【新刊速递】第05期 | European Journal of International Relations
期刊简介
European Journal of International Relations（《欧洲国际关系杂志》），简称“EJIR”，是由欧洲政治研究协会国际关系常设小组（SGIR）经同行评议的季刊，涵盖的范围从前沿的理论辩论到学者们感兴趣的当代和历史主题。它成立于1995年，主编为荷兰阿姆斯特大学的Geoffrey Underhill。根据Journal Citation Reports显示，2018年EJIR杂志影响因子为2.756，在91个国际关系类期刊中排名第11（11/91）。
本期编委
编译：刘瑛琛、金 琳、李代霓、杨艺华、曹鹏鹏
校对：刘瑛琛、金 琳、李代霓、杨艺华、曹鹏鹏
审读：金 琳
排版：吴 俣
本期目录
1. Toward a political economy of complex interdependence
走向复合相互依赖的政治经济学
2. Towards an International Political Ergonomics
走向国际政治工效学
3. The financialization of mass wealth, banking crises and politics over the long run
长期发展的大众财富金融化、银行业危机与政治
4. Risky dis/entanglements: Torture and sexual violence in conflict
危险的分配与纠缠:冲突中的酷刑和性暴力
5. Subverting economic empowerment: Towards a postcolonial-feminist framework on gender (in)securities in post-war settings
颠覆经济赋权：基于后殖民——女性主义框架的性别安全研究
6. The responsibility to protect in a world of already existing intervention
已存在干预的世界中的“保护责任”
7. Norm emergence as agenda diffusion: Failure and success in the regulation of cluster munitions
作为议程扩散的规范起源：集束弹药相关规则的得与失
8. Making al-Qa’ida legible: Counter-terrorism and the reproduction of terrorism
使基地组织清晰可辨：反恐与恐怖主义“重生”
9. Voted out: Regime type, elections and contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations
投票表决：政权类型，选举和对联合国维持和平行动的贡献
10. Taking interaction seriously: Asymmetrical roles and the behavioral foundations of status
正视互动：不对称性角色与国际地位的行为基础
11. Towards a political concept of reversibility in international relations: Bridging political philosophy and policy studies
论国际关系中的可逆性政治观：政治哲学与政策研究的弥合
12. How the normative resistance of anarchism shaped the state monopoly on violence
国家具有对暴力的合法垄断权这一规范如何因无政府主义的抵抗而发展?
走向复合相互依赖的政治经济学
【题目】Toward a political economy of complex interdependence
【作者】Thomas Oatley
How should we theorize about international political economy in an era of complex interdependence? The global economy is much more interdependent today than it was 40 years ago. As a result, there is a widening appreciation that we need new theoretical tools to understand how complex interdependence arose, how it operates, and where it might be headed. I argue that to develop such tools, we must embrace new theoretical logics that more readily accommodate and explain change. I develop this point by drawing on complexity theories, ecology, and information theory. I first develop the core elements of a complexity-based approach and contrast it to the central assumptions of the Open Economy Politics approach. I then illustrate this complexityoriented approach by using the logic of coevolution and the information–entropy cycle to explain key elements in the development of the 2008 global financial crisis.
【编译】金琳
【校对】刘瑛琛
走向国际政治工效学
【题目】Towards an International Political Ergonomics
【作者】Jonathan Luke Austin
【摘要】国际政治工效学是一门新学科，旨在通过对世界政治的工效设计（再设计）实现政治变革。国际政治工效学的基础是国际关系学科的转变，这种转变承认其认识论核心（如知识生产）往往不足以实现变革。从实践转变、行为主义以及哲学、社会学和神经科学得出的结论表明，许多国际行为是由“无意识的”或“非反身性的”行为再表达所驱动的，即便整个再表达过程的产生原因是已知的。这意味着知识的生产和面向决策者或全球公众的传播往往无法对社会实践产生影响。因此，需要一种产生世界政治变革的非认知手段，而国际政治工效学作为其中的一种研究方案承担了这一任务。工效学通过论述在世界政治微不足道的物质干预是如何激发理性、反身性和深思熟虑进而从根本上改变了个人行为。通过这种描述，国际政治工效学实现了产生世界变革的目标。本文通过详细阐述国际政治工效学在预防暴力中的运用，论证了这一观点的理论基础。最后，文章反思了国际政治工效学对国际关系学科的根本性影响。
This article introduces International Political Ergonomics. International Political Ergonomics is a novel research programme focused on achieving political change through the ergonomic (re)design of world politics. The approach is grounded on a shift across International Relations which recognizes that its epistemic (i.e. knowledge-producing) core is often inadequate to achieve change. Insights from the practice turn and behaviouralist International Relations, as well as from philosophy, sociology and neuroscience, demonstrate that much international behaviour is driven by the ‘unconscious’ or ‘non-reflexive’ re-articulation of repertoires of actions even where the pathologies of this process are known. This implies that knowledge production and dissemination (i.e. to policymakers, global publics) is often unable to effect influence over social practices. What is thus required is a non-epistemic means of producing world political change. International Political Ergonomics is a research programme that takes up this task. It does so by describing how small material interventions into world politics can radically shift individual behaviours by encouraging greater rationality, reflexivity and deliberation. After laying out the theoretical basis for this claim, the article demonstrates it by detailing the application of International Political Ergonomics to violence-prevention efforts. The article concludes by reflecting on the radical implications that International Political Ergonomics has for the vocation of International Relations.
【编译】金琳
【校对】刘瑛琛
长期发展的大众财富金融化、银行业危机与政治
【题目】The Financialization of Mass Wealth, Banking Crisis and Politics over the Long Turn
【作者】Jeffrey M Chwieroth
【摘要】在国内层面与全球层面，民主政治与大众财富金融化的共同推进已经破坏了高度一体化的金融体系与新自由主义的社会政治基础。从长远来看，这增加了政府在重大银行业危机中进行救助的政治压力；同时，它还增强了选民对财富损失与收入分配不均的关注，进而大幅提高了政府绩效的门槛。最终结果便是财政救助的成本上升、政治更加不稳定和危机过后财富分裂状态的持续政治化。在1914年以前的英美两国，财富高度集中在精英手中，作者揭示了这一现象与危机中政府有限的干预及危机结束后出人意料平静的政治后果三者间的关系，强调了其突出的重要性与现代意义。相比之下，2007-2009年间发生在英美两国间的危机集中体现了大众财富金融化背景下民选政府所面临的困境以及政治极化和民主政治的影响。作者认为，民选政府的这种困境萌芽于两次世界大战之间。作者还强调了这种塑造政策与政治结果的演变力量是如何揭示时间和环境的重要性以及世界经济和全球政治长期影响的。
The co-evolution of democratic politics and mass, financialized wealth has destabilized highly integrated financial systems and the socio-political underpinnings of neoliberal policy norms at domestic and global levels. Over the long run, it has increased the political pressure on governments to undertake bailouts during major banking crises and, by raising voters’ attentiveness to wealth losses and distributional inequities, has sharply raised the bar for government performance. The result has been more costly bailouts, greater political instability and the sustained politicization of wealth cleavages in crisis aftermaths. We underline the crucial importance and modernity of this phenomenon by showing how the high concentration of wealth in pre-1914 Britain and America among elites was associated with limited crisis interventions and surprisingly tranquil political aftermaths. By contrast, the 2007–2009 crises in both countries epitomise the political dilemmas facing elected governments in a new world of mass financialized wealth and the impact on political polarization and democratic politics. We show that these dilemmas were embryonic in the interwar period and highlight how the evolutionary forces shaping policy and political outcomes reveal the importance of time, context and the effects of long cycles in the world economy and global politics.
【编译】刘瑛琛
【校对】金琳
危险的分配与纠缠:冲突中的酷刑和性暴力
【题目】Risky dis/entanglements: Torture and sexual violence in conflict
【作者】Harriet Gray, Maria Stern
【摘要】与冲突有关的性暴力在国际上日益被视为一种严重的政治暴力形式。作为政治暴力一部分，由于学者和其他行为者试图利用酷刑的全球公认地位来提高性暴力的知名度。这一行动虽然在战略上可行，甚至已经取得了成果，但它促使我们谨慎行事。如果进一步追求这种性暴力的定位，在不经意间会产生什么后果？尽管二者在暴力类别上存在区别，酷刑和性暴力都被广泛界定为近十年具有战略意义的学术文献。然而，只有酷刑，而非性暴力，在这些文献中被视为是合法的。本文提供了一个思考，即把性酷刑作为暴力的一个类别来关注，从而思考瓦解性暴力和酷刑类别可能带来的风险。最后，文章认为，或许应该抵制将性暴力定性为酷刑的冲动，坚守“性”的粘性定位，尽管它在历史上曾以各种方式使严重伤害正常化、永久化和模糊化。
Conflict-related sexual violence has become increasingly recognized in international spaces as a serious, political form of violence. As part of this process, distinctions between the categories of ‘sexual violence’ and ‘torture’ have blurred as scholars and other actors have sought to capitalize on the globally recognized status of torture in raising the profile of sexual violence. This move, while perhaps strategically promising, even already fruitful, prompts us to heed caution. What might we inadvertently engender by further pursuing such positioning? While torture and sexual violence have both been widely framed within the academic literature as strategic in recent decades, only torture, and not sexual violence, has emerged from elements of this literature as (potentially) legitimate, despite the slippages between them as categories of violence. This article offers one avenue for thinking through what an invigorated focus on sexual torture as a category of violence might unwittingly render possible, and thus for reflecting on the possible stakes of collapsing the categories of sexual violence and torture. Ultimately, we argue that we should perhaps resist the urge to frame sexual violence as torture and instead cleave to the sticky signifier of ‘the sexual’, despite the ways in which it has served to normalize, perpetuate and obfuscate grievous harms throughout history.
【编译】曹鹏鹏
【校对】李代霓
颠覆经济赋权：基于后殖民——女性主义框架的性别安全研究
【题目】Subverting economic empowerment: Towards a postcolonial-feminist framework on gender (in)securities in post-war settings
【作者】Maria Martin de Almagro,Caitlin Ryan
【摘要】本文表明联合国安理会通过的关于妇女、和平与安全的第1325号决议未能使战后各国的妇女实现更大程度的和平与安全，这在很大程度上是由于它未能深入探讨经济赋权下妇女生活的实质。作者认为关于妇女、和平与安全的第1325号决议再现了新自由主义的对经济赋权的理解，但这种理解未能充分反映战后妇女的现实生活，原因有二：首先，决议认为正式和非正式经济活动是两分的、独立的，而不是相互交织、相互构成的；其次，它将“代理”概念化为个体的、空洞的、抽象的、普遍化的、以及符合市场竞争压力要求的。紧接着，作者提出了一个国际干预的后殖民—女权主义的框架，并从三个方面进行了分析，揭露了战后妇女并没有认真对待正式经济、物质性和能动性。该框架有助于更好地理解谁在战后经济中被赋权，以及如何被赋权。反过来，这又使战后经济体产生性别化和种族化的原因变得更加清晰，而关于妇女、和平与安全的第1325号决议所要解决的就是这些产生性别化和种族化的保障。在此基础上，作者还希望反思更加广泛的国际政治经济关切，特别是政治学和经济学的概念区分问题；同时，作者也希望挑战已经渗透进和平与冲突研究中的物质性和话语之间的既定边界。
This article demonstrates that the inability of the United Nations Women, Peace and Security agenda to realize greater peace and security for women in post-war states stems to a great extent from its failure to engage deeply with the materiality of women’s lives under economic empowerment projects. We argue that the Women, Peace and Security agenda reproduces a neoliberal understanding of economic empowerment that inadequately captures the reality of women’s lives in post-war settings for two reasons: first, it views formal and informal economic activities as dichotomous and separate, rather than as intertwined and constitutive of each other; and, second, it conceptualizes agency as individual, disembodied, abstract, universalizing and conforming to the requirements of the competitive pressures of the market. The article then offers a three-pronged postcolonial-feminist framework to analyse international interventions in which representation, materiality and agency are interconnected. We argue that such a framework helps understand better who is empowered in post-war economies and how they are empowered. This, in turn, makes visible how post-war economies produce gendered and racialized (in)securities that need to be addressed by the Women, Peace and Security agenda. With this, we also hope to reflect on broader international political economy concerns about the problems of making conceptual distinctions between politics and economics, and to challenge the constructed borders between materiality and discourse that have pervaded peace and conflict studies.
【编译】金琳
【校对】刘瑛琛
已存在干预的世界中的“保护责任”
【题目】The responsibility to protect in a world of already existing intervention
【作者】Robin Dunford ;Michael Neu
【摘要】面对人道主义危机，国际社会成员往往面临两个选择：采取包括军事干预在内的各种形式的行动，或袖手旁观。但却忽视了已经发生并导致人道主义危机出现和延续的干预行为。虽然学界对已经存在的干预行为给予了大量的关注，但关于“保护责任”的文献并没有充分理解保护责任对军事干预的合法性和有效性的影响。为了弥补这一缺陷，作者认为，首先，当前研究对已经存在的干预的关注将会使道德考量复杂化，而道德考量又是作为保护责任的一部分存在的军事干预的基础。第二，已经从事破坏性干预行为的行为体并非合格的国际公民，因此这些行为体不适合实施人道主义军事干预。第三，在既忽视已经存在的干预，又要求即使进行有效的军事干预情况下，保护责任将会使军国主义的道义形式合法化。以上三个论点表明，仅仅通过增加保护责任（例如实施结构性预防或支持难民）来回应已经存在的干预是错误的。相反，我们需要的是一种逃离保护责任逻辑的、更根本的反思。
In the face of humanitarian crises, members of the international community are often presented with a choice: engage in forms of action, including military intervention, or stand by and watch. This framing ignores practices of intervention that are already taking place and contributing to the emergence and perpetuation of humanitarian crises. Despite calling for more attention to be paid to already existing intervention, literature on the Responsibility to Protect has not adequately understood its implications for the legitimacy and likely effectiveness of military intervention. To redress this gap, we argue, first, that a focus on already existing intervention complicates the moral calculus on which defences of military intervention as part of the Responsibility to Protect are based. Second, we claim that actors already engaged in damaging practices of intervention are bad international citizens who are not fit for the purpose of humanitarian military intervention. Third, we argue that in both ignoring already existing intervention and calling for additional military intervention under its third pillar, the Responsibility to Protect legitimises a moralistic form of militarism. These three arguments show that it is a mistake to follow recent literature in responding to already existing intervention by simply adding to the Responsibility to Protect, for instance, duties to engage in structural prevention and to support refugees. Rather, what is needed is a more fundamental rethink that departs from the Responsibility to Protect.
Keywords:Good international citizenship, humanitarian intervention, jus ad bellum, mass atrocity, militarism, Responsibility to Protect
【编译】金琳
【校对】刘瑛琛
作为议程扩散的规范起源：集束弹药相关规则的得与失
【题目】Norm Emergence as Agenda Diffusion: Failure and Success in the Regulation of Cluster Munitions
【作者】Elvira Rosert
【摘要】目前的研究提供了有关规范演进过程的几种模型，然而，我们仍然缺乏一个有说服力的模型来明确描述规范的起源阶段。宏观的模型（比如规范生命循环模型）主要关注规范的整体演进过程，并将规范的起源阶段作为整体的一部分加以区分，但这些模型太过粗糙。中观的模型主要关注规范演进过程中的某个特定阶段，但这一阶段通常不是起源阶段，而是扩散阶段（例如信号模型）或者强化阶段（例如螺旋模型）。即便中观模型关注到起源阶段，这种关注也只是停留在某个特定案例上，且缺乏理论性。微观模型（如说服模型或漏斗模型）关注某一阶段内部的特定序列。在本文中，作者将规范的起源起源阶段定义为“问题通过多种议程的扩散过程或问题转化为解决问题的规范的过程”，并在此基础上发展出一个新的模型。该模型区分了规范产生的四个顺序：规范制定者关注到问题；在公共领域内创制议题；在国际机制审议领域内提出备选的规范；多边谈判中的规范创造。最后，作者探究了反对集束炸弹的国际规范的起源，借此说明了这一模型的有效性。
The research on international norms offers several models of their evolution; however, a convincing model specifically depicting the phase of norm emergence is still lacking. Macro models (e.g. the norm life cycle) focus on the overall evolution of norms and distinguish the emergence phase as one among others, but they remain too rough. Meso models focus on a specific phase, but on phases other than norm emergence, such as diffusion (e.g. the signalling model) or enforcement (e.g. the spiral model). If they do focus on emergence, this focus remains case-specific and lacks theorisation. Micro models (e.g. the persuasion model or the funnelling model) focus on specific sequences within a phase. In this article, I develop one model of norm emergence by conceptualising it as the diffusion of a problem through different agendas and the discursive transformation of a problem into a (problem-solving) norm. The model distinguishes four sequences of norm emergence: problem adoption by norm entrepreneurs; issue creation in the public sphere; candidate norm creation in the institutional-deliberative sphere; and norm creation in multilateral negotiations. I illustrate the utility of this model by tracing the emergence of the norm against cluster munitions.
【编译】刘瑛琛
【校对】金琳
使基地组织清晰可辨：反恐与恐怖主义“重生”
【题目】Making al-Qa’ida legible: Counter-terrorism and the reproduction of terrorism
【作者】Sarah G. Phillips
【摘要】本文就也门政府倒台前几年阿拉伯半岛的基地组织（AQAP）的增长提出了两个问题。第一是为什么美国的反恐战略未能在也门政府瓦解（2015年）之前，就将AQAP控制在阿拉伯半岛？第二是为什么美国政府认为其反恐战略是成功的？（美国的反恐战略尽管杀死了许多最著名的AQAP领导人并为当地的反恐提供了空前的支持，却仍未能遏制AQAP）结合在也门的实地调查和其他资料的研究，本文认为答案基于一个事实，即关于什么是真正的AQAP，存在两个广泛但从根本上相互矛盾的本体论：一个清晰，组织合理，因此是可控的（这种本体论更接近西方话语认知，恐怖主义是一个稳定的、“可控制的问题”，即通过打击其领导人、收入来源和基地等有形要素损害其整体能力，就构成了反恐的成功）；另一个则并非如此（这接近也门对基地组织的理解，也门倾向于将AQAP构造为一个流动的、多重的和混乱的实体，即虽然基地组织包含理性和清晰的方面，但也是国家或霸权的附属物，所以大国的干预不是打击它，而是不断地复制它）。本文通过对基地组织AQAP的“真实”本质进行总结，提供了关于恐怖主义与反恐怖主义相互复制的详细案例研究。
Why did America’s counter-terrorism strategy in Yemen fail to contain al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula in the years prior to the Yemeni government’s collapse in 2015? Moreover, why did the US administration think that its strategy was successful? This article draws from field research in Yemen and a diverse array of other Yemeni sources to argue that the answer lies in the fact that there are two broad, but ultimately irreconcilable, ontologies of what al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula ‘really is’: one legible, organisationally rational and thus governable; and one not entirely so. I argue that by targeting tangible elements of al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula (such as its leaders, sources of revenue and bases) in partnership with the Yemeni state security apparatus, the strategy strengthened the group’s less coherent aspects. As a result, Western counter-terrorism practices target a stripped-down, synoptic version of the group while missing, even empowering, the shadowy appendage of state or hegemonic power that animates popular Yemeni discourses. This article is concerned with what al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula looks like when we prioritise Yemeni observations about how it emerged and is reproduced. I argue that seeing al-Qa’ida as at least partly illegible removes counter-terrorism’s obvious targets, making it more suited to quelling anxieties than actually preventing terrorism.
【编译】李代霓
【校对】杨艺华
投票表决：政权类型，选举和对联合国维持和平行动的贡献
【题目】Voted out: Regime type, elections and contributions to United Nations peacekeeping operations
【作者】Allard Duursma, John Gledhill
【摘要】先前的研究表明，民主政权的领导人特别愿意向联合国维和行动派遣部队，因为支持“自由主义”的维和行动能促进自由主义机制的传播。这一论点的论据是冷战后十年维和期间形成的贡献模式(contribution patterns）。在本文中，我们认为冷战后，民主和非民主政府向联合国提供维和人员的意愿有所改变。具体而言，我们认为在1990年代引入了更多“稳健”的维和形式使民主政府不愿再为联合国行动贡献大量维和人员，因为领导人担心选民可能会反对将国家部队部署到没有明显国家利益的高风险人道主义行动之中。相比之下，非民主政府的领导人在某种程度上忽视舆论，因为他们不太依赖民众支持来维持权力。因此，当非民主人士认为向联合国维和行动派遣部队将为其带来声誉或资源利益时，他们愿意为维和行动作出大规模贡献。通过对观点进行定量分析，发现自二十世纪九十年代以来，民主政府仍比非民主政府更有可能向联合国维和行动派遣部队，但非民主政府则更有可能作出大规模贡献。此外，当选举即将来临时，各国政府尤其不愿为维和行动作出可观贡献。
Previous research has suggested that leaders of democratic regimes are particularly willing to contribute troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations because backing ‘liberal’ peacekeeping allows them to support the diffusion of liberal institutions. However, evidence used to sustain this argument is based on contribution patterns during the decade of peacekeeping that followed the Cold War. In this article, we argue that there has been a reversal in the relative willingness of democratic and nondemocratic governments to provide the United Nations with peacekeepers since then. Specifically, we propose that the introduction of more ‘robust’ forms of peacekeeping during the 1990s has rendered democratic governments reluctant to contribute large numbers of peacekeepers to United Nations operations because elected leaders are now concerned that voters may object to the deployment of national troops to highrisk humanitarian missions in which there is no clear national interest. By contrast, non-democratic leaders partly discount public opinion because they are less reliant on popular support to retain power. Thus, when non-democrats see that contributing troops to United Nations peacekeeping will bring them reputational and/or resource benefits, they are willing to contribute peacekeepers — and on a large scale. We test our claims quantitatively. We find that since the 1990s, democratic governments have remained more likely than non-democrats to contribute some troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations, but non-democratic governments have been more likely to make large-scale contributions. We also find that governments have been especially reluctant to make sizeable contributions to peacekeeping when elections have been on the horizon.
【编译】李代霓
【校对】杨艺华
正视互动：不对称性角色与国际地位的行为基础
【题目】Taking Interaction Seriously: Asymmetrical Roles and the Behavioral Foundations of Status
【作者】Reinhard Wolf
【摘要】如今“国际地位”再次成为国际关系领域的重要议题之一。但“国际地位”定义的模糊性、不完整性和互斥性继续阻碍着一个有连续性的研究项目的发展。在已经提出的定义中，即便是最精确者也无法概括“国际地位”这一概念的全部内容。目前对国际地位的研究集中在有关特质的集体信仰方面，而这些特质又为单个行为体所重视，因此这些研究尤其不能解释通过双边互动产生的地位差异，或是颠覆地区地位等级的挑衅行为。当前这些研究还忽视了对国际地位最为激烈的侵犯方式，即侮辱性的行为与关系。为了弥补这种概念上的缺陷，本文首先回顾了国际关系领域和其他领域对“国际地位”概念的定义。这些定义可以被划分为两种地位等级制度，分别是声望地位等级制度与角色地位等级制度，这两种地位等级制度之间又存在因果关系。随后，作者提出一个融合了这两种地位等级制度的模型。在这一过程中，文章还阐释了“地位”与如“权威”、“声望”、“荣誉”和“辉煌”等相似概念的联系。最后，作者对俄罗斯与“西方”之间看似反复无常的地位争端进行了细致和连贯的讨论，借此说明了这一框架的理论解释力。
Status has once again become a prominent topic in international relations. However, vague, incomplete, and incompatible definitions continue to stifle the development of a cohesive research program. Even the most sophisticated conceptualizations proposed fail to comprehend the full range of status conflicts and ambitions. Current research centers on collective beliefs about the traits that are valued in individual actors, so it especially fails to properly account for status differentiations that emerge through bilateral interactions and for defiant acts that upend local status hierarchies. It also neglects the most intense status infringements: acts and relationships that are humiliating. To remedy this conceptual weakness, this article will first review conceptual work in International Relations and beyond. It will then present an integrated model of two distinct status hierarchies — prestige and role status — and their causal linkages. In so doing, the article will attempt to clarify how “status” relates to similar concepts, such as “authority,” “prestige,” “honor,” and “glory.” The explanatory value of this consolidated status framework will be demonstrated through a more nuanced and consistent discussion of Russia’s seemingly erratic status disputes with “the West.”
【编译】刘瑛琛
【校对】金琳
论国际关系中的可逆性政治观：政治哲学与政策研究的弥合
【题目】Towards a Political Concept of Reversibility in International Relations: Bridging Political Philosophy and Policy Studies
【作者】Hartmut Behr
【摘要】偶然性和否定性是国际关系理论分析中比较成熟的两个概念，但我们仍然没有理解这两个概念的实际价值。为了探讨在偶然性和否定性下如何行动的问题，本文首先用亚里士多德的思想对两者进行三角论证。这种三角论证表明，由于政治因素具有偶然性、历史与思想上的否定性并可推翻（甚至是自我推翻），政治行动的后果是无法预测的，而且总是伴有无心之失。因此，制定后患无穷的政策似乎是不负责任的。相反，负责任的政治行动只会在其结果可逆的情况下进行，而这种“负责任”正体现为也仅仅体现为它能够解释偶然性与否定性。其次，本文从可逆性及其基本哲学原理的角度对政策理论做出批判性评论，试图将政治哲学与政策研究联系起来，使政治分析更加丰富。这种弥合性工作不仅加强了对政策研究的规范性的思考，反过来，也暗示了行动结果非线性展开的关键方面。在文章的结尾部分，作者讨论了这一弥合对未来研究议程的影响。作者认为，本文具有双重贡献，这两重贡献之间又相互关联：首先，本文发展出可逆性的概念，并以此作为对偶然性和否定性两个哲学概念的现实回应；其次，本文弥合了政治哲学和政策研究两种不同的范式，有利于学术知识在治理当代国际问题和全球问题上发挥作用。
While contingency and negation are relatively well-established notions in the theoretical analysis of international relations, their practical implications remain under-conceptualised. In order to discuss the question of how to act under conditions of contingency and negation, this article, in a first step, triangulates both with Aristotelian noesis. Such triangulation suggests that the consequences of political action cannot be predicted and always have inadvertent consequences due to the contingent and historically and intellectually negated and refutable (even self-refutable) character of politics. It therefore appears as irresponsible to enact policies with interminable consequences. Rather, responsible political action — which is responsible precisely as, and only if, it accounts for contingency and negation — must hence act only in such a way that its consequences are reversible. In a second step, policy theory is critically reviewed in light of reversibility and its underlying philosophical principles, trying to bridge political philosophy and policy studies for a mutually enriched analysis of politics. Such a bridging exercise not only brings enhanced normative reflection into policy studies, but also, in reverse, hints at the crucial aspect of the non-linear unfolding of action consequences, which is, in addition to questions for a future research agenda, discussed in the concluding section. These discussions are understood as a twofold, yet interlinked, contribution: first, to develop a concept of reversibility as a practical response to the philosophical notions of contingency and negation; and, second, to bridge two different paradigms, encouraging the synergy of scholarly expertise for the management of contemporary international and global problems.
【编译】刘瑛琛
【校对】金琳
国家具有对暴力的合法垄断权这一规范如何因无政府主义的抵抗而发展?
【题目】How the normative resistance of anarchism shaped the state monopoly on violence
【作者】Michael E. Newell
【摘要】对于暴力的合法使用的垄断并不是国家的根本属性，而是一种具有建构性和规定性的规范。规范的建构性是指该规范将国家建构为唯一拥有暴力的合法垄断权的实体，而规定性则是指该规范规定了国家有控制暴力的使用和限制他者使用暴力的义务并要承担失责的后果。而现存文献只研究了这个关于国家垄断的规范因应对19世纪前半个世纪的海盗而产生的发展，却忽视了该规范因应对跨国无政府恐怖主义的暴力行动而产生的发展。在19世纪末期，无政府主义哲学家拒绝承认该规范，并明确提出了一种对抗的话语体系。虽然这种话语体系没有得到广泛的承认，但它引起了各国的激烈反应。在1898年的国际对无政府主义的社会防范工作罗马会议和1904年的《圣彼得堡议定书》中，各国重申了国家垄断规范的建构性方面，并提出这一规范意味着各国应该承担对反无政府主义的政策进行协调的新义务。各个国家领导人思考了关于反无政府主义的集体安全的多种形式，首次提出将国家垄断规范应用于控制个人的暴力。与现存文献的研究趋势相似的点在于，本文认为各国之所以对无政府主义运动反应激烈，是因为各国认为无政府主义者完全反对国家垄断规范的建构性方面。
Rather than an assumption of statehood, the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force is better understood as a normative ideal that regulates behavior, and constitutes states as the sole legitimate authority on violence. Existing literature on this norm has explored its development in response to piracy in the early to mid-1800s, but it has overlooked significant developments that occurred in response to the violence of transnational anarchist terrorism. Anarchist philosophers in the late 1800s resisted the normative basis of the state monopoly on violence and articulated their own competing claims. While their normative ideas failed to gain widespread acceptance, they elicited significant responses by states. In the Rome Conference of 1898 and the St. Petersburg Protocol, states reiterated the constitutive aspects of the state monopoly norm, and articulated new, deeper obligations to coordinate anti anarchist policies. State officials considered a protean form of collective security against the anarchists, and applied the state monopoly norm to the control of the violence of individual, rather than corporate, non-state actors for the first time. Similar to trends identified in existing literature on the state monopoly norm, this article notes that the response to the anarchists was bolstered by their perception as “outsiders of authority,” or violators of core constitutive norms of state authority. This trend and these broader historical dynamics are explained with reference to theoretical literature on normative resistance.
【编译】杨艺华
【校对】李代霓
【新刊速递】第01期 | Review of International Studies Vol.45, No.4, 2019
【新刊速递】第02期 | International Relations Vol.33, No.3, 2019
【新刊速递】第03期 | International Organization Vol.73, No.3, 2019
【新刊速递】第04期 | World Politics, Vol.71, No.4, 2019
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05期 | European Journal of International Relations