美国《网络空间国际战略》评析

在信息化时代,网络空间承载着国家政治、经济、文化和军事发展与安全的重荷。网络空间存在的黑客攻击、网络犯罪和网络恐怖主义事件层出不穷,因此网络空间安全已上升到国家安全战略的层面,美国政府于2011年5月16日发布的《网络空间国际战略》引起世界各国瞩目。美国《网络空间国际战略》以"共同创造繁荣、安全、开放的网络世界"为基本宗旨,以"基本自由、隐私和信息流动自由"为核心原则,从经济、网络安全、司法、军事、网络管理、国际发展、网络自由等诸方面为美国未来网络安全战略的发展指明了方向。《网络空间国际战略》的出台表明美国政府已将网络安全提升到国际战略的新高度,它隐含着美国谋求网络空间霸权的战略目标,具有引领国际战略新变革和引发网络空间价值观冲突的现实战略效能,它对中美关系的影响和中国的应对之策也是值得认真分析和思考的。     

Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

How should we explain the recent unilateralist turn in U.S. foreign policy? Some accounts treat growing American unilateralism as a passing aberration attributable to the neoconservative ideology of the Bush administration. This paper, by contrast, traces U.S. unilateralism to the structural effects, at home and abroad, of the end of the Cold War. Internationally, the removal of the Soviet threat has undermined the "institutional bargain" that once guided relations between the U.S. and its major allies. Absent Cold War imperatives, the U.S. is less willing to provide collective goods through strong international institutions and other states are less likely to defer to U.S. demands for special privileges that exempt the U.S. from normal multilateral constraints. Domestically, the end of the Cold War has weakened the ability of presidents to resist the appeals of powerful veto players whose interests are threatened by multilateral commitments. These factors suggest that American unilateralism may have deeper roots and more staying power than many expect.     

Constructive Development of Sino-U.S.Relations:Intrinsic Logic and Vision Constitution at Non-interest Level

International relations are interactions mainly between states and between international organizations. Since states and organizations are made up of people, these interactions are influenced by human nature. This is the same for Sino-U.S. relations as can be seen by recent developments which show the influences of human thinking and cultural values. The improvement seen in their relations has been cemented by a fostering of mutual understanding and commonality of cultural values. Positive development acquired during diplomatic interactions offer useful lessons for future cooperation. Relations between China and the U.S. can be further improved by learning from history, having a clearer perception and building mutual trust.     

建交30年来中美关系发展分析

中美建交30多年来,两国关系的发展经历了曲折式前进、螺旋式上升的过程。从影响中美关系发展的因素看,有国际格局的变化、两国社会的变化、国家领导人的作用和两国民间交流的力量这三个层次。未来中美关系向前发展的总趋势不会改变,但也不会一帆风顺。     

韩国疏美亲中现象剖析

以2002年11月驻韩美军装甲车轧死两名女中学生事件为导火索,韩国国内出现了强烈的反美情绪,接着发生的蜡灯示威,引起“韩美同盟危机论”,形成强烈的以驻韩美军为中心的“反美舆论”。与此同时,伴随着中国的崛起和飞速前进的中韩关系的发展,在韩国社会及政治外交领域出现了要求以中韩亲近替换韩美同盟的呼声。其原因主要有国际政治格局的变动、国内政治的需求、驻韩美军调整问题、韩日关系的恶化以及中韩关系的崛起等五个方面。面对这种现象,我国应该审时度势稳妥推进。     

日本民主党执政与美日同盟变化

日本政权更迭是亚洲格局发生重大变革的一个最新迹象。民主党在竞选中获胜表明了寻求"更加平等"的日美关系获得了国内民众的认可,这是民主党制定对美政策的国内背景。在国际层面,中国的实力地位已经发生了质的变化,这种变化在日美关系上必然要有所反映,民主党执政则在客观上为日美同盟变化提供了可能。民主党追求自主性的基本方式是构建东亚共同体和更多地参与联合国事务,这预示着:与自民党相比,民主党将更多地以亚洲身份和在多边框架下参与地区和国际事务,而非对美国的一味盲从。民主党对"自主性"的追求并不意味着同盟弱化,相反,在解决朝鲜核问题、防核扩散、能源和环境保护等方面,日美有可能继续加强协调以维持对两国都必不可少的同盟关系。     

试析中越关系中的美国因素

美国因素在中越关系中起着重要的作用。冷战结束以后，尤其是近些年来，越美关系发展迅速。两国在政治、经济和军事领域的合作，将不可避免地对中越关系造成影响。但是由于越美之间存在诸多矛盾和分歧，使得美国因素对中越关系的影响十分有限。对此，中国应积极应对，通过发展对越关系、对美关系和提升自身实力的方式，将美国因素对中越关系造成的不利影响降至最低点。     

The Growing Role of States in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the State Partnership Program

States can and do play an important role in contemporary U.S. foreign policy. This article will discuss the growing role of states through an investigation of the State Partnership Program (SSP). The SSP pairs state National Guards with the militaries of other countries through U.S. military engagement programs. The state-level National Guard then becomes the primary site for implementing U.S. military engagement programs. Both a federalism and decision-making perspective, however, are unable to recognize this role. The decision-making bias of foreign policy analysis affords states a limited international role and minimal influence in shaping the policies of the government toward other countries. An implementation perspective, however, reveals a growing role of states carrying out U.S. foreign policy, including the "high politics" of national security issues. States give decisions meaning through the practice of policy implementation. A detailed case study of the Maryland–Estonia partnership illustrates how an implementation perspective can recognize a growing role of states in shaping U.S. foreign policy.     

U.S. Policy Towards Southeast Asia

Greater East Asia is expected to be the next theatre for world politics. 1 East Asian cooperation is rapidly developing through the channels of ASEAN Plus Three （APT） and East Asia Summit （EAS）, both driven by ASEAN. Southeast Asia is a region of diverse states and cultures that brings together all the major powers of the Asian-Pacific in a myriad of strategic interests. It is thus an open arena with the potential for a variety of strategic game-playing, options, and uncertain outcomes.2 In recent years, China＇s developing relationship with Southeast Asia has undergone a significant shift as the U.S.＇ distraction elsewhere and neglect of the region have created opportunities for an increased Chinese diplomatic and economic role in Southeast Asia.3 U.S. analysts are concerned about what may lie behind this shift in China-ASEAN relations, how it may affect American interests in the region and how best to react to the changes. Some have expressed concerns that to avoid becoming distanced from the region the U.S. should pay more attention to Southeast Asia, rather than just watching from a distance. This paper attempts to analyze the possible changes of U.S. policy towards Southeast Asia in the current context of East Asian Cooperation and its implications for China.     

从美、日、英跨国并购看会计的国际化障碍

采用案例分析法,对美国DAL跨国公司出售子公司RCD时,美、日、英 3国企业在收购价格一定的情况下,谁能获得更大的获利空间,进行多指标计算的结果表明,由于这 3个国家的会计制度和税收制度的差异,使得英国有最大的收购优势,其次是日本,再次是美国。这说明在参与国际经济竞争时,每个国家都是理性的“经济人”, 在考虑了本国的政治、经济和文化等因素后,他们都会对外制定出使自身利益最大化的政策,从而阻碍了会计国际化的进程。中国的会计国际化进程在加速,通过本案例我们不能不思考,国际化后的中国企业在国际竞争中的优势。     

日本经济怎样掉进了美国设计的陷阱

在 2 0世纪末期 ,过去一帆风顺的日本经济突然停滞 ,明明是世界最大的债权国 ,却只能目瞪口呆地看着世界最大的债务国美国把自己的财富掳走。日本的经济一筹莫展 ,而美国的经济却一步一层楼。美国人通过玩弄汇率就轻而易举地减少了自己的债务负担 ,同时还扼杀了日本的国力。日本人过去几十年在国际经济关系中几乎是不折不扣地采用美国的规则 ,却遭到如此的惨败 ,令全世界都为之震惊。为此 ,我们应该深入地研究 ,及早地引起我们的注意。     

The Sino–Russian Partnership and U.S. Policy Toward North Korea: From Hegemony to Concert in Northeast Asia

This paper presents two sets of arguments: one theoretical and one analytical. The theoretical arguments concern the relationship between regional ordering and systemic change. The paper questions the usefulness of the unipolar conception of the contemporary system arguing that the interaction of the Great Powers cannot be understood without reference to regional dynamics. Thus, a unipolar system implies considerable potential for U.S. hegemonic intervention at the regional level but in East Asia, we find an equilibrium constructed out of both material and normative forces, defined as a concert, which presents a considerable restraint on all powers, including the U.S. The paper then proceeds to examine these claims through an analysis of the foreign policies of the U.S., Russia, and China over the North Korean nuclear problem that emerged after 2002. It finds that China and Russia have substantive common interests arising from internal and external re-ordering in which they look to strategic partnerships, regional multilateralism, and systemic multipolarization as inter-locking processes. The paper finds that they have collaborated over the Korean crisis to prevent a U.S. unilateral solution but that this should not be construed as a success for an open counterhegemonic strategy as it was only under the constraining conditions of East Asian concert, including the dynamics within the U.S. alliance systems, that this collaboration was successful. Nevertheless, the paper concludes that regional multipolarity and systemic unipolarity are contradictory: a system that exhibits multipolarization at the regional level cannot be characterized as unipolar at the global level.     

When BITs have some bite: The political-economic environment for bilateral investment treaties

Political risk frequently impedes the flow of capital into developing countries. In response, governments often adopt innovative institutions that aim to attract greater flows of international investment and trade by changing the institutional environment and limiting the risk to outside investors. One primary example of this is the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), aimed specifically at increasing the flow of foreign direct investment (FDI) to developing countries. Yet the literature in political science and economics is inconclusive about whether or not BITs do indeed stimulate FDI, and it provides conflicting theoretical reasoning for the claimed connection. This article argues that BITs do attract FDI to developing countries, but the story is a complicated one. Two important factors must be taken into account. First, BITs cannot entirely substitute for an otherwise weak investment environment. Countries must have the necessary domestic institutions in place that interact with BITs to make these international commitments credible and valuable to investors. Second, as the coverage of BITs increases, overall FDI flows to developing countries increase. However, although remaining positive, the marginal effect of a country’s BITs on its own FDI may fall because of heightened competition for FDI from other BIT countries. Using data from 97 countries for 1984–2007, we provide empirical evidence consistent with both of these theoretical claims.     

Why Should I Believe You? The Costs and Consequences of Bilateral Investment Treaties

Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) are the primary legal mechanism protecting foreign direct investment (FDI) around the world. BITs are thought to encourage FDI by establishing a broad set of investor's rights and by allowing investors to sue a host state in an international tribunal if these rights are violated. Perhaps surprisingly, the empirical literature connecting BITs to FDI flows has produced conflicting results. Some papers have found that BITs attract FDI, while others have found no relationship or even that BITs repel FDI. I suggest in this paper that these results stem from statistical models that do not fully capture the causal mechanisms that link BITs to FDI. Extant literature has often suggested that BITs may encourage investment from both protected and unprotected investors, yet the literature has not allowed for a full evaluation of this claim. This paper explores the theoretical underpinnings and empirical implications of an institution that works in these direct and indirect ways, and offers a statistical test that is capable of distinguishing between the two. The results indicate that: (1) BITs attract significant amounts of investment; (2) BITs attract this investment from protected and unprotected investors; and (3) these results are obscured by endogeneity unless corrected for in the statistical model.     

U.S. Strategy in a Transitioning Middle East: Reviving ‘State Responsibility’

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the Middle East stemming from the Arab Awakening, and the inability of Washington to shape the process of transition, U.S. decision- makers must rethink their strategy for the region in general and for counterterrorism in particular. Reducing U.S. involvement in the region and letting the dust settle will serve American interests better and allow for building healthier relations with Middle Eastern countries. At the same time, since the risk of negative effects on neighboring states that accompany transition must be kept in check, the United States, together with other powers, should lead the international community in reviving the principle of “state responsibility” as a productive way to reduce spillover of conflicts and even provide incentives for actors in the region to limit violence.     

The U.S. and third World Revolutionary States: Understanding the Breakdown in Relations

Although scholars focused on Soviet–American relations during the Cold War, the greatest number of conflicts for the U.S. occurred in the Third World, and most of these were with revolutionary states. Could U.S. policies toward the new revolutionary states have prevented the almost universal collapse in relations? Two dominant explanations for this breakdown are (1) American hostility toward revolutionary change and (2) Stephen Walt's variant of the spiral model. Using the comparative case approach and selecting "hard cases," this article disputes these explanations and offers a new theory based on the externalization of domestic conflict in the revolutionary states. Given their ideological goals, the radicals externalized their domestic conflicts with the moderates, who had transnational ties with the U.S., by fomenting tensions with Washington. To demonstrate that this theory can be generalized, this article varies the dependent variable and shows through a critical case that its lack of conflict can best be explained by the absence of the conditions that lead to externalization. The foreign policies of both the U.S. and revolutionary states are explained by classical realism as opposed to Walt's structural realism, which fails to account for the foreign policies of Third World states.     

Democracy,Regional Security Institutions,and Rivalry Mitigation: Evidence From Europe,South America,and Asia

The fact that democracies maintain peaceful relations with each other is regarded as one of the few law-like correlations in international relations, but the causes of this empirical phenomenon remain contested. This paper tries to fill this theoretical gap by attributing the remarkable stability between democracies to inter-democratic institutions. At the same time, it contributes to the debate on the need to differentiate among international organizations in order to assess their peace-building effects. We identify transnational and trans-governmental linkages as crucial features that distinguish inter-democratic from traditional institutions with non-democratic or mixed membership. In order to explain these institutions’ peace-building effect, we analyze the impact of international institutions on rivalry mitigation with a view to five pairs of states: France-Germany, Greece-Turkey, Argentina-Brazil, Indonesia-Malaysia, and Japan-South Korea. Those dyads all look back at a history of rivalry, conflict, and mutual threat perceptions, and they are located in highly institutionalized regional settings but vary with regard to their political regime type. The controlled comparison of cases demonstrates that the embeddedness of international institutions in transnational and trans-governmental linkages corresponds to each member's regime type and that these institutional differences are responsible for the varying extent of rivalry mitigation.     

Hegemonic order, September 11, and the consequences of the Bush revolution

The striking feature of contemporary world politics continuesto be the disproportionate power position of the United States.U.S. officials consider stability in East Asia to be of vitalimportance, and they have adopted a hegemonic strategy to promoteregional order and serve U.S. interests. U.S. officials arelikely to find the management and completion of hegemony moreproblematic in the years ahead. U.S. power, particularly military,will remain unchallenged. But changes in U.S. foreign policyafter September 11, developments in the world economy, and developmentsin East Asia suggest that the exercise of U.S. power and U.S.relations with states in this all-important region will becomeincreasingly complex and will demand more creative diplomaticefforts.     

美国对中国崛起的认知和反应

随着中国的加速崛起，美国产生了两种不同的认知：中国崛起挑战美国霸权和中国崛起与美国霸权并存。据此，美国内形成了两种对华政策取向：以压力制衡为特点的强硬政策和以国际体系制衡的温和政策。这两种认知虽有差异．但仍表现出诸多共性，这是理解美国政策的关键之点。     

Contracting with Whom? The Differential Effects of Investment Treaties on FDI

Under what conditions can governments use international commitments such as Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) to attract foreign direct investment (FDI)? Although numerous studies have attempted to answer this question, none considers how investment treaties may have heterogeneous affects across industry. I argue BIT effect is strongest when the obsolescing bargaining problem between firms and governments is most protracted, namely, when FDI relies on strong contracts between firms and states. Using a time series cross-sectional data set of 114 developing countries from 1985 to 2011, I find BITs are associated with increases in infrastructure investment, an industry particularly reliant on the sanctity of government contracts, but not with total FDI inflows. Moreover, BITs with strong arbitration provisions display the strongest statistical effect on infrastructure investment, while BITs that do not provide investors with such protections are not associated with increased investment. My results have implications for both scholarship on the relationship between governments and multinational firms as well as for the study of international institutions more broadly. To properly ascertain the effects of international treaties and institutions, scholars should consider not just whether institutions constrain or inform—or matter at all—but also the extent to which the targets of institutions have heterogeneous responses to them.