1950~1979年间中越同盟中的苏联因素

20 世纪50～70 年代,中越同盟从形成、唇齿相依到最终的兵戎相见,主要源于两国对 各自国家利益的不同认知和在意识形态领域内的分歧,但在冷战和中苏同盟分裂的背景下,苏联的 外部作用也不容忽视。苏联的主要作用表现在：它在援越抗法时期促成了中国对越援助,是中越同 盟的促成者;它凭借对越南的大量援助,实施离间战略,致使越南日益离心中国,是中越同盟的离间 者;它依靠对越南的老挝政策、柬埔寨政策的支持,导致中越同盟完全破裂,是中越同盟的终结者。     

美韩同盟调整的动力、现状与前景

[内容提要]在美韩同盟调整中,美国试图将同盟关系纳入新的全球军事部署和地区安全结构之中,这与韩国谋求优先解决朝鲜核问题、保持同盟关系并加强平衡外交的战略考虑明显不同。目前双方在新的谈判机制下就驻韩美军相关的重要军事问题达成一系列协议,但在重新定位同盟目标与功能这一核心问题上存在严重分歧。韩国国内存在着自主外交与韩美同盟的战略选择之争。卢武铉政府的同盟政策可能是继续强调国防自主、加强美韩同盟并追求多边安全合作,其特点是使韩国保持战略选择上的灵活性,未来再根据地区秩序和半岛形势确立安保战略。美韩摩擦将继续,可能的妥协点是接受“全面的同盟”作为过渡形态,即实现同盟功能地区化,将合作扩大到非传统领域并淡化其军事功能。     

同盟视野探析

同盟视野是指缔结同盟的国家通过同盟所要追求的以安全、军事为主的关切范围,它主要通过同盟条约中的同盟覆盖区域的形式体现.关切主要是一种基于利益之上的主观判断,覆盖区域主要是基于利益之上对地理空间范围的主观判断,因此,同盟视野既具有客观的地理性,又具有主观的判断性.同盟视野不同于同盟目标和同盟针对对象.同盟视野概念的提出有利于理解同盟这一概念,从而有利于进一步构建和丰富同盟理论.同盟视野是同盟得以存在的实质性内涵和逻辑支撑之一.同盟视野重合程度高,则同盟持续的时间长,运行更有效;反之,则同盟持续的时间短,运行效率低.同盟视野的类型分为地区性与全球性、静态性与动态性,同盟类型的不同及其转化对同盟存续意义重大.     

评美国主流学派之美日同盟观

就20世纪90年代强化后美日同盟的未来发展,美国学者提出了“维持同盟现状”、“适应日本的崛起”、“渐进主义”、“成熟的伙伴”等观点,其中对美国新政府影响最大的是“阿米蒂奇-奈报告”,这一报告呼吁美国政府基于美英特殊关系的模式提升美日双边安全关系,并确定有6个领域需要作重大调整才能创造一种成熟的伙伴关系和持久的美日同盟。这些主流思想学派存在着一个共同观点和目标,即都支持美国政府维持或加强美日同盟关系。他们都认为美日同盟对于亚太地区的长期和平与稳定,特别是两国的安全利益是至关重要的,因而必须予以维持或强化。     

成本与困境:同盟理论的新探索

同盟的功能发挥与同盟成本、同盟困境存在紧密联系。同盟成本包括同盟硬成本与同盟软成本,前者指同盟的组织成本及同盟行动成本,后者指同盟的声誉与可信性。同盟困境包括传统同盟困境与新同盟困境,前者指的是传统的牵连与抛弃困境,后者指的是同盟针对对象与同盟经济伙伴的同一性困境,以及在同一同盟体系内各个同盟之间存在猜疑与纷争的同盟间困境。同盟成本与同盟困境相互作用,对同盟运行构成影响。     

美日、美韩同盟比较研究--兼论美日韩安全互动与东北亚安全

文章从同盟的起源、对美战略价值的位差、非对称性的不同特征等层面对美日、美韩两对同盟关系进行了综合的比较分析,认为这两大同盟在性质与功能方面根深蒂固的不均衡性在冷战后并未消减,并将继续对当前朝核危机的解决及今后东北亚的安全机制建设产生潜在的、结构性的影响.     

试比较日英同盟与"再定义"后的日美同盟

由于地缘因素的限制,自近代以来,日本形成了即使在国力上升时期也对外结盟的政策定势.日本奉行"与强者为伍"的原则,先后同英、美两个全球主导国结盟,打压其他竞争对手,最终使自己成为了地区性大国.然而,日本在结盟过程中带有较强的自利性,与盟友的矛盾也不断增加,再加上地区力量的多元化,不断"再定义"下的日美同盟很可能重蹈日英同盟走向消亡的覆辙.     

日本新安保法对日美同盟的双重影响

日本新安保法是其解禁集体自卫权的制度依据,在突破战后和平宪法的"专守防卫"原则同时,也对日美同盟的走向产生双重影响。一方面,新安保法为增扩日美同盟的行动范围和功能提供法律支撑,使其成为落实日美安全战略理念的平台和亚太安全网络体系的核心;另一方面,日美因各自战略利益及对国际安全干预的成本承受能力等不同,两国在同盟框架内出现错位和互不协调。新安保法可能会在盟国、国民和地区他国三个层面削弱日美同盟的依托基础。日本新安保法无益于地区安全,也无助于维护地区势力均衡,却可能会成为地区冲突的推进器。     

驻韩美军"战略灵活性"的内涵及影响

2006年1月,韩国与美国举行首次韩美战略对话,并就驻韩美军的“战略灵活性”达成原则协议。据此,美韩同盟由原先“固守于半岛的同盟”转变成了“地区同盟”,合作范围与内容将更趋广泛。美韩同盟重新定位,其背后有着韩美各自的深层战略考虑,将对半岛、东北亚乃至亚太地区形势产生重大影响。     

利益差异、战略分歧和美韩同盟关系的再调整

结盟是相关行为体为了维护自己的安全利益根据自己的安全战略而进行的安全合作安排,盟友之间因安全环境的变化而产生的战略分歧和利益差异也将会导致同盟关系的调整。美韩同盟是冷战时期形成的,具有防御性且主要着眼于半岛安全之同盟的性质,但进入后冷战时期,尤其是"9.11"事件之后,基于安全环境和战略利益的变化,美韩两国对同盟关系进行了较大幅度的调整,调整之后的美韩同盟虽然在联合指挥协调机制问题上还存在着一定的不确定性,但从整体上看美韩同盟在本世纪初的调整则是一个走向强化的过程。     

联盟困境、理性选择与澳美同盟的有限升级

任何联盟内部都存在联盟困境(即"被抛弃"与"被牵连")。在"美主澳从"的澳美同盟中,澳大利亚也面临着联盟困境:如果强调战略自主性则担心"被抛弃";如果强化澳美同盟则担心"被牵连"。在中国快速崛起、美国战略收缩和中美战略竞争不断加剧的背景下,澳大利亚认为有限升级澳美同盟——对美国欲"距"还迎——是其缓解联盟困境的理性选择。首先,有限升级澳美同盟不仅可以大大降低"被抛弃"的风险,而且有望提升地区影响力,同时有助于提升澳在中美战略布局中的重要性。其次,由于中美两国仍将长期维持"斗而不破"的状态,澳大利亚"被牵连"至中美军事冲突中的可能性很小,而当下澳美同盟的有限强化对成熟稳定的中澳关系冲击总体有限。澳大利亚为了缓解联盟困境、提升外交地位,有限升级澳美同盟,不仅使澳大利亚收益颇丰、成本可控,收益大于成本,而且中澳关系保持有限紧张是符合澳大利亚国家利益的理性选择。     

朝鲜半岛新危机与美国东北亚同盟体系新变化

朝鲜半岛危机与美国东北亚同盟体系的构建与演化关系密切。2010年至2011年初,朝鲜半岛危机呈现出新的特点,美日、美韩同盟的演变也进入了新的阶段,呈现出新的变化。此轮朝鲜半岛新危机的特点是,海上危机与核危机并发。美国东北亚同盟体系的新变化是,同盟反应以军事压制为主,双边同盟强化并赋予新的内容,三边同盟趋势化且日韩互动提升。     

How International Reputation Matters: Revisiting Alliance Violations in Context

We investigate the role of international reputation in alliance politics by developing a signaling theory linking past alliance violations with the formation of future alliance commitments. In our theory, past violations Are useful signals of future alliance reliability conditional on whether they effectively separate reliable from unreliable alliance partners. It follows that states evaluating potential alliance partners will interpret past violations in their context when deciding to enter a new alliance, attaching less weight to violations in “harder times,” when many states are defaulting on their alliance commitments together, and more weight to violations in “easier times,” when fewer states are defaulting on their alliances. We test our theory and find that states are empirically more likely to form new alliances with states that violated in harder times compared to states that violated in easier times. The results have important implications for how scholars understand and estimate the impact of international reputation.     

联盟的起源：理性主义研究新进展

联盟作为具有战略意义的一种国家间关系,对其研究在国际关系理论中占据了一个十分重要的位置,也有助于学者们将具有普遍意义的国际关系理论运用于具体的国际关系研究。围绕着联盟的起源这一主题,理性主义国际关系理论提出了许多重要的见解。在最近的十多年来,这一主题的研究又与单极体系内的联盟现实相结合,提出和分析了如下方面的核心问题：联盟需要什么样的共同利益基础;制衡性的联盟为何没有出现;国际结构如何塑造大国的联盟选择;地理因素如何影响联盟的形成以及联盟起源的其他根源有哪些。理性主义国际关系理论的这些研究都具有一定的启发意义,但总的来看,现实主义范式的研究占据了主流地位,系统性的理论创新不够,并没有提出解释联盟起源的新的核心概念,即如果把联盟界定为一种明确、稳定的战略关系,而非仅仅是针对安全威胁的军事同盟的话,仅有结构现实主义和威胁平衡理论是不够的;联盟起源的理论研究仍然具有较为广阔的空间。建构一种更加普遍的、有强大解释力的利益关系概念,在此基础上推导出国家的联盟选择战略,将会有助于更加具体深入地了解联盟的起源。     

Mediation,Domestic Politics,and the Israeli-Syrian Negotiations, 1991–2000

This paper explains one of the central roles of alliance contracts, the prevention of undesirable military entanglement. The existing literature on alliances argues that entrapment is a major concern for potential and actual alliance partners, but it is difficult to point out clear cases of entrapment. I provide two answers to this puzzle: First, entrapment is a narrower concept than others have realized, and it is rarer than the literature suggests. Second, leaders anticipate entrapment and carefully design alliance agreements before and after states form alliances. I examine the second argument through case studies of us alliance agreements with South Korea, Japan, and Spain.     

Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions

The pattern of alliances among states is commonly assumed to reflect theextent to which states have common or conflicting security interests. For the past twenty years, Kendall's τ b has been used to measure the similarity of nations' "portfolios" of alliance commitments. Widely employed indicators of systemic polarity, state utility, and state risk propensity all rely on τ b . We demonstrate that τ b is inappropriate for measuring the similarity of states' alliance policies. We develop an alternative measure of policy portfolio similarity, S , which avoids many of the problems associated with τ b , and we use data on alliances among European states to compare S to τ b . Finally, we identify several problems with inferring state interests from alliances alone, and we provide a method to overcome those problems using S in combination with data on alliances, trade, UN votes, diplomatic missions, and other types of state interaction. We demonstrate this by comparing the calculated similarity of foreign policy positions based solely on alliance data to that based on alliance data supplemented with UN voting data.     

Alliance formation and national security

The premise that nations form alliances in order to improve their security is widespread in the study of international relations. Yet in spite of the crucial role played by this assumption, the claims of policy makers and statesmen form our only evidence that it is the need for greater national security which motivates the formation of alliances. What is more, we have no systematic evidence that the concern for national security would be a consistent predictor in the face of other plausible goals. Our intent in this paper is to supply this evidence.

From the assumption that greater national security is a primary incentive to form an alliance, we construct a series of hypotheses, each building successively on the previous hypothesis to predict conditions at the individual, dyadic and systemic levels of analysis. By constructing an indicator of national security, we are able to test these hypotheses against historical information about European alliances from 1815 to 1965. Our evidence that security considerations are indeed central to alliance behavior improves the empirical and theoretical foundation of a considerable body of studies in international relations and foreign policy preceding this one.     

Hurdles to International Terrorist Alliances: Lessons From Al Qaeda's Experience

Despite the threat posed by international terrorist alliances, the conditions that foster and inhibit these relationships remain poorly understood. When seeking allies outside of their primary conflict and political market, groups struggle to forge credible commitments, particularly the requisite ‘shadows of the future’ and reputations conducive to cooperation, without third-party enforcers. Given their suspicious nature and strong in-group identities, terrorist groups sometimes balk at relinquishing independence for security. Alliances risk precipitating counterterrorism pressure, alienating constituents, and increasing the risk of betrayal. Even groups that enjoy alliance success, like Al Qaeda, experience these hurdles in their alliance. What helped to set Al Qaeda apart from most groups was its ability to navigate these obstacles, though some bedeviled its alliances efforts. This offers under-utilized opportunities for alliance disruption.     

Is the Enemy of My Enemy My Friend?

The terrorist organizations that have posed the greatest threat to international security are those with allies. Terrorist groups at the core of alliance networks, particularly the Islamic State and al Qaeda, define the threat today, as they are able to accrue and disperse the benefits of their alliances—including greater lethality, longevity, and resilience—to their partners. While the consequences of these alliances are clear, their causes remain poorly understood, especially with respect to why terrorist alliances cluster around a small number of organizations. I propose that groups ally with the organization at the core of a network to address organizational deficits. In addition, the prospective partners must have both complementary needs and the ability to link their ideologies and frames to build a shared identity. Finally, groups must overcome their inherent suspicions and build trust to ally. These three mechanisms lead to alliance formation, but they also offer numerous avenues for disruption.     

中国古代经典联盟思想论纲

春秋战国时期，先秦思想家对诸侯国之间频繁的联盟行为进行了仔细观察和认真思考，这些思考构成中国古代经典联盟思想的核心内容。中国古代经典联盟思想既有在有关联盟功能、联盟生成等方面与现代西方联盟理论相一致的地方，又有在联盟的目的性以及“非”联盟思想方面显示着中国文化特性和价值追求的独到认识。与现代西方联盟理论相比较，前者赋予联盟行为以极强的道德意味，并已高度内化于中国的联盟实践中；后者则更重视联盟对“均势”的影响。前者主要从抽象的道德角度论述联盟的目的和价值，后者则是用工具理性去看待联盟行为与联盟现象的；前者虽然提出“非”联盟的思想观念，但并未给出除“自强”与“中立”之外其他更具想象力的实践方案，后者虽没有实质性地论及该问题，但却在理论上给出了有可能超越联盟政治的某种实践路径。中国古代经典联盟思想最终虽未像西方联盟思想那样发展成完备的理论形态，但依然以丰富的思想性和对后世中国的深刻影响彰显了自身价值。