【編譯】呂紫煙 劉穎哲 石雨宸 邵良 戴赟

【審?！?/span>李博軒 王國欣 姚寰宇

【排版】高佳美

【題目】Can China Change the International System? The Role of Moral Leadership

【作者】Deborah Welch Larson，加州大學洛杉磯分校政治科學教授。

【摘要】在《領導力與大國崛起》一書中，閻學通教授認為為了獲得國際領導地位，中國應該在其外交政策中遵循道德價值觀。引用中國古代的思想，閻學通教授提出中國應該爭取“王權(quán)”，通過道德榜樣來影響其他國家，通過提供利益而不是脅迫來吸引支持者。本文分析了中國實現(xiàn)“王權(quán)”的可行性，這與其地位密切相關?！巴鯔?quán)”對競爭對手和友好國家遵循一致的規(guī)范，而霸權(quán)則采用雙重標準。但由于雙重標準源自內(nèi)心的偏見，所以它可能不那么容易避免。在東亞地區(qū)已經(jīng)存在有美國聯(lián)盟體系，所以對于中國來說，通過提供安全保證來爭取追隨者的方案并不可行。閻學通預測中國的發(fā)展將導致兩極格局的形成，但同時，他也指出構(gòu)成冷戰(zhàn)的條件不具備。然而，中美之間的技術(shù)競爭可能導致“新冷戰(zhàn)”，這將阻礙中國擴大其追隨者圈子的努力。要想實現(xiàn)“王權(quán)”，中國還應避免與美國發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭。安全困境的驅(qū)動使得海軍競賽可能導致地區(qū)沖突。中美兩國應通過分工管控地位競爭，以社會合作的方式接受對方在不同領域的優(yōu)勢地位。

Yan Xuetong’s Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers argues that China should follow moral values in its foreign policy in order to attain international leadership. Drawing on ancient Chinese thought, Yan makes the case that China should strive for humane authority, influencing other states by leading through moral example and attracting supporters through providing benefits rather than using coercion. This essay evaluates the feasibility of China’s attainment of humane authority, which is related to status. Humane authority follows norms consistently toward rivals as well as friendly states whereas a hegemon uses a double standard. But double standards may not be so easily avoided because they derive from inherent psychological bias. The option of acquiring followers by providing them with security guarantees is not available to China in East Asia because of the prior existence of the US alliance system. Yan predicts that China’s growth will lead to a bipolar structure but points out that the conditions for a Cold War are absent. Nevertheless, technological competition between the US and China could lead to a ‘new Cold War’, which would hamper China’s efforts to widen its circle of followers. To be a humane authority, China should also avoid a war with the USA. There is a risk that naval competition could lead to local conflicts as a result of security dilemma dynamics. The two states should control status rivalry through a division of labour, by accepting the other’s pre-eminence in different areas through social cooperation.

【編譯】呂紫煙

【校對】李博軒

【題目】China Through the Lens of Modernity

【作者】巴里·布贊（Barry Buzan），英國社會科學院院士、倫敦政治經(jīng)濟學院國際關系學系榮譽教授，并在哥本哈根大學、中國外交學院、國際關系學院、吉林大學等知名大學擔任名譽教授。布贊教授是國際關系領域和國際安全研究界世界級權(quán)威、哥本哈根學派創(chuàng)始者之一和英國學派領軍人物。

喬治·勞森（George Lawson），澳大利亞國立大學國際關系學系教授。他聚焦于國際關系與歷史社會學之間的交叉研究，以及激進的變革進程，尤其是大變革。

【摘要】本文考察了中國自19世紀以來的現(xiàn)代性（modernity）遭遇。它基于布贊和勞森（2015）提出的現(xiàn)代性歷史敘事，以及兩種理論視角：不平衡與綜合發(fā)展理論（uneven and combined development）、分化理論（differentiation theory）。本文以現(xiàn)代性的短暫歷史作為開篇，說明現(xiàn)代性并非靜態(tài)現(xiàn)象，而是一個不斷發(fā)展的過程。之后探討了中國遭遇現(xiàn)代性的五個時期：帝國衰落和對現(xiàn)代化的抵抗、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)與日本侵略、激進共產(chǎn)主義時期、市場社會主義時期、當代融合歷史思維的嘗試。本文探討了中國適應現(xiàn)代性的總體軌跡，以及中國如何從對現(xiàn)代性的拒絕態(tài)度發(fā)展到構(gòu)建獨特的“中國特色現(xiàn)代性” (modernity with Chinese characteristics）版本。本文最后總結(jié)了中國的現(xiàn)代性還存在哪些問題，以及它們?nèi)绾芜m應（與不適應）全球國際社會已經(jīng)建立的其他現(xiàn)代性形式。

This article examines China’s encounter with modernity from the 19th century to the present day. It builds on the historical narrative of modernity developed by Buzan and Lawson (2015), and two theoretical perspectives: uneven and combined development, and differentiation theory. The article opens with a short history of modernity, establishing that it is not a static phenomenon, but a continuously unfolding process. It then explores five periods of China’s encounter with modernity: imperial decline and resistance to modernization; civil war and Japanese invasion; Mao’s radical communist project; Deng’s market socialism; and Xi’s attempt to synthesize Confucius, Mao, and Deng. It explores both how China fits into the general trajectory of modernity, and how it has evolved from rejection of it to constructing its own distinctive version of ‘modernity with Chinese characteristics’. The article ends by reflecting on what issues remain within China’s version of modernity, and how it fits, and doesn’t fit with other forms of modernity already established within global international society.

【編譯】劉穎哲

【審?！?/strong>王國欣

【題目】Fears of Falling Short versus Anxieties of Decline: Explaining Russia and China’s Approach to Status-Seeking

【作者】Andrej Krickovic，俄羅斯國家研究型高等經(jīng)濟大學世界秩序研究和新區(qū)域主義國際實驗室副教授；Chang Zhang，華威大學政治與國際研究系博士研究生

【摘要】盡管最近的學術(shù)研究已經(jīng)提高了我們對地位的理解，但是影響國家尋求地位行為的因素仍很少被關注，現(xiàn)有的理論無法解釋為什么俄羅斯在地位尋求方面比中國更加激進和對抗，地位尋求者的權(quán)力軌跡如何影響其尋求地位的行為仍舊缺少詳細研究。尋求地位國家處于崛起或衰落狀態(tài)影響著其追求地位的風險傾向、追求更高地位的效用計算以及使用非對抗性和非侵略性的策略誘使其他國家賦予其更高地位的能力。像俄羅斯這樣的衰落大國需要積極地尋求地位以避免迫在眉睫的地位喪失，衰落國需要與其他國家對抗以迫使他們承認自己的地位。中國等崛起國則意識到積極的尋求地位會危害即將獲得的收益及其可能帶來的成本，因此對地位尋求更為謹慎和克制。此外，崛起國令人欽佩的成功和不斷增長的實力使其他國家更加愿意賦予它們更高的地位。因此，崛起國無需訴諸激進或?qū)沟姆椒ň涂梢蕴岣咦约旱牡匚弧?/p>

Although recent scholarship has advanced our understanding of status, little attention has been paid to the factors that shape states’ status-seeking behaviour. Consequently, existing theories are unable to explain why Russia has been more aggressive and confrontational in its status-seeking than China. What is missing is a detailed examination of the ways in which status-seekers’ power trajectories affect their status-seeking behaviour. Whether a status-seeker is rising or in decline shapes its propensity to take risks in pursuit of status, its calculations regarding the utility of attaining more status, and its ability to use non-confrontational and non-aggressive status-seeking strategies to induce other states to accord it higher status. Declining powers, such as Russia, engage in aggressive status-seeking to avoid imminent status losses. Decliners need to initiate confrontations with other states to compel them to recognise their status. Risers, such as China, are more cautious and restrained. Recognising that aggressive status-seeking can jeopardise imminent gains, they are conscious of the costs that accompany elevated status. Their admirable successes and growing power, moreover, make other states all the more willing to accord them higher status. Risers, therefore, can enhance their status without resorting to aggressive or confrontational methods.

【編譯】石雨宸

【審?！?/strong>王國欣

【題目】An Interdependence Theory of Wedge Strategies

【作者】黃宇興，清華大學國際關系學系助理教授、特別研究員、博士生導師

【摘要】“楔子戰(zhàn)略”（wedge strategy）是一個國家試圖防止，破壞或削弱對自身不利的聯(lián)盟的嘗試。非對稱聯(lián)盟（asymmetric alignment）由大國（聯(lián)盟領導者）和中小國家（較弱盟友）組成。那么，大國（挑撥者）的楔子戰(zhàn)略什么時候能夠成功離間非對稱聯(lián)盟？基于“克勞福德-泉川之爭”，我提出了針對楔子戰(zhàn)略的“相互依賴理論”。針對基于對稱相互依賴的非對稱聯(lián)盟中較弱盟友進行離間的楔子戰(zhàn)略最有可能成功。但是，針對基于不對稱相互依賴的不對稱聯(lián)盟的楔子戰(zhàn)略很可能會失敗。通過分析美國，俄羅斯和中國的檔案資料，我基于應用于冷戰(zhàn)時期亞洲的四種楔子戰(zhàn)略來評估理論。美日同盟和美臺同盟基于不對稱相互依賴，因此抵消了中國楔子戰(zhàn)略的影響。因此，在1955年至1965年之間，中國的威逼利誘都無法使較弱的東亞美國盟友與美國分道揚鑣。但是，中國成功利用了美巴同盟的對稱相互依賴關系。1962年至1965年之間，中國對巴基斯坦的懷柔阻止了巴基斯坦成為遏制中國的美國基地。同樣，蘇聯(lián)充分利用了中越聯(lián)盟的對稱相互依賴關系，通過對北越的援助使得中越關系出現(xiàn)裂痕，最終破壞了中越聯(lián)盟。因此，根據(jù)該理論，鑒于“軸輻式體系”（hub-and-spokes system）的不對稱相互依賴關系，中國任何試圖削弱美國東亞聯(lián)盟的嘗試都是無效的。

A wedge strategy is a state’s attempt to prevent, break up, or weaken a threatening or blocking alliance. An asymmetric alignment consists of a great power (the alignment leader) and a small/middle power (the weaker ally). So when does the wedge strategy of a great power (a divider) towards a competitive asymmetric alignment work? I propose, based upon the ‘Crawford–Izumikawa debate’, an ‘interdependence theory’ of wedge strategies. In the case of an asymmetric alignment that is symmetrically interdependent, the wedge strategy of a divider that accommodates the weaker ally is most likely to succeed. However, a wedge strategy towards an asymmetric alignment that is asymmetrically interdependent is highly likely to fail. I evaluate the theory based upon four wedge strategies adopted in Cold War Asia through analysing American, Russian, and Chinese archival sources. As asymmetrically interdependent, the US–Japan and US–Taiwan alliances offset the impact of Chinese wedge strategies. Between 1955 and 1965, therefore, neither Chinese accommodation nor Chinese pressure could detach weaker American allies from the United States in East Asia. However, China successfully exploited the symmetric interdependence of the US–Pakistan alliance. Between 1962 and 1965, China’s accommodation of Pakistan prevented Pakistan from being used as an American base for containment purposes. Likewise, the Soviet Union took full advantage of the Sino–Vietnamese alignment’s symmetric interdependence, whereby Soviet aid to North Vietnam caused rifts in Sino–Vietnamese relations that eventually wrecked the Sino–Vietnamese alignment. According to the theory, therefore, given the asymmetric interdependence of the hub-and-spokes system, any Chinese attempts to weaken US-sponsored alliances in East Asia would not be effective.

【編譯】邵良

【審?！?/strong>姚寰宇

【題目】Methodology as a Lingua Franca in International Relations: Peripheral Self-reflections on Dialogue with the Core

【作者】Ersel Aydinli比爾肯大學國際關系教授

【摘要】近幾十年來，許多學科界的“核心”與“邊緣”或“西方/非西方”之間的學術(shù)對話已成為一個熱門話題，部分原因是許多處于邊緣地帶的群體越來越期待在核心期刊上發(fā)表文章，而英語的語言霸權(quán)和對準入門檻的注意等因素又使情形復雜化。國際關系（IR）學科一直處于該熱點話題的最前沿。盡管人們普遍意識到這一問題，并致力于推動更多地強調(diào)外圍地區(qū)的本地理論，但全球國際關系學術(shù)的前沿仍然核心地區(qū)占據(jù)主導地位。本文提出，從最廣泛的意義上講，關注“質(zhì)量”方法論，即具有透明和有效的應用研究設計，也可以作為一種通用語言，促進思想交流，減少對邊緣學者的不利影響。文章接著以土耳其國際關系界方法管理的案例為重點，探討這一問題。它考察了目前土耳其國際關系教學和學術(shù)界對方法論問題的看法，然后對土耳其國際關系學科方法的質(zhì)量進行了自我反思。最后，它對土耳其國際關系學科界該如何更好地解決方法論的問題提出了建議，并最終可能會對全球國際關系學界產(chǎn)生巨大影響。

Scholarly dialogue between ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ or ‘West/non-West’ in many disciplinary communities has become an issue of discussion in recent decades, spawned in part by increased expectations in many periphery communities of being published in core journals, and complicated by factors such as the linguistic hegemony of English and concerns about access. The International Relations (IR) discipline has been at the forefront of this discussion. However, despite widespread awareness of the issue, and a dedicated push for greater emphasis on local theorising out of the periphery, the cutting edge of global IR scholarship still remains core dominant. This article proposes that a focus on ‘quality’ methodology, in the broadest possible sense of having transparent and effectively applied research designs, could serve as a lingua franca to promote the exchange of ideas in a way less prone to disadvantage periphery scholars. The article goes on to examine this issue by focusing on the case of the Turkish IR disciplinary community. It looks at how methodological issues are currently considered in Turkish IR pedagogy and scholarship and then offers a self-reflective assessment of the quality of methodology in Turkish IR. It concludes by offering suggestions on how the Turkish IR disciplinary community could better address methodological issues and, ultimately, perhaps achieve greater impact within the global IR community.

【編譯】戴赟

【審?！?/strong>姚寰宇

文章觀點不代表本平臺觀點，本平臺評譯分享的文章均出于專業(yè)學習之用, 不以任何盈利為目的，內(nèi)容主要呈現(xiàn)對原文的介紹，原文內(nèi)容請通過各高校購買的數(shù)據(jù)庫自行下載