【新刊速递】第01期 | Review of International Studies Vol.45, No.4, 2019

2019-09-222020-01-05 国政学人 0 Comments

期刊简介

Review of International Studies （《国际研究评论》）是由剑桥大学出版社代表英国国际研究协会出版且同行评审的国际关系学术期刊，其前身为British Journal of International Studies (1975 – 1980) 。该期刊致力于反映全球政治的性质变化和新兴的政治挑战，旨在为国际社会搭建一个可供辩论的平台用以讨论当下紧迫的全球议题。2018年该期刊的影响因子为1.791。

本期编委

主持人：施榕

编译员：扎西旺姆、崔宇涵、李玉婷、周雨橙、许文婷、陈勇、赵雷、王川

【新刊速递】第01期 | Review of International Studies Vol.45, No.4, 2019

本期目录

1. Human rights in territorial peace agreements

领土和平协议中的人权

2. Pragmatism, practices, and human rights

实用主义、实践和人权

3. Military refusers and the invocation of conscience: Relational subjectivities and the legitimation of liberal war

拒服兵役者与良知的召唤：关系主体性与自由主义战争的合法性

4. A cat-and-Maus game: the politics of truth and reconciliation in post-conflict comics

猫和老鼠的游戏：后冲突时期的连环漫画中关于真相与和解的政治

5. I am uncertain, but We are not: a new subjectivity of the Anthropocene

“我”是不确定的，但“我们”是确定的：“人类纪”的新主体性

6. Institutional sources of legitimacy for international organisations: Beyond procedure versus performance

国际组织合法性的制度性来源：超越程序与绩效

7. Norm entrepreneurship and diffusion ‘from below’ in international organisations: How the competent performance of vulnerability generates benefits for small states

国际组织中的规范倡导者和 “自下而上”的规范扩散方式：小国如何表现出脆弱以获取利益

8. The variety of institutionalised inequalities: Stratificatory interlinkages in interwar international society

制度化不平等的种类:两次世界大战之间国际社会中的阶层化的相互联系

9. Revising order or challenging the balance of military power? An alternative typology of revisionist and status-quo states

修改秩序还是挑战军事力量的均势？关于修正主义国家和现状国家的另一种类型学分析

摘要译文

1 领土和平协议中的人权

【题目】Human rights in territorial peace agreements

【作者】Nina Caspersen，University of York

【摘要】正义与和平通常被认为是相辅相成的，重要的国际和平建设文件强调了人权的重要性。这种明显的规范转变是否反映在冷战后的和平协议中? 现有的文献在这一问题上存在分歧，但至关重要的是它们都将冲突与和平协议归为一类 (aggregate categories)。本文认为，冲突类型和协议中的“核心交易”对人权条款的纳入或排除产生影响。在对1990年至2010年签署的29项全面协议进行新编码的基础上，本文比较了签署于领土冲突和非领土冲突中的协议、以及有领土自治和没有领土自治的协议。定性比较分析 (Qualitative Comparative Analysis) 被用于检验导致人权条款被纳入进协议的不同条件组合。分析发现，在领土冲突中签署的协定明显不太可能包括有效的人权条款，特别是在解决方案涉及到领土自治的情况下。此外，这样的条款往往是国际高度参与的结果，因此缺乏当地的承诺，或是（遭到当地）直接的抵制，破坏这些条款的执行。这些发现指出了群体权利和个人权利之间的重要权衡，并符合自由和平 (liberal peace) 的概念。

Justice and peace are commonly seen as mutually reinforcing, and key international peacebuilding documents stress the importance of human rights. Is this apparent normative shift reflected in post-Cold War peace agreements? The existing literature is divided on this issue but has crucially treated both conflicts and peace agreements as aggregate categories. This article argues that the conflict type and the agreement’s ‘core deal’ impact on the inclusion, or exclusion, of human rights provisions. Based on new coding of the 29 comprehensive agreements signed between 1990 and 2010, it compares agreements signed in territorial and non-territorial conflicts, and agreements with and without territorial autonomy. Qualitative Comparative Analysis is used to examine the different combinations of conditions that led to the inclusion of human rights. The analysis finds that agreements signed in territorial conflicts are significantly less likely to include effective human rights provisions, especially if the settlement includes territorial autonomy. Moreover, such provisions tend to be the result of high levels of international involvement, and the consequent lack of local commitment, or outright resistance, undermines their implementation. These findings point to important trade-offs between group rights and individual rights, and qualifies the notion of a liberal peace.

【编译】王泽尘

【校对】李玉婷

2 实用主义、实践和人权

【题目】Pragmatism, practices, and human rights

【作者】Robert Lamb，University of Exeter

【摘要】近期关于人权概念和规范理论之间的辩论集中在“道德的” (moral) 理解和“以实践为基础的”/“政治的” (practice-based/political) 理解之间的分歧。这篇文章参与到这场辩论中。作者的目标是阐明对人权的另一种实用主义的理解，尽管可能有所关联，但这一理解与以实践为基础的解释是截然不同的。在文章的第一部分中，作者揭示了以实践为基础的人权论述的根本缺陷：作者认为这一缺陷来源于它的本体论，使偶然形成的政治安排和制度得以适应环境并被具体化。在第二部分中，作者定义并概述了采取实用主义对人权进行规范性思考的吸引力。与以实践为基础的方法相反，这种实用主义的方式用概念化的术语解释人权。对人权的这种实用主义式的理解既接受实践的偶然性，也接受道德正当性的文化局限，但是仍然致力于与规范哲学进行对话。与主流的解释相反，作者认为约翰·罗尔斯提出的国际理论代表了一种实用主义式的人权观，学界对人权这一概念的分析具有丰富的理论价值但受到一定的限制，罗尔斯的理论为其指明了前进的道路。

This article is an intervention in recent debates about conceptual and normative theorisations of human rights, which have been increasingly characterised by a divide between ‘moral’ and ‘practice-based’/’political’ understandings. My aim is to articulate an alternative, pragmatist under-standing of human rights, one that is importantly distinct from the practice-based account with which it might be thought affiliated. In the first part of the article, I reveal the fundamental flaw in the practice-based account of human rights: I argue that it is undermined by the ontological thesis at its heart, which naturalises and reifies political arrangements and institutions that are radically contingent. In the second part, I identify, and outline the attractiveness of, a pragmatist normative account of human rights. In contrast to the practice-based approach, this pragmatist account construes human rights in ideational terms. The pragmatist understanding accepts both the contingency of our practices and the cultural limits to moral justification, while nevertheless retaining a commitment to the enterprise of normative philosophical conversation. I argue, in contrast to prevailing interpretations, that the international theory advanced by John Rawls exemplifies a pragmatist account of human rights and points a way forward for theoretically fruitful but appropriately circumscribed analysis of the concept.

【编译】王泽尘

【校对】李玉婷

3 拒服兵役者与良知的召唤：关系主体性与自由主义战争的合法性

【题目】Military refusers and the invocation of conscience: Relational subjectivities and the legitimation of liberal war

【作者】Maja Zehfuss, School of Sciences, The University of Manchester

【摘要】伊拉克战争期间，一些美国士兵拒绝被部署/重新部署。尽管自由主义国家允许个人出于良心拒服兵役，以保护其个人行为不与道德信仰发生冲突的权利，那些拒服行为不符合法律规定的人只能违法以遵从他们的信仰。本文探讨了当我们倾听这些拒服兵役者讲述的故事时，自由主义战争的合法性如何受到挑战。本文集中探讨了美国的情境，首先简要阐述了这些士兵所面临的规范性背景，强调了依良心拒服兵役者和可鄙的逃兵之间的区别。文章通过借鉴朱迪思·巴特勒的作品，解读了两位拒服兵役者在回忆录中对自己的描述；尽管其拒服行为不符合规定，但两者都认为他们的行为是出于良心，应当被理解。通过他们的详细叙述，文章追溯了其主体性的产生、破坏及其与主流道德秩序的关系。尽管唤起良知似乎给个人提供了一个拥抱真实自我的机会，以抵制问题重重的道德秩序，但主体性仍因其与道德秩序之间的关系而处于破碎状态。换言之，自由主义战争所必需的主权主体性同时被战争所削弱。

During the Iraq War, some US soldiers refused (re)deployment. While liberal states appear to protect individuals’ right not to fight against their moral convictions by allowing the right to conscientious objection, those whose objections do not align with the regulations have to break the law in order to follow their convictions. This article explores how the legitimation of liberal war is challenged when we listen to the stories such refusers tell. Focusing on the United States, it briefly sets out the normative context such soldiers faced, highlighting the distinction between permissible conscientious objectors and contemptible deserters. Drawing on Judith Butler, it then focuses on two refusers by reading their own accounts of themselves in their memoirs. Despite not being eligible under the regulations, both invoke their conscience to make their refusal intelligible. By listening to their detailed accounts, the article traces the production and disruption of their subjectivities in relation to the prevailing moral order. Although invoking conscience appears to provide the chance to embrace an authentic self in a bid to resist the problematic moral order, subjectivity remains fractured due to relationality. Put differently, the sovereign subjectivity required by liberal war is simultaneously undermined by it.

【编译】崔宇涵

【校对】许文婷

4 猫和老鼠的游戏：后冲突时期的连环漫画中关于真相与和解的政治

【题目】A cat-and-Maus game: the politics of truth and reconciliation in post-conflict comics

【作者】Henry Redwood, King’s College London; Alister Wedderburn, Australian National University

【摘要】一些学者担心，在后冲突社会中，通过制度安排来推进转型正义可能会疏远民众。从业者希望通过发展“外展服务”项目（‘outreach’programmes）来弥补这种隔阂，在某些情况下，他们会委托制作漫画，以便向他们的受众人群传达他们的见解。这篇文章中，作者审视了这种后冲突时期的连环漫画对真相、和解以及和平的可能性等观念所产生的意义，着重探讨2005年塞拉利昂真相与和解委员会（Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission）所出版的连载漫画，这些漫画是该委员会关于1991-2002年内战原因和罪行报告的一部分。这份报告以塞拉利昂的青少年为对象，讲述了“塞拉拉特”（音译自Sierrarat）的故事。“塞拉拉特”是一个由老鼠组成的和平国家，猫的入侵打乱了老鼠们的和平生活。尽管这份报告与艺术家斯皮格尔曼（Art Spiegelman）的作品《鼠族》(Maus)在形式上惊人地相似(该文本也以自己的方式密切地关注和解)，但它的目的却截然不同。本文将这两种文本进行对话，以探讨真相与和解的美学政治，并探讨连环漫画等大众视觉媒体在探求真相与和解的实践与(再)概念化中扮演的角色。

Several scholars have raised concerns that the institutional mechanisms through which transitional justice is commonly promoted in post-conflict societies can alienate affected populations. Practitioners have looked to bridge this gap by developing ‘outreach’ programmes, in some instances commissioning comic books in order to communicate their findings to the people they seek to serve. In this article, we interrogate the ways in which post-conflict comics produce meaning about truth, reconciliation, and the possibilities of peace, focusing in particular on a comic strip published in 2005 as part of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report into the causes and crimes of the 1991–2002 Civil War. Aimed at Sierra Leonean teenagers, the Report tells the story of ‘Sierrarat’, a peaceful nation of rats whose idyllic lifestyle is disrupted by an invasion of cats. Although the Report displays striking formal similarities with Art Spiegelman’s Maus (a text also intimately concerned with reconciliation, in its own way), it does so to very different ends. The article brings these two texts into dialogue in order to explore the aesthetic politics of truth and reconciliation, and to ask what role popular visual media like comics can play in their practice and (re)conceptualisation.

【编译】赵雷

【校对】施榕

5 “我”是不确定的，但“我们”是确定的：“人类纪”的新主体性

【题目】I am uncertain, but We are not: a new subjectivity of the Anthropocene

【作者】Scott Hamilton, Balsillie School of International Affairs and Wilfrid Laurier University

【摘要】“人类纪”(Anthropocene)作为一个人为创造的地质时代新概念进入了国际关系学领域。最近学界出现了“后人文主义者”(post-humanists)和“新人类中心主义者”(New Anthropocentrists)间的争论，前者强调打破主客体间的二元对立，后者则认为应该强调人类在地球上的核心地位，而本文研究的则是尚未被探索的“人类纪”这一论述的基础，即人类必须作为一个集体物种——“人类”(Anthropos)或“我们”(We）——聚集在一起。本文运用海德格尔的哲学思想，阐述了由“人类纪”揭示的人类主体性中更深层次的新转变，即从笛卡尔个人主义的“我”转向集体主义的“我们”。本文的论点分三步提出。首先，本文考察了当今“人类纪”文学中将人类作为一个集合整体的普遍看法。第二，本文详细说明了“主体”(subiectum) 这一最基本的确定性概念，其概念边界的变化如何促成主体性的转变，以及地球系统科学（ESS）的技术如何微妙地促进了这一转变。最后，文章论证了 “人类纪”中时间、空间和存在的不可计算性和不确定性如何导致“我”到“我们”的主观转换，从而促进确定性在新形式的冲突性认同政治中崛起。

The concept of ‘the Anthropocene’ as a new human-induced geological epoch has made its way into IR. Debates have recently arisen between ‘post-humanists’ stressing its destruction of subject-object binaries and ‘New Anthropocentrists’ arguing that it increases the importance of the human being as planetary steward. This article moves beyond these debates to question a strange but unexplored foundation that underlies the basic discourse of the Anthropocene: the assertion that humanity must be grouped together as a collective species, ‘anthropos’, or planetary ‘We’. Using the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, it argues that the Anthropocene reveals a new and deeper shift in human subjectivity, moving from an individualistic Cartesian ‘I’ to a collective and planetary ‘We’. This argument is made in three steps. First, today’s common treatment of humanity as a collective whole in Anthropocene literature is examined. Second, it details how transformations in subjectivity occur by shifting the historical boundaries of our most fundamental notion of certainty – the ‘subiectum’ – and how the technologies of Earth System Science (ESS) subtly facilitate this shift today. Finally, the article argues how this subjective transformation from the ‘I’ to the ‘We’ results from the temporal, spatial, and existential incalculability and uncertainty of the Anthropocene, thereby fostering the rise of certainty in new forms of conflictual identity politics.

【编译】王川

【校对】扎西旺姆

6 国际组织合法性的制度性来源：超越程序与绩效

【题目】Institutional Sources of Legitimacy for International Organizations: beyond Procedure versus Performance

【作者】Lisa Maria Dellmuth, Department of Economic History and International Relations, Stockholm University; Jan Aart Scholte, School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg; Centre for Global Cooperation Research at the University of Duisburg-Essen, German; Jonas Tallberg, Department of Political Science, Stockholm University

【摘要】本文探讨了国际组织的制度质量是否、以何种方式以及在多大程度上影响人们对这些组织合法性的信念，弥补了现有文献在全球治理合法性方面的巨大空白。文章评估了程序和绩效作为组织合法性来源在因果关系上的意义，基于此，将这两个维度分解为具体的制度质量，在全球治理的三种议题中进行比较分析。从理论上讲，本文将程序和绩效这两个合法性来源进行更为细致地分解，从民主质量、技术官僚质量和公平性质量三个方面对这两个维度的具体制度质量进行考察。在实证方面，文章则通过在四个位处世界不同区域的国家进行的人口调查实验，考察了这些制度质量对经济、安全和气候治理等领域的国际组织的实际影响。结果表明，程序和绩效都是合法性信念的重要来源，并且这一结果贯穿于民主质量、技术官僚质量和公平性质量等三个方面的制度质量之中。如果按议题对结果进行分类，则会发现与安全治理，特别是气候治理相比，更大范围的制度质量对于经济治理的合法性信念的形成来说更为重要。这些结果表明，国际组织制度合法性的来源不能被简单地归结为某一特定的制度质量。

This article addresses a significant gap in the literature on legitimacy in global governance, exploring whether, in what ways, and to what extent institutional qualities of international organizations (IOs) matter for popular legitimacy beliefs towards these bodies. The study assesses the causal significance of procedure and performance as sources of legitimacy, unpacks these dimensions into specific institutional qualities, and offers a comparative analysis across IOs in three issue areas of global governance. Theoretically, the article disaggregates institutional sources of legitimacy to consider democratic,technocratic, and fair qualities of procedure and performance. Empirically, it examines the effects of these institutional qualities through apopulation-based survey experiment in four countries in different world regions with respect to IOs in economic, security, and climate governance. The findings demonstrate that both procedure- and performance-related aspects of IOpolicymaking matter for popular legitimacy beliefs. This result holds across democratic, technocratic, and fair qualities of IO procedure and performance.Disaggregating the results by issue area indicates that a broader scope of institutional qualities are important for legitimacy beliefs in economic governance compared to security governance and, especially, climate governance.These findings suggest that propositions to reduce the institutional sources of IO legitimacy to single specific qualities would be misguided.

【编译】王川

【校对】周雨橙

7 国际组织中的规范倡导者和 “自下而上”的规范扩散方式：小国如何表现出脆弱以获取利益

【题目】Norm entrepreneurship and diffusion ‘from below’ in international organisations: How the competent performance of vulnerability generates benefits for small states

【作者】Jack Corbett, University of Southampton; Yi-chong Xu, Griffith University, Australia; Patrick Weller, Griffith University, Australia

【摘要】长期以来，世界上的小国，或者说多边体系下的弱国一直被认为没有能力在国际组织中发挥影响。然而，在过去的二十年中，为何这些被视为小国的国家表现越发亮眼，并在许多国际组织中通过形成正式集团而实现制度化？根据80多份深度访谈的资料，作者解释了联合国体系中属于发展中国家的小岛国（Small Island Developing States，SIDS）的崛起，以及他们如何在世贸组织的“弱小经济体”（Small and Vulnerable Economies）集团，或是其他国际组织中成功扩展自己的议程。采用“小国”标签是这些国家进行规范扩散的证明。作者将这种在多边背景下适当展现出脆弱性的行为看作是解释规范生成和扩散的关键。研究得到的启示是：“自下而上”的规范扩散并不总是由提升国际地位的渴望所驱动。文章分析的案例显示，在一种大国比小国更具优势的等级秩序下，小国可以通过保持一个相对较低的地位来获取利益。

For decades, the world’s smallest states – the structurally weakest members of the multilateral system – have been considered incapable of influencing international organisations (IOs). So, why has the label small state risen to prominence over the last two decades and become institutionalized as a formal grouping in multiple IOs? Drawing on more than eighty in-depth interviews, we explain the rise of Small Island Developing States in the United Nations system, the expansion of their agenda to the Small and Vulnerable Economies group at the World Trade Organization, and then to other IOs. The adoption of the labels is evidence of small state norm diffusion. We identify the competent performance of vulnerability within multilateral settings as the key to explaining this norm emergence and diffusion. The lesson is that diffusion ‘from below’ is not always driven by a desire to increase rank. In this case small states have gained benefits by maintaining a lowly position in a hierarchy in which large is stronger than small.

【编译】陈勇

【校对】周雨橙

8 制度化不平等的种类:两次世界大战之间国际社会中的阶层化的相互联系

【题目】The variety of institutionalised inequalities: Stratificatory interlinkages in interwar international society

【作者】Thomas Müller, Bielefeld University, Germany.

【摘要】本文认为，对制度化不平等的研究很少关注对阶层分化的相互矛盾的理解，以及阶层分化模式与国际社会机制之间的各种相互联系。在英国学派和阶层理论的基础上，本文发展出一个分析框架来对“阶层化的相互联系”进行概念化，使之具有双重含义：首先是将制度特征与阶层分化进行联结，其次将具体的分层方案和联系类型进行匹配。本文引用国际联盟和两次世界大战之间的其他国际机构的经验案例来证明，对阶层分化和分层方案的不同理解被用于不同的制度目的，例如投票权和预算费用的分摊。此外，这个分析框架提出了四个关于制度化不平等的分析维度，用以将阶层划分机制与相互联系的类型进行匹配。这些维度涉及参照群体的组成、有关阶层划分的决策、制度目的和相互联系的制度形式。多种类别的阶层化的相互联系使阶层与制度之间的关系比通常所假定的更为可变和多样化。

This article argues that the research on institutionalised inequalities pays too little attention to competing understandings of stratification and the variety of interlinkages between the patterns of stratification and the institutions of international society. Building on the English School and theories of stratification, it develops an analytical framework that conceptualises these ‘stratificatory interlinkages’ as a twofold decision: firstly for a coupling – instead of a decoupling – of institutional characteristics to patterns of stratification and secondly for a specific classification scheme and type of interlinkage. The article draws on empirical examples from the League of Nations and other interwar international institutions to demonstrate that different understandings of stratification and classification schemes were used for different institutional purposes, for example, voting rights and the apportionment of budget expenses. In addition, it proposes four analytical dimensions that allow mapping the variety of classification schemes and types of interlinkages that were chosen for institutionalised inequalities. The dimensions relate to the composition of the reference group, the decision-making about the classification scheme, the institutional purposes, and the institutional form of the interlinkage. The variety of stratificatory interlinkages entails a more variable and diverse relation between stratification and institutions than usually assumed.

【编译】赵雷

【校对】施榕

9 修改秩序还是挑战军事力量的均势？关于修正主义国家和现状国家的另一种类型学分析

【题目】Revising order or challenging the balance of military power? An alternative typology of revisionist and status-quo states

【作者】 Alexander Cooley, Columbia University; Daniel Nexon, Georgetown University; and Steven Ward, Cornell University.

【摘要】仅从一个维度描述修正主义国家，即用支持维持现状-寻求彻底变革国际体系这一坐标来界定国家的方式忽略了改变军事力量平衡的愿望和改变国际秩序其他要素的愿望之间的重要差异。本文提出了一种二维的分类方式，勾勒出四种理想类型：现状行为体——对当前国际秩序和军事力量分配均感到满意；改革主义行为体——满意现有的权力分配格局但寻求改变国际秩序中的其他要素；位置主义行为体（positionalist actor）——认为没有必要改变国际秩序但寻求改变权力分配格局；革命型行为体——想要同时推翻现有的国际秩序和权力分配格局。这一框架有助于理解关于霸权和国际秩序的一些重要争论，例如修正主义霸权国家出现的可能性，对“软平衡”概念的争议，以及权力转移期间如何提供国际公共产品的替代品。

Unimensional accounts of revisionism – those that align states along a single continuum from supporting the status quo to seeking a complete overhaul of the international system – miss important variation between a desire to alter the balance of military power and a desire to alter other elements of international order. We propose a two-dimensional property space that generates four ideal types: status-quo actors, who are satisfied with both order and the distribution of power; reformist actors, who are fine with the current distribution of power but seek to change elements of order; positionalist actors, who see no reason to alter the international order but do aim to shift the distribution of power; and revolutionary actors, who want to overturn both international order and the distribution of capabilities. This framework helps make sense of a number of important debates about hegemony and international order, such as the possibility of revisionist hegemonic powers, controversies over the concept of ‘soft balancing’, and broader dynamics of international goods substitution during power transitions.

【编译】崔宇涵

【校对】许文婷

点击左下角“阅读原文”可获取本期英文版原文

【新刊速递】第01期 | Review of International Studies Vol.45, No.4, 2019

扫下方二维码查看往期精彩

▲分类导览 1

▼分类导览2

原文始发于微信公众号（国政学人）：【新刊速递】第01期 | Review of International Studies Vol.45, No.4, 2019

发表评论 取消回复

发表评论取消回复