely in today’s world compared to the past. Instead, different approaches of soft revisionism intended to advance institutional changes should be given more attention. We provide a typology of these soft revisionist strategies and offer examples from recent Chinese and US conduct to illustrate them.
编译：王嘉许
校对：赵雷
审核：陈想
04
题目：Layering and Displacement in Development Finance: The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Belt and Road Initiative
作者：Lars S. Skålnes，俄勒冈大学政治系副教授，研究兴趣为国际政治经济学与国际关系。
摘要：本文解释了“一带一路”倡议和亚洲基础设施投资银行为何可能会对发展融资的规则产生不同的影响。作者利用委托代理模型，论述了中国政府在这两者中面临的授权问题是不同的，并且这些问题因而与不同类型的制度变化有关。中国政府的分散威权本质深刻影响了“一带一路”的授权。相比之下，亚投行被授权给了一个国际组织，因此其没有受到中国国家分散的威权本质的实质影响。本文借鉴了历史-制度主义关于渐进式制度变革的观点，认为亚投行可能导致制度分层，而“一带一路”可能导致发展融资的制度置换。
This article explains why the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) are likely to have differential effects on the rules governing development finance. I draw on principal-agent models in arguing that in these two institutions, the delegation problem facing the Chinese government is different and therefore associated with different types of institutional change. The fragmented-authoritarian nature of the Chinese state profoundly affects delegation in the BRI. In the AIIB, in contrast, the delegation is to an international organization and hence not materially affected by the fragmented authoritarian nature of the Chinese state. Drawing on historical-institutionalist approaches to gradual institutional change, the article argues that the AIIB is likely to lead to institutional layering, the BRI to institutional displacement in development financing.
编译：施榕
校对：陈想
05
题目：Unravelling the Thucydides’ Trap: Inadvertent Escalation or War of Choice?
作者：Athanassios Platias，希腊比雷埃夫斯大学（University of Piraeus）国际与欧洲研究系战略学教授；Vasilis Trigkas，清华大学苏世民学院博士后。
摘要：在国际关系学的思想史中，没有其他文本能像修昔底德的《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》那样，频繁地受到因证成偏见和选择性现时主义（selective presentism）导致的误读。近期，对经典作品的误读产生了“修昔底德陷阱”这一新词，也最终造成思想家和政客们将伯罗奔尼撒战争和当下的中美关系做了错误的类比。本文对“修昔底德陷阱”中关于非意图性冲突升级这一核心主题进行解析，并呈现修昔底德事实上在文本中阐释的有关霸权转移的逻辑。虽然修昔底德是西方世界第一个就国际问题清晰论述结构视角重要性的思想家，但他所论述的霸权转移论更具有复合性，而非一个单纯的系统性理论。修昔底德因而在他的作品中更多地评估了激烈的政治辩论环境下的战略选择，以论证他所理解的，作为主要因素的政体和政治活动与结构环境互动而影响战略选择的命题。最终，伯罗奔尼撒战争并不是非意图性冲突升级的产物，而是政策目标对立的政治对手做出的有预谋的战略选择。因此，在结构性约束的环境下，修昔底德突出了领导力和战略的重要性，也因而将“审慎”视为领导人最重要的德性。根据修昔底德霸权转移论的这一逻辑，作者得出了有关当代中美关系的六条战略推论，以及有关启示：即在任何时候始终认识到历史类比的局限性，以及在阅读历史文献中遵循“超越古今”的典范。
No other text in the intellectual history of International Relations has become as frequent a victim of confirmation bias and selective presentism as has Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. Most recently, misinterpretations of the classical treatise have engendered the popular catchphrase, “the Thucydides’ Trap”, and thinkers and politicians’ resultant drawing of erroneous parallels between the Peloponnesian War and current Sino-US relations. This article seeks to deconstruct the Thucydides’ Trap core thematic of inadvertent escalation, and to outline the logic of hegemonic transition as it is actually expounded by Thucydides. Although Thucydides is the first thinker in the West clearly to identify the significance of structure in interstate affairs, his hegemonic transition theory is complex rather than purely systemic. Thucydides thus dedicates most of his work to assessing the strategic decisions made in fervid political debates, evidencing his perception of polity and politics as key elements that dynamically interact with structural conditions to effectuate strategic choice. Consequently, the Peloponnesian War was not an outcome of inadvertent escalation, but of premeditated strategic choices made by adversaries with clashing policy objectives. Therefore, within the structural constraints, it is on leadership and strategy that Thucydides puts a premium, and hence prioritizes prudence (Sophrosyne) as the most consequential virtue of statesmanship. Building on the Thucydidean logic of hegemonic transition, we conclude by presenting six strategic corollaries of contemporary Sino-US relations, remaining attentively cognizant at all times of the limitations of historical analogies, and abiding by ex antiquis et novissimis optima.
编译：赖永祯
校对：赵雷
审核：陈想