G20杭州峰会:中国参与全球经济治理主场外交

正在全球经济治理面临艰巨任务的当下,全球政策篮子里的对策应对乏力。G20杭州峰会恰逢其时,旨在为全球经济治理汇集各方建议和贡献中国智慧。此次峰会为世界经济注入新活力和新智慧的同时,也成为中国参与全球经济治理的一次主场外交。中国为全球经济治理贡献智慧旧的政策工具失灵,就需要另辟蹊径。世界经济亟需应对的问题包括     

国际化发展与城市外交

城市外交作为一种半官方外交，发挥的作用主要有配合总体外交、参与全球治理、促进地方发展。本文重点结合深圳国际化城市建设实践探讨国际化发展与城市外交的重要关系。     

试论全球政治的新发展和中国多边外交的再思考

全球政治的新发展对国际关系产生了三大全局性影响,涉及人类生存的全球性重大问题上升到各国政治议程的前列,全球力量中心正从欧美开始向其他地区转移,全球性的"政治兴奋和活跃"继续扩散,从而对全球治理能力提出更高要求。但是现今的国际多边机制无论在充分性、有效性还是合法性上都存在日益严重的"能力赤字"。改革国际多边机制的呼声持续高涨。同时,中国在参与国际体系变革的多边外交进程中,面临日益上升的发挥"领导"和承担"国际责任"的压力,需要我们在多边外交中不断适应变化了的国家身份定位,在战略规划和布局上加强统筹地域和领域的多边机制,有机结合近期和长远目标,并在多边外交实践中丰富发展和谐世界理念。     

全球治理变革与中国的角色

当前,世界格局正处于深刻变革期,权力转移显著增强、国际制度深陷赤字、跨国风险持续蔓延等,致使全球治理体系有失均衡、治理机制缺乏弹性、治理效果有待彰显。全球治理体系亟需变革,主要是变革处于国际体系中心的国际制度和机构,包括推进联合国渐进改革、重建布雷顿森林体系、加强二十国集团机制化建设等。中国不仅是全球治理的全面参与者,也越来越成为现存全球治理体系的主要变革者。中国不但需要继续加入现存全球性的国际制度,深度参与全球治理,而且也要加大全球公共物品投入,积极变革全球治理体系。     

十八大以来中国参与全球治理的战略布局与能力建设探析

参与全球治理是中国推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的题中之意。自党的十八大以来,以习近平同志为核心的党中央从推进治国理政的总体视野出发,审时度势、主动谋划,提出了一系列有关全球治理的新主张、新论断。经过几年的理论创新与实践探索,中国从目标、理念、议题、思路和路径等维度初步构建起了参与全球治理的总体战略布局。这一全球治理蓝图能否实现,关键取决于中国的全球治理能力。展望未来,中国需要加强国家治理能力的现代化,奠定参与全球治理的国内基础;提升国际公共产品的供给能力,积累全球层面的道义影响;强化国际议程设置和政治动员能力,合力推动全球问题的治理进程;加强全球治理的理论研究和人才储备,为提升全球治理话语权提供智力支持。     

全球治理视角下中国民间外交的新动向

新时代中国民间外交正在从中央政府推动的单引擎动力机制向多主体需求结合的多引擎动力机制发展。民间外交除了推动文化交流、经贸往来等传统途径之外,还增加了全球治理的新因素。在全球治理型的民间外交活动中,社会组织要承担新的特殊使命,为此需要突破认识、能力、文化和体制等多方面的瓶颈。     

全球治理的中国自信与自觉

正近年来,随着中国实力的不断提升和国家间相互依赖关系的日益深入,中国参与全球治理的意愿和能力不断增强。在器物、制度和观念三个层面,中国提供的国际公共产品越来越多。中国正在以更加自信的面貌和更加自觉的心态,推动全球治理朝更加公平、公正的方向发展。"中国应对人类做出较大贡献"。这种贡献越来越体现在全球治理层面。习近平总书记在致2016年新年贺词时表示:"世界那么大,问题那么多,国际社会期待听到中国声音、看到中国方案,中国不能缺席。"中国不能缺席,亮明了全球治理     

全球人工智能治理——“未来”到来与全球治理新议程

人工智能的发展给全球化和世界政治经济进程带来了科学、技术、数据、网络、信息等多重影响。同时,人工智能也可能导致新的全球问题出现,因而主要行为体尤其是主权国家不得不参与人工智能时代的全球治理,并寻求有效路径,以期更好地利用人工智能服务于经济和社会发展,并探索全球问题的解决之道。人工智能时代的全球问题,表现为人工智能可能引发新的全球焦虑、对国际安全和全球治理构成双重挑战,而人工智能本身还可能存在数据隐忧。有鉴于此,人工智能时代的全球治理新议程,无疑首先指向人工智能本身,即全球人工智能治理。全球人工智能治理的一般路径,表现为人工智能治理集中化、合法化与专业化,通过政府政策对人工智能的直接或间接治理,并就人工智能治理寻求国际合作。中国参与全球人工智能治理,在利用人工智能优化经济治理和企业战略布局、提升国家治理智能化水平、推动生态文明建设和环境治理、践行"一带一路"倡议等方面,存在较大的提升空间。     

全球经济治理体系变革与中国的角色

全球经济治理体系自形成以来一直随着国际力量对比和世界经济形势的变化而进行着变革。进入2018年以来,国际形势的不确定性增加,大国之间竞争博弈日趋激烈,全球经济治理体系进入重构关键期。当前,全球经济治理不但面临价值共识的危机和单边主义的严重冲击,而且全球贸易规则制定权的争夺也十分激烈。中国作为世界第二大经济体和最大的发展中国家,积极推动全球经济治理体系朝着更加公正合理有效的方向变革,不仅是中国营造有利国际环境的需要,也是自身应承担的一项重要国际责任。在推动全球经济治理体系变革进程中,中国的角色是新价值理念的引领者、国际制度的共建者、全球方案的贡献者和集体行动的参与者。     

气候变化全球治理的制度竞争——基于欧盟、美国、中国的比较

国际制度竞争根源于国内制度实践,中美欧是气候变化全球治理的主要谈判方,三者关于气候变化全球治理的制度倡议都源于其内部减排制度的实践。欧盟内部形成了总量控制与排放贸易的减排制度,美国国内形成了基于自由市场哲学的地方排放交易制度,中国国内形成了"国家—发展型"减排制度。三种制度的形成都受到各自政治、经济和文化传统的深刻影响。这种制度差异传导至气候外交领域,使欧盟侧重于建立全球总量控制和约束性减排机制;美国倾向于建立完全基于市场竞争的减排制度;中国则主张以"共同但有区别的责任"原则建立多元共生的减排体系,且不挤压发展中国家的发展空间。这些政策差异成为三方关于气候变化全球治理制度竞争的基础,而制度竞争也反映在气候变化全球治理制度的发展过程中。从理论上看,三方围绕气候变化全球治理的制度竞争体现了国内制度与国际制度的密切关系。由此说明,在研究中将比较政治与全球治理相结合具有合理性。     

Middle Range Powers in Global Governance

Abstract

This article compares and evaluates the contributions of middle range powers to global governance initiatives. Examining participation in terms of personnel, financial and ideational contributions, we test several hypotheses derived from neorealism, critical theory, liberalism, constructivism, and post-internationalism against six cases: Canada, Japan, China, Russia, India and Brazil. We find that material power has a negative impact on contributions, while a country’s leadership’s attitude towards the international order, the length of its membership in major international organisations and the strength of its civil society all seem to have positive effects on its participation in global governance. Trade dependence, however, does not seem to exhibit the expected impact. The article indicates that multiple theoretical approaches may prove useful for evaluating the behaviour of middle range powers, and that further research should be conducted on the relative importance of each of the factors mentioned above in explaining middle range power contributions to global governance.     

全球治理中的中国进程:以中国减贫治理为例

随着新兴大国的崛起,传统上由西方世界主导的全球治理体系开始受到来自世界多极化的挑战。以减贫领域为例,中国国内贫困治理的成功经验为全球减贫治理提供了多样化的解决方案。中国减贫治理强调主权国家在贫困治理中的主导性作用,国内各种社会力量的整合运用,通过发展解决贫困问题,立足国情、有效利用国际援助及对外援助的去意识形态化。中国开始将这些来自国内实践的有效经验合理整合到全球减贫议程中,促进相关治理机制改革及内容调整,进而为其他发展中国家的国内贫困治理提供极具参考价值的理念和方法。     

New Development in Global Politics and Rethinking on China’s Multilateral Diplomacy

The new developments in global politics exert three systemic impacts on international relations. Global issues, vital to the survival of mankind, rise to the top agenda of national governments. The epicenter of global power is shifting from U.S. and Europe to the rest of the regions. The global "political excitement and zeal" is rolling on. All exact more on the competence of global governance. The current international multilateral mechanisms are in "competence deficit", worsening either in terms of adequacy, validity or legitimacy. The call for the reform of it is ever soaring. China by the way is at once engaging in the multilateral diplomacy transforming the international system and facing the growing pressure of assuming "leadership" and "international responsibility". China needs to continuously adapt to the changed national identity in the multilateral diplomacy, to reconcile the multilateral mechanisms that deal with regions and domains in China’s strategic planning and laying-out, to organically associate the short-term and long-term goals and to upgrade the concept of harmonious world in the practice of multilateral diplomacy.     

Assessing Aid and Global Governance

This analysis argues for a system of global economic, social and political governance in which development aid is part of wider global redistributive mechanisms to foster social progress and development in the twenty-first century. The study provides two arguments in favour of setting up a new system of global governance, and the role of aid in such a new system. First, since in the current international economic system aid cannot cope with adverse external shocks, a new system of global governance is necessary in order to protect LDCs from the volatility of the international economic system. Second, it is argued that a new system of global governance is needed to improve redistribution at the global level to foster social progress and development.     

"Global Civil Society" and the Political Depoliticization of Global Governance

Activists, officials, and academics alike have often linked observations about an emerging global civil society to an incipient democratization of world politics. Global civil society is assumed to bring public scrutiny and "bottom-up" politics to international decision making "from outside" formal political institutions. Based on an analysis of uses of the concept of global civil society in 1990s global governance discourse (especially related to the major UN world conferences), this paper argues that the presumed democratization of world politics is better understood in terms of a double movement: on the one hand, "global civil society" depoliticizes global governance through the promotion of "human security" and "social development"; on the other hand, the emerging international public sphere (in the UN context) operates as a subsystem of world politics rather than opposing the system from outside. Practices of depoliticization are thus part of the political logic of (neo-)liberal global governance. The argument draws on Luhmann's systems theory and Foucault's analysis of governmentality.     

Public Sector Participation and Compliance across National and Global Transparency Regimes

Transparency has recently become a widely supported norm of information regulation within and among states. Transparency may be a widely accepted element of good governance, but it has a number of dimensions and manifestations. This article is among the first to examine the relationship between public sector transparency at the domestic and global levels. While the extant literature suggests that we should expect a strong relationship between the degree of a jurisdiction’s domestic and global commitments to public sector transparency, our sample of the 33 jurisdictions for which data are available finds no such correlation. The article develops an explanation of this unexpected finding, which highlights the varied incentives to implement transparency-promoting reforms that different jurisdictions experience. This analysis suggests that many developing countries engage in marginal participation across regimes. More concerning are possible cases of mock compliance where states participate in transparency regimes without the intention of fully implementing their commitments. Mock compliance is of particular concern in the sphere of global governance in which sovereignty is contested and compliance mechanisms face unique challenges.     

Security Through Sociology: The North Caucasus and the Global Counterinsurgency Paradigm

The global counterinsurgency strategy to combat terrorism emphasizes responding to the social and economic needs of communities where terrorists may find support. Public opinion data can help in that strategy, as shown by a 2006 survey of 1,200 young males from three provinces in Russia's North Caucasus. Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, the survey shows few signs of burgeoning radical Islam or ethnic animosity. Instead, economic conditions and poor governance are primary concerns. The region provides both an opportunity and threat: policymakers can and should address the region's needs; if not, radical Islamist groups can turn it into a flashpoint for terrorism.     

Global governance,development and human security: exploring the links

This article draws attention to the convergence of the global development and security agendas at the beginning of the new millennium. It explores the links between global governance, development and human security. It argues that material sufficiency lies at the core of human security. Hence, the problems of poverty and deepening inequality are central concerns, and the unfolding of these problems in the 1980s and 1990s is highlighted. During the closing decades of the 20th century, a neoliberal vision dominated the global development policy agenda, while these problems of inequality deepened. The policy was developed, championed and implemented by a range of global governance institutions, working through state governments. The idea and the institutions of global governance are examined critically, with a view to establishing in whose interest global governance and its associated development policies may be operating, and whether this is in support of human security.     

Renewing Global Governance: demanding rights and justice in the global South

Global inequality is increasing. Global inequalities are an expression of global social injustices and ‘pathologies of power’. Global governance has been posited as a way forward. However, global governance will not deliver justice unless it embraces a more radical vision of what justice means and permits the voices of the marginalised to be heard in spaces of decision making. We identify two important approaches to building more just forms of global governance: the civil society approach, which is useful when it draws attention to the agency of those at the margins of global circuits of power; and the rights-based approach, which can provide opportunities for justice claims by marginalised groups.