美俄《中导条约》履约争议及其未来走向

2014年7月,美国国务院在其发布的年度军控条约履约报告中公开指责俄罗斯违反美国与苏联于1987年签署的《中导条约》,并引发两国新一轮外交对抗,将美俄长期存在的围绕《中导条约》争议推向新的高度。美俄围绕《中导条约》之所以争议频频,既有历史根源,也有安全考虑,更有现实政治因素。《中导条约》的未来将取决于美俄双边政治动态演变及其对两国安全环境的影响。从短期看,美俄仍将重点解决《中导条约》的履约问题;从长期看,美俄很有可能再度推动条约多边化。     

美俄《中导条约》履约争议及其未来走向北大核心CSSCISSCI

2014年7月,美国国务院在其发布的年度军控条约履约报告中公开指责俄罗斯违反美国与苏联于1987年签署的《中导条约》,并引发两国新一轮外交对抗,将美俄长期存在的围绕《中导条约》争议推向新的高度。美俄围绕《中导条约》之所以争议频频,既有历史根源,也有安全考虑,更有现实政治因素。《中导条约》的未来将取决于美俄双边政治动态演变及其对两国安全环境的影响。从短期看,美俄仍将重点解决《中导条约》的履约问题;从长期看,美俄很有可能再度推动条约多边化。     

美俄关系“重启”前景分析

奥巴马出任美国总统后,开始“重启”美俄关系。美俄两国签署了新的《削减和限制进攻性武器条约》、在阿富汗反恐及伊朗核问题上加强合作、恢复和深化双边军事合作,还建立了两国总统委员会,将双边合作向经济、人文等领域扩展。然而,美俄关系目前的改善难以突破两国结构性矛盾,美国执意部署导弹防御系统、坚持北约东扩,两国在格鲁吉亚问题上针锋相对、在中亚地区战略竞争依旧。由于美俄目标难以调和,两国关系要取得实质性突破较难。     

从美对俄战略看当前美俄的紧张关系

美俄关系是世界上最重要的大国关系之一。美国弱俄、抑俄政策是冷战时期对苏“遏制”战略的继续，意识形态的对抗贯穿美苏和美俄关系的发展过程。近些年来，美俄不断形成相互挑战之势，今年俄格军事冲突又导致美俄对抗势头加剧。但两国不会回到冷战时代，非敌非友的两国关系将会长期保持。     

俄美关系的走向及其影响

乌克兰危机以来,由于美国对俄罗斯实施经济制裁和政治军事遏制,俄美关系陷入长期对抗。俄美对抗的根源在于美国不断削弱俄罗斯对其周边地区的影响力和企图改造俄罗斯政治制度。同时,基于军事安全互动的俄美关系基本结构也使两国难以摆脱安全困境。拜登执政后,美国对俄推行"强力遏制+有限合作"政策,普京政府可能以反制与合作两手策略应对,既避免与美国发生军事冲突,也不会卑躬屈膝地与之和解。未来一段时期内,俄美关系仍将延续对抗状态,难以实现正常化。     

反恐:审视美俄关系的另一种视角

"9·11"事件后反恐成为大国关系的新变量.在"9·11"事件后的最初时期,俄罗斯出于改变自己与美国和西方世界关系冷淡的局面等原因,主动对美国在阿富汗的军事行动进行了积极配合,一度大幅改善了双边关系.然而由于美俄两国之间存在着深刻的结构性战略利益的冲突,随着反恐战争的进行和美国借反恐之名实施自己的战略图谋进程的日益明显,两国在地缘政治领域的冲突趋于明显化和激烈化,同时两国反恐理念的渐行渐远也最终导致美俄关系在迅速改善后不到一年又迅速冷却,美俄双边关系在今后一段时间里继续进行传统地缘政治利益的博弈将依然是两国关系的主线.     

大选年俄美关系态势

2008年俄美双双进入总统大选年,两国都有借对方总统换届契机改善僵持已久的双边关系的愿望。但从俄美互为战略对手的本质和彼此关系存在的深层次、结构性矛盾看,双方通过领导人的换届来缓解两国关系的空间有限,美俄间的遏制与反遏制较量将会长期持续下去。     

美俄退出《中导条约》的原因及影响

《中导条约》是冷战期间美苏达成的重要军控条约,其签署及落实既是美苏相互妥协的结果,也是20世纪60年代,特别是古巴导弹危机后美苏尝试进行核军控与裁军谈判的具体安排。通过讨价还价,两国决定把陆基中程和中短程导弹全部销毁并不再部署。冷战结束后,美俄一直对此耿耿于怀,认为条约束缚住了自己的手脚。2019年2月,特朗普总统宣布美国暂停履约180天,之后将退约。随后,俄罗斯宣布将视情退约。在当前大国竞争的背景下,美俄不太可能重新回到条约内,《中导条约》很可能就此失效终结。美俄双方退约各有思量,其涉及多方面的影响值得关注。     

俄美“新战略框架”分析

20 0 2年 5月 ,俄罗斯与美国宣布建立新型的战略框架关系。俄罗斯与北约建立“2 0国机制” ,揭开了俄美关系发展新的一页。新战略框架作为俄美在新形势下对双方关系的一种界定 ,它反映出俄美双方的主要意图和共同利益 ,各有其战略所需。俄美新战略框架关系的建立 ,标志着两国关系进入了新的发展阶段 ,同时也具有美进俄退、美攻俄守的态势和核战略优势向美倾斜的趋势。俄美建立新战略关系是双方“求同存异”的现实选择 ,由于利益分歧依旧存在、战略目标不同、相互信任基础不稳固以及国内政治因素的影响 ,新战略框架关系的发展面临着许多不确定因素。当前 ,美国在大国关系中占据主导地位 ,俄美关系今后如何发展将主要取决于美国的行动。     

《莫斯科条约》与美俄核裁军

美俄核裁军在经历了20世纪90年代初的短暂快速进展后,便陷入长达十年左右的僵局,直到跨入21世纪,美俄核裁军才获得新的突破。2002年5月,美俄签署了进一步削减战略核武器的《莫斯科条约》。然而,美俄新的核裁军已与传统的核裁军不可同日而语。《莫斯科条约》是在美国主导下达成的,而且没有对战略核武器的削减予以严格的限制并规定核查措施,因而称不上是真正的和不可逆的核裁军。在可预见的将来,美俄核裁军不大可能出现新的进展。     

俄罗斯对美国战略认知的演变及其政策效应

俄罗斯对美国战略认知的演变过程分为友好合作、竞争凸显和激烈对抗三个阶段。俄罗斯的强势外交和安全政策,表现为俄罗斯对美国和北约的强硬战略姿态以及追求超出自身相对实力的外交和安全目标。俄罗斯战略认知的演变与俄美两国的利益冲突之间有着相互塑造的关系,但是俄罗斯战略认知的变化并不仅仅取决于利益考量。俄罗斯之所以把北约东扩、乌克兰走向、叙利亚局势等看得如此重要,不惜投入大量资源,这是与塑造俄罗斯战略认知的历史和心理因素是分不开的。美国采取的许多对俄政策和行为,正是因为忽略了这些因素,才被俄罗斯看作是“侮辱性”和“威胁性”的,从而导致了双方敌意的螺旋式上升。由于俄罗斯独特的历史记忆和大国情结,俄罗斯对俄美两国的利益冲突作出了激烈的回应,这些回应虽然不利于俄罗斯的国家实力和整体利益,但却是可以理解的。随着俄罗斯对美战略认知的逐步定型,俄美关系在短期内很难实现所谓的“重启”。从俄罗斯对美战略认知的案例分析可以看出,战略认知自身有其相对的独立性,在受到利益冲突影响的同时,也受到社会文化因素的深刻影响,从而使得国家的外交与安全政策未必完全遵循理性主义的路径。     

美俄关系新发展与中国的政策选择（英文）

Instead of achieving a restart,the US-Russia relationship has fallen to freezing point under the Trump administration.The bilateral structural conflicts,with profound historical logic and realistic roots,have expanded from geopolitics and strategic balance to domestic politics and values.For a long time to come,"limited opponents"will become the"new normal"of US-Russia relations.     

关于开创中俄经贸合作新局面的思考

《中俄睦邻友好合作条约》的签订,为两国经贸关系的发展提供了法律保障。我国应当抓住这一有利时机,争取尽快打开与俄罗斯进行经贸合作的新局面。为此必须在各个领域全面推进的前提下采取突破性对策:扩大对俄罗斯的农副产品出口、农业劳务输出及加强农业技术设备和食品、饲料工业领域的合作;实现大型骨干企业的横向联合及加强中小企业的直接对接合作;共同开发油气资源及加强能源动力合作;联合研制高新技术项目并使其成果产业化;改革对俄罗斯出口商品结构的同时实行"大经贸战略",建立中俄自由贸易区;实现中俄经贸合作的战略升级。     

俄罗斯加入世贸组织:影响美俄关系的《杰克逊—瓦尼克法案》能否被终止?

俄罗斯于2012年8月正式加入世界贸易组织。加入世贸组织,为俄罗斯加快经济发展提供了难得的发展机遇,但目前美国仍未给予俄罗斯永久正常贸易关系。影响美俄关系的《杰克逊—瓦尼克法案》能否被终止?《谢尔盖·马格尼茨基法案》能否成为替代品?这已成为今后一个时期美俄关系的重要风向标。     

The New Aerospace Diplomacy: Reconstructing Post-Cold War US-Russian Economic Relations

Post-Cold War U.S.-Russian diplomacy reveals the increased importance of new diplomatic actors and processes, whilst underscoring the continued key role of state-state negotiation in reconstructing the bilateral relationship between the United States and post-Soviet Russia. The Clinton administration and Yeltsin government negotiated measures to promote political stability, democratization, and conversion to a neoliberal market economy in Russia, a centrepiece of which was the integration of Russia’s globally competitive aerospace sector into the global production chain. Establishing the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, a top-level binational economic and technology policy committee, and signing a bilateral trade liberalization treaty on commercial satellite launch services paved the way for public-public and public-private bilateral space cooperation, and for major private joint ventures between US and Russian aerospace firms.     

The New Aerospace Diplomacy: Reconstructing Post-Cold War US-Russian Economic Relations

Post-Cold War U.S.-Russian diplomacy reveals the increased importance of new diplomatic actors and processes, whilst underscoring the continued key role of state-state negotiation in reconstructing the bilateral relationship between the United States and post-Soviet Russia. The Clinton administration and Yeltsin government negotiated measures to promote political stability, democratization, and conversion to a neoliberal market economy in Russia, a centrepiece of which was the integration of Russia's globally competitive aerospace sector into the global production chain. Establishing the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission, a top-level binational economic and technology policy committee, and signing a bilateral trade liberalization treaty on commercial satellite launch services paved the way for public-public and public-private bilateral space cooperation, and for major private joint ventures between US and Russian aerospace firms.     

“The European Union, Vietnam, and Human Rights as Law: the case of the 1995 EU–Vietnam framework agreement and its human rights clause.”

The year 1995 marked a major watershed for modern Vietnam. It completed its post-Cold War strategy of “multilateralizing” its foreign policy by joining ASEAN, normalizing relations with the US, and signing a comprehensive framework agreement with the EU. All three are recognized as major accomplishments for modern Vietnamese diplomacy. However, in the EU–Vietnam framework agreement, Hanoi made an unprecedented concession when it agreed to the human rights clause in the treaty. For the very first time, Vietnam had accepted an explicit, legally binding stipulation on human rights in a bilateral treaty. This remarkable development resulted from the confluence of three major dynamics. First, Hanoi had committed itself to establish sound relations with all major economic centers-of-gravity at the time, ASEAN, the US, and the EU. Second, the EU also was keenly interested in stronger relations with Asian countries but was flexible about prioritizing any particular bilateral relationship. Third, Brussels’ diplomats had to work off a treaty template when negotiating fundamental bilateral agreements. The standard EU framework agreement at the time included a human rights clause. In 1995, the EU was insisting that any treaty with Vietnam would have to include a clause on human rights. Initially, Hanoi rejected such a treaty provision, and the negotiations stalled. However, when Hanoi realized that Brussels felt no urgency to complete the treaty and was unable to compromise on human rights, Vietnam’s leadership reconsidered. In order to complete the strategy of “multilateralizing” its international affairs, Vietnam had to accept the human rights clause in the treaty with the EU.     

The East African community and Europe

The European Union and Russia are preparing to negotiate a new comprehensive agreement at a time when their bilateral relations have become increasingly prickly. On the one hand, Vladimir Putin's Russia is perceived as having gone undesirably far in reverting to a semi-authoritarian state and in exerting economic and political pressures on some pro-Western, former Soviet states. On the other hand, the EU's Russia policy remains ambivalent because of the continuing deference towards Moscow of a number of large European countries and the confrontational posture of some new EU member states. Other factors add to this deteriorating state of affairs. For one, there are a number of legal complications coming from the shape and scope of the new agreement. Perhaps more importantly, there are several political uncertainties, first and foremost the definition of those “common values” upon which the new treaty should be based. To get out of this quandary, the two sides will have to scale down their ambitions on the new agreement. A mutually acceptable formula might imply the negotiation of a concise “framework” treaty, accompanied in due time by sector-specific agreements.     

遏制的转向:“梅普组合”时期的中俄美三角关系

本文扼要阐述2008年5月至2012年5月"梅普组合"时期中俄美三角关系的变化。随着俄美关系的缓和,美国已将遏制战略竞争者的矛头对准中国,但这种遏制已经与冷战年代有着很大的不同,是接触中的遏制。同时,中俄战略协作出现了以往没有的政治与经济平衡发展的势头,快速发展的美俄经贸合作和能源合作对中俄相关领域的合作构成了极大的挑战。