New Values for New International Norms

The UN Charter and most international norms formulated under U.S. dominance since the 20th century are based on American values of equality, democracy and freedom. As a rising power in the era of globalization, China should draw upon its traditional political thoughts in promoting the values system of fairness, justice and civility and shaping the new-type international norms.     

“规模政治”:全球化背景下国际政治的新现象

"规模政治"是从经济学中借鉴过来的一个新概念,它是单个国际政治行为体在对外关系中由于自身和外在的作用而逐渐形成的一种理想化模式。"规模政治"与"规模经济"一样,都是通过数量的增加而使成本得到降低。全方位多边外交和合作型国际机制是使国际政治向更有利于"规模政治"方向发展的两大动力。在全球化的背景之下,国际机制特别是其中的合作型机制使国际政治越来越向"规模政治"方向发展,并同之前以权力和冲突为特征的国际政治大不一样了,国际关系越来越讲究互利、双赢、和谐。     

Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections

Acknowledging the social constructivist turn in the study of norms, this article offers to demonstrate that the notion of norms is useful as an analytical tool and likely to become a lasting element in international relations theory. Ideational causality and the independent explanatory power of norms are methodological issues that have been debated widely. Despite arguing that norms matter, social constructivism has problems making a successful case for the independent influence of norms. This article explores social constructivism as an approach to understanding international norms and their origins.     

国际制度设计中的规范与理性

国际制度设计日益成为当代国际关系中一项重要的议事日程和研究议程.现有的研究成果主要集中在理性主义的研究范式之内,忽视了社会规范因素在国际制度设计中的重要作用.本文借鉴组织社会学中新制度学派的理论,探讨了规范在国际制度设计中的作用,指出强意义合法性机制与弱意义合法性机制是国际制度设计中规范与理性相互作用的两种形式.强意义合法性机制是指构成性规范通过塑造行为体的思维方式和社会身份,进而成为国际制度设计中行为体无需考虑就加以接受的"理性神话".弱意义合法性机制是指限制性规范通过影响行为体利益计算的方式作用于国际制度设计的过程,行为体出于对声誉和责任方面的考虑,会限制一些纯粹出于物质利益追求的国际制度设计行为.     

规范与国际制度安排:一种建构主义阐释

建构主义相信 ,国际制度像其它社会事物一样 ,也是由行为体在社会实践中建构出来的。因此 ,它在分析国际制度安排时 ,与强调物质力量的理性主义不同 ,注重信念的作用。它认为 ,信念根植于社会实践 ,并在社会实践中得以再塑 ,所以具有主体间性 ,而规范就是体现这种主体间性的信念的具体形式。规范是一个行为集体拥有的关于适当行为的共享期望 ,不但界定行为的合适性和有效性 ,还赋予行为体社会角色和建构社会环境 ,从而形塑行为体的收益 ,促使行为体重设目标和调整行为 ,最终影响国际制度的形成。     

Apologies in International Politics

This article examines the growing conventional wisdom that apologies and other acts of contrition are necessary for international reconciliation. I create and test a theory that connects a country's remembrance with that country's image—threatening or benign—in the eyes of former adversaries. I evaluate the theory in two post-World War II case studies: South Korean relations with Japan and French relations with Germany.

This article offers three major findings. First, it substantiates the claim that denials inhibit reconciliation. Japanese denials and history textbook omissions have elevated distrust and fear among Koreans (as well as Chinese and Australians). Second, although whitewashing and denials are indeed pernicious, the conventional wisdom about the healing power of contrition must be seriously reconsidered. Evidence from the Japanese and other cases suggests that contrition risks triggering a domestic backlash, which alarms former adversaries. Finally, there is good news for the prospects of international reconciliation: countries have reconciled quite successfully without any contrition at all. West Germany actually offered very little contrition at the time of its dramatic reconciliation with France; many other countries have restored close and productive relations without contrition. The best course for reconciliation is to remember the past in ways that are unifying, rather than divisive, and minimize the risk of backlash.     

Revenge in International Politics

This paper conceptualizes the phenomenon of revenge in international politics and seeks to specify the conditions that increase or diminish the tendency of states to take revenge against enemies. We situate the discussion of revenge within the broader context of emotions in IR. We argue that whether or not a state will take revenge depends on the combinations of three interrelated and mutually constitutive variables: (1) the degree to which a state emotionally experiences harm against it as morally outrageous, (2) the extent of humiliation the harmed state feels, and (3) the degree to which international retaliation is institutionalized by rules and laws that govern the use of cross-border force. We examine the Second Lebanon War (July 2006) as a case of revenge in international politics.     

International Politics： A Desirable Paradigm

This article first traces the origin of four concepts International Politics (IP), International Relations (IR), World Politics (WP) and Global Politics (GP) and discusses the similarities among these four paradigms. It then analyses their application both at home and abroad. Finally, it argues for the desirability of selecting the concept of IP in academic training, thus facilitating practical application of concepts. It asserts that this will not only enhance academic discussion about IP among different Chinese schools of thought, but also help blazing new ideas.     

Machiavelli's Legacy: Domestic Politics and International Conflict

Research examining the effect of regime type on conflict has focused on the democracy/autocracy continuum expounded in the political philosophies of liberal thinkers such as Kant and Schumpeter. While this concentration has yielded impressive results (democratic peace), it seems plausible that other conceptions of regime type may yield similar success. This paper examines the philosophy of Machiavelli and develops a measure of his "imperial regimes." These states, which can either be democratic or autocratic, should exhibit an increased propensity to initiate international conflict. Testing this contention in Renaissance Italy (1250–1494) and the modern international system (1920–1992), this paper finds strong empirical support. Machiavelli's views illuminate key differences between democracies and autocracies that have been previously overlooked. Thus, it deepens rather than replaces our conception of how domestic institutions affect international conflict.     

Explaining Costly International Institutions: Persuasion and Enforceable Human Rights Norms

Why do states create enforceable international human rights norms that empower third parties to prevent and sanction domestic human rights abuses? Recent theories suggest that international institutions are shaped not only by power and interests but also by the content of arguments during intensive communication and argumentation processes. Moving beyond the simple notion that "communication matters," I argue that states are likely to be persuaded by arguments that draw on widespread taken-for-granted norms, in particular, prohibitions on bodily harm, the importance of precedent in decision making, and the link between cooperation and progress. This model extends previous theories by specifying mechanisms and scope conditions for international change through persuasion. I illustrate the argument by examining the convention against torture, a costly international institution that allows domestic courts to prosecute crimes that occur in the territory of other states (universal jurisdiction). Because of its enforcement mechanisms, the torture convention poses a difficult case for theories explaining international institutions. If persuasion models can explain even costly institutions, they should be more widely considered as explanations for all kinds of international institutions.     

Domestic Politics and International Relations

In reviewing the history of portions of international studies I reflect on how we might best advance knowledge. I dwell on two issues: questions of method and the urgency of refocusing our efforts on leaders and domestic affairs as the centerpiece for understanding the world of international relations. I argue that scientific progress is best made by combining three methodological approaches in our research: formal, mathematical logic to ensure internal consistency in arguments about complex and contingent relations among variables; case studies and archival research to evaluate verisimilitude between theory and action; and statistical analysis to establish the generality of the hypothesized relations among variables. Often such methodologically diverse and progressive research will best be accomplished by encouraging collaboration rather than by perpetuating the current norm of penalizing co-authorship especially among junior scholars. I offer concrete examples of advances in knowledge achieved through the employment of mathematical reasoning and statistical analysis as many have cast doubts about the substantive contributions of these particular approaches. My perspective is, of course, personal and may not be shared by many others. I set out my thoughts, therefore, with the hope that they will stimulate constructive debate and dialogue and that they will serve to integrate diverse approaches to international affairs.     

宗教因素与国际政治

在国际政治与国际关系的发展中,宗教是重要的影响因素。江泽民同志曾指出: “要了解当今世界必须了解宗教,对宗教问题在当今世界政治社会生活中的影响,绝不能低估。无论是做好国内的各项工作,还是开展对外工作,都要求我们密切关注宗教问题”。[1]深入思索宗教与国际政治的关系,无论是对于理解宗教这一独特的文化现象,还是对于把握当代国际政治的脉博均具有重要意义。     

里海石油与国际政治

里海沿岸五国为维护各自的国家利益,在里海的法律地位和水域划分、油气勘探开采权、油气输出管道走向等三个问题上展开激烈的斗争,各国间利益冲突难以平衡.围绕里海能源之争,美俄之间的斗争将进一步加剧.     

The Nature of Borders and International Conflict: Revisiting Hypotheses on Territory

This study examines the utility of moving beyond a simple "on–off" dichotomous view of contiguous land borders. For each of the 301 contiguous land borders between states in the international system, measures of ease of interaction, salience, and overall border "vitalness" have been developed using Geographical Information Systems technology. These variables are used to test two major extant lines of thought in international relations literature, as well as our proposed alternative, regarding the expected effect of the "nature" of borders on interstate behavior. We conclude not only that the "nature" of contiguous borders matters but also that the relationship between each of the three border measures and the likelihood of conflict is curvilinear concave—with both high ease of interaction and high salience related to lower levels of conflict, and the middle range of both variables related to higher levels of conflict.     

国际政治中违反国际规范行为分析

国际关系主流学派在违反国际规范原因分析上仍存在较大分歧.理性主义学派认为违反国际规范是国际规范与国家利益相互冲突造成的.建构主义学派则认为是由于国际规范参照系模糊性与特定国际环境下决策的观念导致的.国际政治心理学认为,决策者的动机偏见使得决策者在解释其政策和外部环境时,出于维护国家利益的需要将违反国际规范视为社会可接受的行为.此外,国际规范中存在多元的参照系数和决策者对于国际环境不同认识,使得决策者在违反国际规范时在心理上心存侥幸或者刻意采取不同的标准对其行为进行解释.也就是说,违反国际规范的行为是由于国际规范本身相对的模糊性和决策者对于规范本身认知上的主观性造成的.文章试图在分析违反国际规范行为心理因素的基础之上,探究理性主义和建构主义在违反国际规范愿意分析上的契合点.     

论国际政治中的非线性效应

在国际政治实践中,除了常见的线性因果联系外,还存在大量用常规经验和理性推导所难以解释的非线性现象.国际政治的动态发展;因无政府状态造成的目标与手段的背离;文化观念差异导致不同国家队统一事件的不同理解和处理;及国际行为体在国际事务中的能动作用,都使得国际政治的发展路向充满了变数和偶然性.在此,作者分别从滞后效应、指数放大效应、共振效应、临界慢化效应四个方面对国际政治现象进行了解读.