反对制裁和军事干涉伊朗的二十个理由

美英非法入侵伊拉克及其对伊拉克人民带来灾难性后果已进入第五年，当前伊美关系僵局令全世界爱好和平的人惊恐，这种情形与其入侵伊拉克的准备阶段类似。在华盛顿，以切尼为首的鹰派正在无耻地鼓吹对伊朗发动军事打击；同时曾推动入侵伊拉克的以色列院外活动集团，现正在鼓动对伊朗发动军事打击；曾为人侵伊拉克企图欺骗西方民意而对事实的肆意歪曲，现在则被用来为入侵伊朗的另一次非法的先发制人战争铺平道路。像在伊拉克问题上一样，联合国安理会在美国的强大压力下所通过的反对伊朗的决议，是要为此类入侵提供合法的外衣。     

美国私营军事服务业透视

全球私营军事服务业的兴起是冷战后重要但又最不为人知的新趋势之一,其中尤以美国私营军事服务业的急剧发展最引入关注.美国私营军事服务业的膨胀除了得益于冷战后美国的全球扩张战略以外,还离不开新自由主义的私有化革命和公共管理浪潮推波助澜.私营军事服务承包商在美外交和防务战略中发挥作用的同时,也带来严重的国内国际负面后果.     

军事透明度与中美军事互信

近年来,美国不断有人就军事透明度批评中国,并以此为由影响中美关系的进一步发展。本文从理论和国际制度层面上对国家间军事透明度进行探讨,指明美国一面混淆军事透明度的基本概念,一面对中国进行指摘的真实用心。文章还就中美之间建立真正意义上的军事透明度与军事互信的可行性及前提条件进行了阐述。     

兰德公司与美国对华军事政策研究

自1949年美国国防部成立以来,“思想库”(或称“智库”)与政府文职首脑和军队首脑在众多国际、国内事务方面均保持着密切的联系,其领域包括从新技术到军事策划、运作到保护美国利益免受可能的威胁。在这些众多致力研究防御、情报、地区冲突、军事功能的思想库中,兰德公司最为著名。如今,在美国新军事革命的浪潮中,兰德公司的作用可谓举足轻重。本文着重讨论兰德公司近10年来对华军事政策研究态势,并试图从中归纳出一种可能的规律,从而为中国决策层制定对美政策提供“思想”。     

美国军事联盟中的网络安全合作及内在矛盾

随着数字时代和地缘政治变局的到来,美国试图将传统安全联盟延伸到网络空间,积极推进联盟内军事网络安全合作。美国以拒止威慑、报复威慑、集体威慑为手段牵引联盟网络安全合作、推进网络集体防卫,寻求实现其网络安全战略目标。美国军事联盟网络安全合作体系主要由双环构成,一环是北约,另一环是美日、美韩联盟,为了应对日益复杂的网络安全态势,目前双环正趋向合一。美国军事联盟网络安全合作已初具规模,但也存在国际法困境、联盟内部摩擦和“特朗普效应”冲击三重内在矛盾。美国持续推进其军事联盟中的网络安全合作将进一步模糊网络攻击和防御的界限、削弱国际法规的作用、刺激网络空间阵营化和军备竞赛,并给全球网络空间战略稳定带来消极影响。     

美国“重返东南亚”的军事外交评析

军事外交和军事合作在美国的东南亚战略中发挥了重要作用,成为维护美国的主导地位和围堵中国的战略选项。美国军事重返东南亚的战略部署完成于反恐战争时期。在奥巴马政府亚太战略调整的背景下,美国对东南亚的军事外交强调与盟友和战略伙伴的双边军事关系,也注重在多边场合的战略阐释,通过军事教育与合作项目向东南亚内陆国家实施军事渗透。美国重返东南亚的军事外交打破了中美地缘战略平衡,中美战略博弈日趋复杂。     

试论美国对苏维埃俄国的武装干涉

十月革命胜利后，美国参与了协约国对苏维埃俄国的武装干涉，并试图借此机会推翻苏维埃政权。由于美国的干涉遭到国内外民众的反对；参与干涉的各国，特剐是美日存在明显的矛盾；俄国反布尔什维克派别自身的腐败；俄国广大民众的英勇抵抗等因素，美国和协约国的武装干涉最终以失败告终。     

美国调整全球军事部署与美日同盟

2004年8月16日,美国总统布什宣布调整全球军事部署计划。这标志着美国安全战略的重大变化,目的是加强对世界的控制,必将对国际安全形势和与盟国的关系产生重大影响。驻日美军调整是美国调整全球军事部署的重要组成部分。美日同盟正在经历上世纪90年代中期美日安保条约重新定义以来的又一次转变。     

美国在亚太的军事部署

新世纪之交,美国在亚太地区的军事活动日益频繁:军事演习不断,对台军售增加,今年4月撞机事件后,8月下旬,美国在南海海域又进行了一次双航母战斗群作战演习。自90年代中期以来,美国在亚太的军事部署屡有大的动作,使人不得不对美国在亚太的军事战略和部署给予更多的关注。 美国在亚太地区的军事部署最早可追溯到一个多世纪以前。1898年美西战争后,美国取得了原西班牙的殖民地关岛和菲律宾,从而初步在西太平洋地区建立起军事立足点。第二次世界大战后,为了遏制苏联和中国等社会主义国家的“扩张”,美国在欧洲组建北约组织,与苏联对峙,在亚洲则拼凑以美国为首的军事联盟,对中国进行封锁和包围,从而逐步建立起以美日、美韩、美澳、美菲、美泰等军事条约为基础的亚太前沿军事体系。     

The size principle and the strategic basis of an alliance: Formalizing intuitions

At the end of the Cold War, attention is keenly turned towards predicting alliance behavior in the international system. As such the lessons from past history are important in helping us guide our expectations. One recent lesson, Schweller (1993), argued that the strategic basis of a coalition was decisive in determining the size of coalitions; offensive coalitions would be minimum winning while defensive coalitions would be maximal. We show that by formalizing in game theoretic terms what ‘seems reasonable,’ in fact does not yield these predictions. We find no support for the strategic basis of a coalition being determinate in predicting the size of a coalition. As such, formalizing the intuitions from the lessons of the past help guide us in our search for usable lessons in alliance formation.     

Coalition Quality and Multinational Dispute Outcomes1

Multinational military coalitions are an increasingly common phenomena in international conflict, presumably because coalitions are more likely to secure their conflict aims than single states. Yet what makes a coalition more or less likely to succeed is poorly understood. We argue that the quality of multinational military coalitions—in terms of the coalition’s skill, coordination, and legitimacy—can provide better strategic decisions, more harmonious relations within the coalition, and thus a greater chance of securing conflict aims. Empirical testing reveals that elements of coalition quality do in fact affect the probability of military success: a history of success, both alone and with the same coalition partners, predicts military success. Moreover, increasing a coalition’s legitimacy via more diverse members has a weak effect, indicating that diversity comes at the expense of coordination and cooperation challenges. Last, we find that elements of coalition quality affect initiating and defending coalitions differently.     

Anti-Americanism in Electoral Politics: Insights from South Korea's 2002 Presidential Election

Since September 11, 2001, anti-Americanism has emerged as an important issue in international politics. In democratic election campaigns, anti-Americanism should be an attractive issue where it is expected to have a favorable impact on key swing vote constituencies. Anti-Americanism has certain inherent ideological appeals and more varied historically-based attractions. Anti-Americanism should be least attractive where countries continue to rely on U.S. security guarantees. South Korea's December 2002 presidential election, in which winner Roh Moo-hyun openly sympathized with anti-American demonstrators, appears to contradict this expectation. Yet closer analysis of individual-level polling data shows that anti-Americanism was, both statistically and substantively, much less significant than alternative campaign issues. By activating the numerous voters hostile to the North Korean regime, anti-Americanism actually hurt the victor's electoral chances. The approach appears useful in understanding why anti-Americanism is a more prominent ideology and electoral issue in some regions, such as Western Europe and Latin America, and a less prominent one in others, for example Eastern Europe, East Asia, and Oceania.     

Negotiating Military Alliances: Legal Systems and Alliance Formation

Do domestic legal systems affect states' propensity to form military alliances? This article, building upon the existing research in international relations, adopts a socio-legal approach to understanding international treaty making. By focusing on the essence of international negotiations—communication between states' representatives—I argue that negotiating parties who share a common legal language have a common a priori understanding concerning concepts under discussion. Domestic laws operating within states impact the process of creation of international law embodied in treaties. Empirical analyses show that states with similar legal systems are more likely to form military alliances with one another. Additionally, domestic legal systems influence the way that states design their alliance commitments. In general, my findings suggest that the influence of domestic laws does not stop at “the water's edge.” It permeates the interstate borders and impacts the relations between states, especially the treaty negotiating and drafting process. International negotiators bring their legal backgrounds to the negotiating table, which influences both their willingness to sign treaties and the design of the resulting agreements.     

Fragile Proxies: Explaining Rebel Defection Against Their State Sponsors

Foreign governments frequently intervene in armed conflicts by sponsoring rebels against their adversaries. A sponsorship is less costly than a direct military intervention, but rebels often defy orders, desert fighting, or turn guns against their sponsors. Under what conditions do rebels defect against their sponsors? Drawing on organizational theory, I argue that as rebel organizations become less centralized and formalized, the rebels are likely to defect against their sponsors. This occurs because non-centralized organizations have weak central leadership and allow for dispersed decision-making, both of which narrow the manipulative capacity of sponsors. Due to these disadvantages, non-centralized rebel movements are less accountable to their sponsors, cannot credibly commit to rapidly change their policies in response to changes in the sponsor’s demands, and suffer from frequent and destructive quarrels between the top and lower echelons. Using multilevel logistic models for panel data, I test my argument on a novel dataset. My quantitative analysis shows that rebel structure is a robust predictor of defection.     

The Evolution of Political Violence: The Case of Somalia’s Al-Shabaab

This research investigates the development and expansion of the al-Shabaab movement in Somalia from 2000 to 2013. Initially a marginal player in Somalia, by 2013 al-Shabaab had transformed into the most formidable armed opposition to challenge the nascent Somali government and its allies. During this time period they administered territory domestically, while expanding their tactical repertoire and geographic scope of attacks. After analyzing the historical conditions (2000–2006) from which al-Shabaab emerged, I explore the evolution of this organization through the use of historical process tracing. This entails looking for critical junctures on a global, national, and local level that had a dramatic impact on the future trajectory of the insurgency. The results show that harsh foreign interventions had many deleterious consequences, acting as an initial impetus for armed resistance, while also acting as a continuous source of controversy which al-Shabaab exploited to gain new recruits. Moreover, irreconcilable intra-organizational schisms also contributed to altering the future organizational decisions made by al-Shabaab. The culmination of these results engage and expand the theory of categorical terrorism, offering observations to help scholars and policy makers alike begin to re-conceptualize ways to study terrorism and political violence.     

俄罗斯军事干预叙利亚危机的情感动机

俄罗斯自2015年9月30日开始军事干预叙利亚危机。目前,国内外学术界主要采取理性分析路径讨论俄罗斯军事干预叙利亚的动机,即认为俄罗斯是基于对利益的考虑而采取军事干预行动的。文章从情感角度考察俄罗斯的干预行为,认为俄罗斯的行动主要是受到对美国不满的驱动,因为美国干预叙利亚危机造成了对俄罗斯大国身份的蔑视。冷战后俄与西方之间的长期互动,使得俄面临\"身份遭到蔑视\"状态,从而形成针对西方的消极、压抑的\"情感定向\";而美国在叙利亚危机中的行为,进一步使俄感知到了对其身份的蔑视,从而激发了俄罗斯的\"道德悲愤\"和\"羞辱\"等\"指向情绪反应\"。在该情感的影响下,俄决定实施军事干预叙利亚危机这一\"复仇\"行为,其目的即在于警告西方不要再做出蔑视俄身份及情感的行为并重塑俄的身份和尊严。明晰俄军事干预叙利亚危机的行为逻辑,能为掌握俄罗斯与西方之间关系的发展前景以及中国在构建\"一带一路\"的过程中如何与俄罗斯相处等问题提供一定的启发。