全球秩序:概念、内涵与模式

全球秩序是规范性和可行性统一的概念,是国家、公民社会和商业力量互动的稳定状态。它不同于国家中心主义的国际秩序,也不同于一般意义上的世界秩序。全球秩序以人类共同体的整体利益为价值导向,旨在克服全球问题对人类社会的挑战,手段是提供全球公共物品。世界政府模式、霸权稳定模式和新中世纪模式表达了不同的全球秩序设想。以变革论全球化研究者为代表的新中世纪模式在兼顾到国际关系现实的基础上,描绘了未来全球秩序的可能图景。     

美国霸权与国际秩序

20世纪是美国霸权的时代,其间三次国际秩序建设的诉求都是与美国霸权目标直接相关的.伍德罗·威尔逊的世界秩序设计和霸权目标是奠基性的,制定了20世纪美国的外交政策议程及其霸权方式.富兰克林·罗斯福接过其世界秩序的火炬,促成了联合国的创立,以此为基础的国际制度体系,将美国推上了西方世界霸权的宝座.冷战结束以来,尤其是乔治·W·布什遵循具有帝国特征的单极秩序逻辑,体现了美国大战略的转轨.鉴于多边国际制度作为建构未来秩序的基本原则越来越成为国际社会的共识,美国当前的单边主义战略难以奏效.     

展望90年代

国际上从对抗、紧张转向对话、缓和,从两极走向多极的趋势将继续迅猛发展。90年代将是一个准备和过渡的重要时期。今后世界上将会出现日新月异的变化,各种力量将会发生新的分化和组合。战后以来美苏两极的格局终将被新的多极格局所取代。世界各国的共同任务应当是在和平共处五项原则的基础上建立新的国际政治秩序。     

试析布什政府的国际秩序观

赖斯说多极化是敌对性理论,会带来利益和价值观的竞争,使世界产生分裂。赖斯甚至认为多极格局是导致大国冲突以至战争的根源。美国要奉行具有进攻性的单极战略,防止其他力量挑战美国的霸权,可见进攻性现实主义对布什政府对外战略影响之深。新形势下,美国正在通过“非世界大战”的方式来推进国际秩序的变革。然而,全球化、信息化的迅猛发展正在前所未有地改变着世界,也在改变着国际关系的行为体及其行为模式。在可见的将来,对美国构成威胁的并不是上升的力量,而是那些行踪不定的非国家行为体,或者是那些在全球化进程中滞后的国家里滋生出的恐怖势力。这将是一场旷日持久的消耗战。     

对世界战略格局的几点思考

当前,世界多极化进程呈强势发展,美国单极独霸战略受挫。但美国仍凭独超实力,加紧推行单极战略攻势,对多极化进程构成严重挑战。世界多极格局的形成将是一个充满曲折起伏的漫长过程。大国和力量中心在世界格局与国际舞台上的作用是由其实力和政策双重因素决定的。新旧世界多极格局本质完全不同,后者是建立在强权政治基础上的旧的列强均势和大国中心结构,前者是以当代国际法理为指南的国际关系民主化的基础。单极与多极的矛盾是当今世界的主要矛盾,其性质虽然是对抗性的。但在当代历史条件下,只能以"软对抗"的和平方式解决。     

道义观念与国际体系的变迁——以春秋战国时期为例

从西周到春秋战国时期,中国体系经历了从西周时期以周王权为核心的单极霸权体系,春秋时期以周王权和霸权大国为中心的二元霸权体系到战国时期的多极体系.两周时期国际体系的转变从正反两个方面反映了道义观念在体系转变过程中的决定性作用.从西周到春秋时期霸权体系的稳定与维持反映了观念对体系稳定的基本作用,而从春秋到战国时期体系的转变则是道义观念变迁的结果.     

国际新秩序与联合国改革

联合国的成立是国际秩序的重大进步。二战后相当长时间内,国际社会存在着两个既并行又互相交织、互相影响的国际秩序,即联合国秩序和冷战秩序,但联合国秩序代表了人类社会的发展方向,因此更有生命力。冷战后,出现了两种国际新秩序之争,双方都需要联合国,但将联合国置于不同的地位一个是要将联合国变成“制度霸权”的工具,一个是要提升联合国的地位,使之成为公正、合理的国际新秩序的核心机制。双方都提出要改革联合国。目前,联合国改革虽然涉及多方面的内容,触及国家之间复杂的利益关系,但核心问题是联合国发展方向,它将直接影响到国际新秩序的建立。     

正在形成的权力均衡：尚存的单极、不稳定的多极和未经检验的无极

正在形成的权力均衡至少可以分为以下这几种模式或情况，它们可能各自单独形成也可能彼此结合共同形成。它们是：一超多强模式（Uni-Multipolarity Model），合作或对抗的多极模式（Cooperative or Adversarial Multipolarity），无极模式（Nonpolarity Model）。以上三种未来的模式已经集中涉及到了尽可能多的可观察到的多极趋势。尽管俄罗斯和中国对多极的定义可能并不相同，各自选择达成目标的路径也存在巨大差异，这种对多极松散的定义仍然是中俄双边关系的坚强基石。     

科技革命与国际秩序变迁的逻辑探析

科技革命是人类社会发展的源动力,也是推动国际秩序变迁的核心要素之一。人类历史上发生的四次科技革命均是以科学理论进步为先导、技术突破为表征的整体性革命。在人类科技革命发展的进程中,科技革命与国际秩序之间交织互动,推动国际秩序经历了欧洲百年均势、东西方冷战以及"一超多强"等数次变迁。为深入探究科技革命与国际秩序变迁的内在逻辑和运作机理,本文从科学家、国家和国际体系三个维度对四次科技革命逐一展开了分析,认为科技革命是导致国际秩序变迁的重要因素之一,但国际秩序反过来也会影响科技革命的模式。例如:在第一、二次科技革命中,首先是科学革命引发了技术革命,然后推动了增强主权国家综合国力的迅速增大,进而导致欧洲百年均势秩序的生成与崩溃,这是科技革命(A)直接推动国际秩序变迁(B)的模式,即A—B模式;在第三次科技革命和人类当前正经历的第四次科技革命中,无论是冷战时期的两极均势,还是后冷战时期美国主导的自由霸权秩序,都是国际秩序(B)直接推动科技革命(A)的发展模式,即B—A模式。总的看,科学家的身份认同、国家能力和国际规则与规范在科技革命与国际秩序交织互动过程中,是导致国际秩序变迁模式产生差异的主要原因。从这一意义上讲,当前中美两国之间的科技竞争无疑会为后疫情时代国际秩序的发展趋势提供新的动力、思路和启示。     

反恐与国际秩序

“９·１１”事件后，打恐已成世界政治中心和最大焦点。国际社会的大多数国家和美国对如何打恐和通过打恐建立什么样的国际秩序歧见颇大。是否尊重国家主权、是否应加强联合国的作用、是否在平等的基础上加强国际合作和是否遵循国际法是两种秩序观的分水岭。美国通过打恐，希冀建立单极独霸国际秩序的图谋可能有所得，但最终将是一枕黄粱。国际政治、经济新秩序终将成为时代主流。     

American Views of Europe

America’s diplomacy towards Europe has passed through two broad historic phases. A first, isolationist phase, determined in part by America’s need to maintain its domestic multinational consensus, was replaced, after World War II and under the Soviet threat, by a policy of hegemonic engagement. The Soviet collapse opened a new era forcing a reinterpretation of America’s role in Europe and the world. Four different narratives have emerged: triumphalist, declinist, chaotic or pluralist. If a unipolar American role seems unlikely to persist, American decline is all too possible. A new hegemonic replacement seems unlikely, which makes the pluralist narrative plausible and desirable. This multipolar world will require an adaptation of the Western alliance and a new way of thinking about interstate relations. Confederal Europe, for its experience in bargaining and conciliation, might have much to offer to the new plural world order.     

Entropy and the trajectory of world politics: why polarity has become less meaningful

The random and indeterminate nature of the current unipolar world suggests a condition of increasing entropy. There are two reasons for this claim. First, relative capability advantages under unipolarity do not translate as easily as they once did into power and influence over others. Second, systemic constraint is a property that limits actors' freedom of action by imposing costs and benefits on certain kinds of actions. Unlike past multipolar and bipolar systems, the current unipolar system exerts only weak, if any, systemic constraints on the unipolar power and all other actors as well. Thus, polarity has become a largely meaningless concept. Today, system process rather than structure best explains international politics, and this process is one of entropy. Finally, I suggest two pathways from unipolarity to a more balanced system: one is fairly consistent with standard balance-of-power realism but adds an ideational component; the other restores equilibrium by means of entropy.     

“一带一路”倡议正当其时（英文）

The Belt and Road Initiative's alternative transportation routes promise a "community of shared future for mankind," and has the potential to shake the roots of Western hegemony and change the unipolar Euro-Atlantic world order to a multipolar one. India needs to adopt a more pragmatic approach towards the connectivity opportunities coming up in its neighborhood.     

The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States

The Iraq War exposes the new shape of world politics. It discredits the idea of a benign hegemon defending world order, content to be an ‘offshore balancer’, exercising its power through multinational institutions and constrained by mutually agreed rules. Rather, the hegemon, facing few external constraints in a unipolar world, is driven by the particularistic interests of its ruling group, in the pursuit of informal empire wherein military force is used to impose client regimes and economic subordination. The impotence of both a realist power balance and of liberal institutions to restrain it calls into question the main bases of global order, leaving imperial overreach as the main limitation on hegemonic power. Small states may be able to adapt to, even temporarily profit from, bandwagoning with the hegemon, but it is they that are potentially most threatened when a hegemonic power undermines the international constraints on the use of power.     

A Multipolar World in the Globalization Era

Tremendous transformations are underway in the world political and economic landscape for the first time in modern history.In essence,this highlights the transition from the post-Cold War period to the era of globalization,and from a unipolar to a multipolar world.     

Back with a Vengeance: The Return of Rough and Tumble Geopolitics

Too many Western policymakers in the United States and across the European Union still remain attached to an “end of history” worldview, which has somewhat blinded them to the resurgence of great power politics. For the past decade or so, the unipolar world has been breaking apart due to various centrifugal geopolitical trends. The COVID-19 pandemic did not cause these trends, but is accelerating them. A leaderless, multipolar world on the cusp of de-globalization and the onset of a cold war between the United States and the People's Republic of China is a recipe for skyrocketing unpredictability and increased instability. This article traces the origins of these trends and provides a framework to analyze the political trajectories and geopolitical (and ethical) consequences thereof.     

Hegemony, not anarchy: why China and Japan are not balancing US unipolar power

The United States today dominates the globe and many regionalgeographical subsystems in an unprecedented way, maintaininga hegemonic order that is in no way similar to the ‘anarchy’assumed in realist analyses. The global system today is notsimply unipolar; it is a hegemonic system that is increasinglyglobalized, in which the basic concepts of realism (anarchy,self-help and power balancing) provide little guidance or understandingin explaining state behavior. This paper describes the US hegemonicsystem, analyzes the roles of China and Japan within this system,and examines how the Bush administration's plans for missiledefense might transform the system. The conclusion points tosome critical implications from this analysis for realist interpretationsof international politics.     

Diversity Management: Regionalism and the Future of the International Order

Abstract

The ongoing redistribution of power on the international stage points to a more decentred international system featuring a multiplication of governance arrangements. A larger range of pivotal countries have the capacity and the confidence to pursue different priorities, a development that questions the prevalent post-Cold War expectation that the liberal international order would grow both wider and deeper. The central challenge for the future of the international order is managing diversity in ways that minimise conflict and leverage the benefits of interdependence. The evolution of regionalism and regional orders will be a critical dimension of the realignment of power, interests and normative agendas at the global level. Both more competition and more cooperation are likely to take place at the regional level, with the mix changing in different parts of the world. Provided that it is not merely a cover for coercive hegemonic aspirations and that it is designed to complement other levels of cooperation, regionalism can play an important role in preventing a more polycentric world from becoming a more fragmented and unstable one.     

地区主义与东亚秩序的转型趋向

冷战结束后,东亚地区主义的兴起已成为推动该地区秩序重构和转型的重要推动力。在地区主义的影响下,东亚的内聚力和地区性不断增强、共同理念和地区规范逐渐形成,新的权力结构开始确立,这些因素不断解构着美国主导的"轴心—轮辐式"东亚霸权秩序,并使之呈现出向地区整合背景下"多元共同合作"秩序转变的发展态势。     

金融危机与美国霸权战略的调整

战后以来,强大经济实力始终是美国霸权政治的基础,金融则扮演了美国经济"晴雨表"的角色。2007年后的金融危机和债务危机削弱了美国霸权的经济"实力",使美国霸权战略不得不进行一系列调整:在经济领域,奥巴马政府实施了经济优先战略,推动美国霸权战略的"国内化"转向,力图夯实美国在世界政治经济格局中的霸主基础;在国际政治领域,加速推进"转型外交"进程,倡导多边主义和国际协作;在军事领域,采取相对收缩的军事战略,适时调整海外军事布局,全力应对国际金融危机。