欧盟构建数字主权的新动向及其影响北大核心

构建数字主权是数字时代欧盟政治发展中的重大战略选择。近年来,欧盟在构建数字主权问题上呈现诸多新动向,包括聚焦互联网平台反垄断、加大科技创新投入、推进整合欧盟内部数字市场,以及重视数字领域国际协调。这些新动向既受数字时代欧盟战略危机和战略雄心的双重驱动,也体现欧盟针对多年数字实践的政策反思,同时与数字领域国际形势的客观变化有关。欧盟建设数字主权,有力提升了欧盟在数字规则领域的国际话语权和影响力,引领了世界其他国家和地区数字规则调整,并对数字领域国际格局产生深远影响。未来,平衡数字监管与技术创新是欧盟构建数字主权的关键,美欧关系是欧盟构建数字主权的重要变量,欧盟构建数字主权也将与全球数字治理进程深刻互动。     

中美数字科技博弈中的欧洲策略北大核心

欧洲在数字科技领域目前处于相对落后的位置,短期内尚难与中国和美国抗衡。在中美科技博弈加剧的形势下,欧盟和欧洲国家基于经济利益、国家安全和价值理念等因素,采取了相应策略。其一,从平衡策略逐渐转为倾向于限制中国科技公司。其二,强调“技术主权”,增强欧洲地区的技术能力和控制力,主要措施有:在数字科技领域加大投资;保护数据安全,促进单一欧洲数据空间的形成;根据欧洲价值理念制定具有影响力的规则。欧洲策略具有一定的局限性,但其体现的趋势和影响值得重视。数字科技与地缘政治的相互影响越来越大;数字科技监管规则的价值理念色彩增强,存在形成技术联盟的可能性;技术竞争和规则竞争日益激烈;保护主义趋势更加明显。对此,中国需要认清形势并积极应对。     

数字时代全球经济治理变革与中国策略

数字技术的进步和广泛应用推动了数字经济的蓬勃发展,全球经济治理也因此进入新的历史时代。从治理客体上看,数字技术拓展了全球经济治理空间,使全球产业治理、贸易治理、货币金融治理和可持续发展治理的内涵更加丰富。从治理手段上看,数字技术带来了全球经济治理的路径创新,并从全球经济信息交换、风险防范、危机应对和政策效能评估等方面引发了全球治理变革。在此背景下,中国应当把握全球数字经济治理改革和创新进程中面临的新机遇,大力发展数字经济,积极参与和引领数字国际合作,不断提升全球数字经济治理制度性话语权,推动全球经济治理体系改革和创新。     

数字全球化、数字风险与全球数字治理

随着数字技术的快速发展，数字全球化进程不断加速，全球数字风险和危机日益凸显，全球数字治理成为国际社会的紧迫议题。厘清数字全球化的概念和特征有助于更好地把握当今全球化转型与发展的大势。数字全球化既为世界发展带来机遇，也容易诱发数字鸿沟、数字博弈、数字霸权、数字冷战、数字安全、数字垄断、数字极化、数字政治化、数字自由、数字隐私权等诸多数字风险。为有效应对这些风险，全球数字治理应高度关注数字经济、数字政府、数字伦理、数字舆论、跨境数据流动、数字规则等重要议题，筹谋制定好全球数字治理战略和政策，努力实现数字世界的公平性、非歧视性、非霸权性、开放性、高效性，加强全球数字治理的问题意识，树立全球意识、时间意识、总体意识、创新意识、前瞻意识，在维护国家数字利益的同时促进全球数字福祉。     

全球数字治理的多元挑战与中国对策研究

有效的数字治理是数字经济时代新型经济全球化需要实现的重要目标。全球性跨境运营模式、各类信息的数字化以及数字平台治理责任的不确定性等导致与传统治理相比,全球数字治理难度增大。从经济、技术、国际政治和国际关系以及社会层面来看,全球数字治理面临多元挑战,这些挑战主要体现在发达国家与发展中国家数字鸿沟不断扩大,领先国家在数字领域的规范和标准之争加剧,数字霸权主义抬头和破坏性技术的社会影响加深等。面对上述挑战,中国作为倡导者和先行者,应积极推动全球数字治理变革,构建更加开放和包容的全球数字治理体制。中国应鼓励企业积极参与全球数字治理,借助数字丝绸之路建设,积极推动与发展中国家的数字合作,实现数字治理与国内发展战略的深度融合。     

欧盟数字欧元的实践进度及前景北大核心

近年来,欧盟积极开展央行数字货币实践,加快确定数字欧元法律框架、稳步推进数字欧元路线图,并取得显著进展。欧盟加快推进数字欧元战略具有多方面的意图,包括促进数字经济发展、推进单一市场建设等,也是为了应对数字货币时代货币主权竞争、提升欧元的国际化水平。数字欧元在正式发行前还面临不少困难和挑战,如多重目标难以协调、内部数字环境一体化程度低、金融风险应对机制不匹配等。今后,如何实现平衡发展和妥善应对问题,将考验欧盟的政治决断力和意志力。     

美国主导IPEF数字贸易规则构建：前瞻及应对

美国通过启动“印太经济框架”（IPEF）回归印太数字贸易治理体系，旨在占据印太地区数字贸易治理高地，同时获取印太地区数字经济发展的红利。为兼顾IPEF数字贸易治理谈判效率与成员多元性，美国预计采用“整合谈判”与“零散谈判”双轨并行的方式，且优先着眼于与核心成员达成“早期收获”。IPEF数字贸易规则将根植于“美式”和“新式”数字贸易治理理念，也会回应新兴趋势和技术发展所需，并与美国“以工人为中心”的贸易政策相契合，还将受到美国国内政治生态和中美数字贸易治理地缘政治竞争的影响。其中，“跨境数据流动和存储规则”“数字产品非歧视性待遇规则”和“新兴技术规则”是美国推动IPEF数字贸易规则构建的重要抓手。中国将面临在印太地区数字贸易便利化系统构建、新兴技术标准制定以及中小企业合作中被边缘化的风险。对此，中国应理性务实加入印太地区既有数字贸易安排，并依托数字服务市场制度型开放，积极提供数字贸易治理的“中国方案”，提升数字贸易治理话语权。     

欧盟治理的变量与困境

随着欧洲一体化开始更多地向高级政治领域的治理过渡,欧盟治理表现出明显的超国家化倾向。欧盟东扩、欧盟制宪分别反映了欧盟治理的广化和深化,超国家权力、超国家制度和欧洲认同成为影响欧盟治理绩效的关键因素。与此相关,主权、民主和认同在欧盟治理中的地位日趋重要。主权的让渡是欧洲治理权力的重要来源,民主是欧洲非国家层面治理制度安排合法性的重要保障,欧洲认同是欧洲治理的文化基础。当前欧盟治理的困境是民主赤字和认同赢弱影响了主权让渡。欧盟治理的深化要求提高治理效率,这意味着更多的主权让渡,民主和认同须为此提供支持。     

中国人工智能治理的理论构想：基于新加坡数字经济协定的思考

数字经济时代,人工智能正在成为推动经济发展的新引擎。随着中美两国之间竞争和博弈的愈发激烈,在美国的科技封锁和制裁之下,中国当下的人工智能发展备受掣肘,人工智能治理理论亟须进行重构。新加坡是世界范围内数字经济协定的先行者之一,自2020年以来陆续和5个国家完成了4个数字经济协定的谈判。同时,新加坡还是全球人工智能治理领域的倡导者,通过对新加坡数字经济协定中人工智能规则的梳理和先进发展经验的总结,可以更好地为中国的人工智能治理提供借鉴与启示。新加坡数字经济协定中人工智能规则的共同目标可以概括为“搭建一个国际性的人工智能治理框架”,实现目标的方式是以《英国—新加坡数字经济协定》第8.61-R条为参照范本,充分发挥国际组织的力量,开展人工智能领域国际合作,促进人工智能技术“道德、可信、安全和负责任”地发展。对中国而言,今后应从国内和国际两个维度出发,建构具有中国特色的人工智能治理方案。在国内层面,正处于研究制定中的《人工智能法》可以考虑采用“促进型立法”模式,以更好地推动中国人工智能产业高质量发展;在国际层面,应继续推进加入《数字经济伙伴关系协定》的进程,同时积极申请加入“人工智能全球伙伴关系...     

拜登执政以来的美欧数字基建合作：特征、动因与影响

拜登执政以来，美欧通过“重建更美好世界”倡议和“全球数字基础设施与投资伙伴关系”等计划形成数字基建合作的全新态势，呈现以西方价值观渗透数字基建规则、以“印太”为重点区域、融资渠道趋于多元化和机制化的鲜明特点，针对中国的指向强烈。美欧开展数字基建合作有抓住数字治理领域有利条件提前布局的考虑，也是双方希望加强对华竞争和主导全球数字治理话语权的谋划结果。展望未来，美欧数字基建合作对跨大西洋同盟、国际数字合作和全球数字治理都将产生深远影响，也会抬升美欧针对中国“数字丝绸之路”的博弈烈度，但其成效仍受到美欧自身能力与各方意愿的限制。中国应充分把握美欧全球数字基建合作的逻辑，秉持人类命运共同体理念，推动世界各国数字基础设施良性健康发展。     

The External Dimension of EU Counter-Terrorism Relations: Competences,Interests, and Institutions

Some very significant policy developments indicate “supranationalisation processes” of EU external relations in counter-terrorism, even in its most significant relationship with the USA. This means that, increasingly, the USA is willing to work with Europe through its institutionalised forum—the European Union. Thus, the EU achieves certain recognition on the world stage in areas previously completely unsuspected—the “high politics” of counter-terrorism. This supranationalisation process proceeds in two stages. Firstly, the construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) pools a significant amount of national sovereignty at the level of the EU through the establishment of internal EU competences. As a side effect, however, it also constructs an institutionalised structure for external actors, such as the U.S., to deal with. Through dealing within this institutional setting, member states' interests become defined in such a way that increasingly they construct a “European” interest related to counter-terrorism.     

哈萨克斯坦参与全球治理的举措、动力及前景

自1991年独立以来,哈萨克斯坦不但成功巩固了国家主权,在政治、经济、社会发展等领域取得了举世瞩目的成就,而且在外交领域赢得了国际社会的高度赞誉,使哈萨克斯坦成为全球治理舞台中最为活跃的中亚国家。在参与全球治理进程中,哈萨克斯坦将自己定位为“有实力的重要地区大国”,奉行以巩固主权独立和维护国家利益为中心的“全方位务实平衡”外交战略,通过建立睦邻友好信任带的“近邻外交”和以伙伴关系为基础的“远邻外交”,拉近与世界各大国及周边国家的外交关系,在国际和地区热点问题上扮演着“沟通者”和“调停者”角色,积极推动中亚地区内部的一体化进程,广泛参与全球与地区性国际组织,在核不扩散和文明对话等领域提出了各种有影响力的倡议,力图将本国的利益和世界的利益融为一体,为哈萨克斯坦的发展赢得了很大的机遇和空间,使哈萨克斯坦在国际社会中的能见度不断提升。作为中亚国家经济发展最为成功、外交最为活跃、国际影响力最为显著的国家,哈萨克斯坦参与全球治理的实践经验值得发展中国家学习借鉴。     

EU–China relations in financial governance: cooperation,convergence or competition?

The global financial crisis (GFC) and subsequent Eurozone sovereign debt crisis (ESDC) have made reform of the global financial governance regime a priority for governments around the world. Prior to the crisis, neoliberal policies agreed between the European Union and the USA created a financial governance regime based on the principle of free operation of the market through the norms of market self-regulation, equal access to the market, and stability via institutional supervision. How will global financial governance look like after these crises? And what role can the EU and China play in shaping this regime? This article argues that as a result of the GFC and the ESDC, stability is becoming a second principle of global financial governance, along with the free operation of the market. Meanwhile, European and Chinese views regarding the norms, rules, and decision-making procedures designed to implement those principles do not differ as much as they used to. Thanks to interactions at the bilateral and multilateral levels, the EU and China now have knowledge regarding how the other understands the role and characteristics that financial governance should have. This is leading to convergence in some areas and cooperation in others. Concurrently, there are also areas of competition. Analysing all of these is essential to understand how global financial governance might evolve, given the central role that the EU and China now play in this regime.     

Living Up to a New Role in the World: The Challenges of “Global Britain”

Theresa May promised a new role for the United Kingdom in the world, dubbed “Global Britain.” But what challenges arise from supposedly being more open to the world while decoupling from the European Union? This article explores how much the UK can meet the expectations stemming from a new, unabashedly global posture. Examining the rhetoric of British foreign policy since 1945 is juxtaposed against the emerging language of global openness after Brexit to illustrate what the UK's partners might expect for trade, security, and global governance. In evaluating the strategic benefits of using the rhetoric of globalism after EU withdrawal, this article examines the British state's capacity to find the administrative resources, public expenditure, and elite consensus necessary to redefine the country's position in world affairs. While the political expediency of devising a new role cannot be faulted, the strategic value of “Global Britain” appears limited in light of this analysis.     

The Complexity of Global Security Governance: An Analytical Overview

By suggesting predictable and controllable patterns of development, the literature on global governance seems to simplify the world for decision-making tractability. In this respect, security narratives often remain analytically frozen, while the dynamics of global life are not. Relying on complexity thinking, this article both comments on the construction and potential reconstruction of the concept of security as it relates to the question of global governance and engages with the cognitive multiplicity of the notion of global security governance. Such an exploration suggests the need for the complexification of the discourses and practices of security governance through the adaptive contingency of “security as resilience”, which rejects the detachment between human and natural systems and the ability of the former to control the latter. The argument is that the logic of “security as resilience” is more appropriate than the conventional logic of “security as control”. In policy terms, therefore, the complexity of global security governance intimates an ability to cope with vulnerabilities, defy adversity and construct a new proficiency in response to the uncertainty, cognitive challenges, complex unbounded risks and the need for continuing adaptation prompted by the alterations in global life.     

欧美对华政策协调及其局限

随着中国的持续崛起以及欧美对华政策的转型,中国因素在跨大西洋关系中的重要性更加凸显。为了应对中国崛起、巩固跨大西洋关系以及维护在国际秩序中的主导地位,欧美加快了对华政策协调的步伐,试图围绕意识形态、经贸投资、科技创新以及全球治理等议题协调共识并采取更加一致的行动。当前欧美对华政策协调也有别于过去“美主欧从”的模式,呈现出更具机制化和更全面的新特点。在协调的过程中,欧美对华政策出现了一定的趋同,但分歧也显露无遗。欧美对华认知与政策分歧、欧盟“战略自主”倾向以及“特朗普主义”遗产的影响都将对欧美协调的深度和效果构成制约。当今国际体系的特点和中国和平发展道路也决定了欧美协调难以复制冷战时期的遏制战略,“和平共处”是欧美协调和中美欧三边关系应该遵守的基本原则。     

“Systemically Significant States”: Tracing the G20’s Membership Category as a New Logic of Stratification in the International System

ABSTRACT

The international system has long distinguished classes of states, such as “great powers”. Recently, “systemically significant states” has emerged as a new designation within global financial governance. This designation was introduced by the G7 to justify the new membership composition of the G20, and has since been adopted in policy documents and recommendations by other institutions, such as the IMF. This article traces the origins of the term “systemically significant” and argues that, although nominally meant to be a term of inclusion and a signal of the pluralisation of governance authority, it instead serves as a new category of stratification rooted in a neoliberal governmentality of risk.     

Transformation of the roles of social partners through EU governance

The EC/EU institution-building has changed the preferences, interests and ideas of the social partners, and thus attracted them into the “European social policy community”. Under the “Community method”, the traditional mode of EU governance, the social partners developed social dialogues, participated in the Tripartite Conferences and provided consultations for legislation. Along with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the social partners at the EU level have gained the right to participate directly into the legislating procedure recurring to social partnership. Under the Open Method of Coordination (OMC), the new mode of EU governance, the social partners, together with the civil society, are playing pivotal roles in the formulation, implementation, and overseeing EU policies. This paper intends to make a detailed analysis of the different roles played by the social partners under the three types of decision-making mechanisms, that is, the normal legislating procedure, the social partnership procedure and the OMC, thus trying to illustrate some of the characteristics of EU governance.     

Frames,Paradigms and Power: Global Health Policy-Making under Neoliberalism

The study of global health governance has developed rapidly over recent years. That literature has identified a range of factors which help explain the “failure” of global health governance, but it has largely neglected the global public policy processes which perpetuate that failure. In this paper we argue that there is such a thing as “global health policy” and set out a new framework for analyzing the processes through which it is made, highlighting the mixture of power and ideas, agency and structure, which impact upon the policy cycle. The framework rests upon four pillars: framing; paradigms; power; and the “deep core” of neoliberalism. Through integrating insights from a range of literatures, in particular from the global health governance and public policy analysis fields, we seek to enrich the conceptual basis of current work on global health governance.     

Norming “Moderation” in an “Iconic Target”: Public Policy and the Regulation of Religious Anxieties in Singapore

The maintenance of a “moderate mainstream” Muslim community as a bulwark against the fraying of harmonious ethnic relations has become a key governance concern post-September 11. In light of the global concern—and often paranoia—with diasporic Islam, Islamic religious institutions and civil society have been portrayed in the popular media as hotbeds of radicalism, promoters of hatred, and recruiters for a “conflict of civilization” between the Muslim world and the modern world. Having declared itself a terrorist's “iconic target,” Singapore has taken a broad-based community approach in advancing inter-religious tolerance, including a subtle initiative to include the “Muslim civil society” in advancing the understanding and the promotion of a moderate brand of Islam in Singapore. This tacit process of regulation (top-down, intra-community and inter-community), while effective, is constrained by the unique governance context in Singapore.