通过地区一体化实现安全共同体:一个分析的框架

安全共同体是一种理想的地区秩序,其建设对实现权力与国际关系的和平变化也有着重要意义。走向安全共同体的道路有多种,但我们认为,只有地区一体化这种循序渐进的方式,才能为安全共同体奠定坚实的、不可逆转的政治、经济、社会和制度基础。一方面,一体化可以从地区范围内的交流和互动、国家间的相互反应和个人的社会学习三个层面逐渐培养出导向安全共同体的制度、规范、认同和信任;另一方面,一体化可以相继推动地区体系向地区社会、地区社会向地区安全共同体的转变。在这个过程中,地区大国的权力分享取向、地区主义和地区制度起着积极的作用,对安全共同体的实现必不可少。     

观念认同与地区秩序建构——兼谈中国新安全观在建构东亚秩序中的作用

观念认同对地区秩序建构有着重要意义。观念认同建构行为体的身份和利益,进而改变或影响行为体的行为,在地区秩序建构中起到了"路线图"和"粘合剂"的作用。地区行为体之间的观念认同决定了它们互动的形式和态度,界定了地区秩序的自我属性,框定了战后地区秩序的建构原则,因而成为建构地区秩序的重要因素之一。中国首倡的新安全观与东盟主张的地区规范产生了积极互动,推动东亚观念结构由洛克文化向康德文化演进。     

结构性地区主义与开放性地区主义——西欧与东亚的比较

全球化浪潮下,地区主义伴随区域一体化得到迅速发展。在西欧一体化过程中,西欧国家通过重视合法协定、强调功能整合以及超国家机构的建设形成了结构性地区主义;而在东亚一体化发展中,东亚国家则强调不干涉原则,突出国家主权至上,抵制和质疑超国家机构,从而形成了弱机制化的开放性地区主义。两种性质的地区主义的成因主要在于:西欧和东亚的历史发展体系不同,导致其各自成员国之间的经济政治制度同质性程度不同,成员国之间的集体认同以及对民族国家主权的价值观存在差异。就发展趋向而言,自金融危机后,欧洲债务危机频现,暴露了规范严谨的结构性地区主义的僵化弊病,而东亚一体化过程中,东盟、10+1、10+3、东亚峰会等对话形式层出不穷,则表明了缺乏规范机制下的地区合作效率的不足。     

地区间主义研究:成就与缺失

地区间主义是国际关系的新实践,同时也正在成为国际关系研究的新领域。国外学术界围绕地区间主义的内涵与外延、动力与功能以及其与地区主义和多边主义的关系进行了初步的研究。尽管国内学者在该领域的研究仍在相当程度上延续着西方的议程,然而也有部分学者试图在研究对象、研究方法和研究取向上做出超越。就该议题的未来发展而言,比较分析和理论化应当是两大基本趋势。而对中国学者来说,面临的最大挑战在于把握地区间主义研究的共性与个性,并善于从已有的研究议程中提炼出符合中国国家利益和国际战略需求的新的议程。     

东盟与东亚新地区主义

东亚新地区主义近年来备受关注,参加东亚合作的各方在新地区主义的发展、内涵、特征等问题上形成了各自不尽相同的观点和看法,因而对东亚新地区主义的理解也不尽相同.东盟是东亚新地区主义的一支重要力量,在推动东亚新地区主义发展方面发挥着重要的作用.深入了解东盟对东亚新地区主义的理解,对于进一步推动中国与东盟的合作,有着重要的意义.     

新地区主义的特点与成因

从 2 0世纪 80年代后期起 ,由于两极体系对峙的缓和 ,欧洲单一法案的出台与实行 ,乌拉圭回合谈判中欧洲以“以一个声音说话”导致的对欧洲“堡垒”的担心 ,以及美国的地区主义政策转向等因素 ,使 70年代以来一度停滞的地区主义 ,重新掀起了发展的新浪潮 ,人们惊呼“地区主义又回来了”。[1] 伴随着两极体系的结束与全球化时代的来临 ,90年代的地区主义更是向深层次、多维度发展。为了将 80年代以来发展的地区主义与以前的地区主义相区别 ,学术界将之冠称为“新地区主义(ｎｅｗｒｅｇｉｏｎａｌｉｓｍ)”。[2 ]新地区主义的特点2 0世纪 80年…     

没有地区主义的东亚合作

针对当前东亚地区主义发展面临的困境,有关争论的焦点已经从关注传统的内部因素差异和外部美国阻碍的初级阶段推进到了对制度变量的关注,但争论双方都普遍接受存在东亚地区主义这一前提假定。然而,地区合作本身并不必然意味着地区主义,存在着一种没有地区主义的地区合作。文章通过对严重泛化、经济化和扭曲化的地区主义概念的重新界定,把地区主义与地区合作区分开来,质疑所谓东亚地区主义本身的存在;以对地区主义概念的推导为基础,提出了一个包含三个检验标准的初步的检验框架,以检验地区主义的存在;应用该框架分析了东亚地区合作的目的和起源、机制现状以及外部因素,认为东亚不存在地区层面的地区主义。在中国崛起并优先寻求与美国建立"新型大国关系"的背景下,亚太跨地区主义而非东亚地区主义将是未来东亚地区合作的前景。     

中国崛起与东亚地区秩序演变

冷战结束后,东亚地区秩序的变化显而易见,但如何界定当今的东亚地区秩序却一直存有争论。本文试图从地区秩序的界定和分类入手,结合冷战后有关东亚地区秩序的争论,分析中国崛起对东亚地区秩序的影响,以辨析和把握东亚地区秩序的发展方向。作者发现,冷战后有关东亚秩序的争论说明,东亚地区尚未形成得到普遍认可的秩序安排,但决定其未来发展走向的两个核心因素已愈发明确,即美国的东亚同盟体系的延续和中国经济实力的崛起。东亚地区秩序演变趋势是,美国依托其东亚同盟体系与经济崛起的中国协调,共同塑造地区规则,维护地区稳定安全。其具体特征是:美国依靠其地区同盟发挥作用;中国与美国及其盟国通过多边或双边协调解决地区安全问题;中国自我克制缓解地区安全问题。决定东亚地区秩序未来的关键是既有的美国东亚同盟体系如何应对中国崛起。要巩固、深化地区协调共治秩序,需要美国及其东亚同盟体系对中国的自我克制政策做出善意的战略回应。     

中东变局加剧地区势力角逐

中东地区历史悠久，文明灿烂，从古至今就是一个多种族、多民族和多宗教信仰居民的繁衍生息之地。中东地区既是一个内部各种势力角逐的地方，也是一个外部势力、外部强权争夺的重要场所。中东秩序曾在二战之后几经变迁，形成以美国为主导的局面。中东变局冲击着现有中东秩序，井使各种地区势力的影响上升。今后中东地区各类纷争将会变得更加复杂。     

从全面去合法性到选择性嵌入:冷战后中国对国际秩序的态度变迁及其解释

作为一个地区强国和崛起型国家,中国逐步融入国际社会的进程突出反映在其对国际秩序的态度上。现实主义、制度主义、建构主义和文化主义均不能全面地解释中国对国际秩序的态度变迁。文章运用话语分析和模糊集合分析方法研究了中国对国际秩序的态度变迁,认为自冷战结束以来,中国对国际秩序的态度正在从全面去合法性向选择性嵌入的方向转变。对于这一历史性转变,文章在经济学、社会学和政治学的相关理论基础上,提出了"国际政治中的三种武器"的理论框架进行解释。冷战结束初期,中国更多地依靠弱者的武器;21世纪以来,中国开始综合使用国际政治中的三种武器。     

从中国软力量到东亚软力量

伴随着地区主义运动的不断演进,以非军事对峙和非暴力为基础、强调文化和政策吸引力的软力量开始在地区国际关系中发挥日益突出的作用,软力量的运用也推进了地区主义向纵深发展。国家在地区主义中的软力量可以分为四种表现形式:文化吸引力、政策感召力、地区创制力和地区公信力。中国在东亚地区主义进程中上升的软力量成为促进东亚融合的新动力。同时,地区价值观的塑造、地区参与度和地区主义构想的形成,都影响着地区制度化水平和整个地区在国际事务中的角色和地位。培育东亚作为一个独立地区实体的软力量应当成为中国亚洲政策的一个重要组成部分。     

区域安全竞争中的东亚区域主义——基于对欧洲/北美区域主义的比较分析

区域主义的启动和深化受区域内外安全环境的影响。欧洲区域主义的启动和深化与其内外安全环境之间呈正相关关系,因而它得以历经冷战而不衰,并在冷战后进一步强化。比较而言,北美区域主义的深化与其内外安全环境总体上都是负相关关系,因而北美区域主义至今基本上仍仅限于经济领域。与北美区域主义类似,东亚区域主义的深化与东亚区域内外安全环境也基本上是负相关关系,但不同的是,由于东亚区域的内部安全环境是竞争性的,因此东亚区域的"共同体感觉"虽然呈日益强化之势,但总体上说是脆弱的。东亚区域主义的深化不仅受区域内部安全竞争的挑战,还受到区域外部的竞争性安全环境———区域间大国和全球大国安全竞争———的制约。     

20世纪末以来中、美与东盟的三边互动关系——以权力转移为视角

中国的崛起对美国和东盟均产生重大影响,导致中、美和东盟在经贸、政治和认知方面形成了互动关系。由于经济领域的区域经济一体化、贸易转移效应和政治领域东亚一体化的排斥效应等因素,中美在东亚的权力关系发生了转移,东亚秩序经历了结构性调整。三方在经贸、政治和认知的互动相互影响并呈正相关关系,使得东亚的权力转移在和平中实现。互动中仍存在一些问题需要三方调适和合作加以解决。     

African modernities and the critical reappropriation of indigenous knowledges: Towards a polycentric global epistemology

ABSTRACT

While the African Union's New Partnership for Africa's Development (AU/NEPAD) strives for both plurilateralism and regionalism, there are ideological and practical conditions that challenge the feasibility of a fully fledged regional integration institution in Africa. This article examines the AU/NEPAD in relation to Africa's ideological back-loading, while it explores how the programme reconciles Western-dominated economic plurilateralism with Africa's developmental regionalism. It highlights the ideological changes that helped with the modernisation of Western countries and how these developments become a challenge to Africa's economic development efforts. Africa has always been an ideological back-loader and a delayed integrator into global interdependence. During the mid-20^th century, at the time Western countries (in particular Western European countries) were adopting regionalism, Africa was engaged in the same phenomenon for political and economic independence. While the economic crisis of the mid-20^th century following the Second World War (WW2) enabled the industrialised countries to adopt embedded liberalism for socioeconomic development, at decolonisation Africa sought to espouse what turned out to be the dependency paradigm as the economic development strategy for Africa. In the 21st century, developed regions are transcending regionalism and gearing towards plurilateralism while most African leaders remain fixated in traditional regional integration on the continent. As the neoliberal ideology dominates the contemporary international political economy of the 21^st century, albeit questionably, Africa's politico-socioeconomic realities are also premised on the same embedded liberalism. However, economic plurilateralism by industrialised countries with Africa challenges efforts towards regional integration on the continent. It would seem that the AU/NEPAD provides a viable compromise between developmental regionalism and economic plurilateralism on the continent.     

The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism

Abstract

The current state of Pacific regionalism is faced with a range of external and internal factors that are acting to reshape the region and which call for a rethinking of Pacific regionalism. Within this context a range of new and in some cases reinvigorated groupings of political actors have emerged, seeking to influence and shape the region. Interpretations of this plurality of political groupings differ, with some authors seeing it as a direct challenge to the previously existing regional order, while others argue it signals a return to a foundational Pacific voice in regional politics. This article suggests that the present plurality is more than resituating a ‘Pacific voice’ and is not necessarily a challenge to the existing order. Rather, the Pacific’s experience mirrors global trends in the evolution of regionalism as a practice, in which network diplomacy or coalition-building across the plethora of actors will become a predominant feature of new regionalism. Further, the authors argue that the Framework for Pacific Regionalism provides the platform for effectively navigating this new context through facilitating the politics of networks and coalitions to drive the shared interests of the region, and presents a shared platform to test paradigm-shifting ideas.     

China's Discourse on Regionalism: What it Means for India

China's approach towards regionalism and multilateralism is essentially driven by realpolitik paradigm. More specifically, China's tilt towards regionalism has been propelled by three reasons: one its own rise, two its domestic concerns and three change in the world-order in the aftermath of the collapse of bipolarism and the resultant emergence of new threats and insecurities. Regionalism in Chinese discourse is rooted primarily in the quest for building a China-led regional order, supporting China's peripheral diplomacy and grand strategy, than on mere rationale of economic gains. Therefore, in Chinese conceptualization realpolitik issues hold primacy over normative and liberal notions of interdependence. The web of regional security architecture, thus, evolved serves essentially China's security needs and grand strategy.     

民主化和区域主义相关性研究:东盟的地区实践

民主化的实践对于东南亚区域主义产生了深远影响。随着东南亚地区合作的不断推进,政治转型成为该地区当下所面临的重要议题。本文拟结合民主化与区域主义两者关系的分析,探索传统上以精英为主导的区域主义正在经历的深刻嬗变。研究表明,民主化对于东南亚区域主义发展范式的影响是复杂的,以公民社会为主要载体的参与式区域主义方兴未艾,两种类型的区域主义勾画了东盟地区治理的图景。     

Rescaling to the Indo-Pacific: From Economic to Security-Driven Regionalism in Asia

The ‘Indo-Pacific’ has emerged as the newest addition to the lexicon of Asian regionalism. Conceived of as the conjunction of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, it reflects the belief that maritime linkages require extending Asian regionalism westwards to include countries on the Indian Ocean rim. It also competes with the longstanding ‘Asia-Pacific’ conceptualisation of the region, and four governments—Australia, India, Japan and the USA—have adopted it into their foreign policies. Much of the debate on the Indo-Pacific focusses on how it institutionally ‘rescales’ Asian regionalism through the incorporation of Indian Ocean states. This article considers the functional rescaling that attends this process: namely, what kind of regionalism is implied by the Indo-Pacific concept? It argues that the Indo-Pacific is a security-focussed regional project, reflecting the desire of its proponents to form a quadrilateral bloc to resist China’s growing maritime assertiveness. This security region is radically different from the Asia-Pacific concept, where regionalism was primarily driven by economic integration and cooperation. The Indo-Pacific thus marks a more contested period in Asia’s international politics, where the functional purpose of regional cooperation is being reoriented from economic- to security-focussed agendas.     

World Market Regionalism at the Asian Development Bank

Accounts of the “new regionalism” two decades ago identified a growing trend towards co-ordinated state action at the regional level in pursuit of both security and political economy concerns – new in terms of its “bottom-up” character, post-Cold War logic, heterogeneous focus, and relation to globalisation. More recently, proponents of “regulatory regionalism” have suggested that regional projects reshape and transform states themselves. This article identifies an emerging “world market regionalism,” within which regions are addressed in terms of their position within the world market, and regional projects are strategically oriented towards the “completion of the world market” in its dual aspect as expansion of trade and transformation of social relations of production. The focus is on the purposive transformation of the region in pursuit of global competitiveness. A detailed account is given of such a project of world market regionalism developed over the last two decades at the Asian Development Bank. It is aimed at transforming the region, and individual states within it, into a space contributory to a wider global project aimed at “completing the world market” and transforming both the social relations of production and individual attitudes and behaviour.     

Multi-level voting and party competition in vertically simultaneous elections: the case of Ukraine

Vertically simultaneous elections to state-wide and regional legislatures provide us with a naturally occurring experiment in which to examine regionalism and multi-level voting. We examine the 2006 vertically and horizontally simultaneous state-wide and regional elections in Ukraine to determine how the internal dynamics of regionalism within a state account for the dissimilarity of voting behavior across electoral levels. Drawing on the party competition literature, we demonstrate that variations in both supply (parties) and demand (voters) produce considerable dissimilarity between regional and state results, with lower levels of consolidation and greater fractionalization at the regional level. We show that political cleavages operate differently across levels, that regional distinctiveness rather than regional authority better predicts first order-ness in regional elections, and that voters display varying tolerance for polarization at the regional and state level.