International Relations Theory and Minimum Deterrence

ABSTRACT

India’s government under Narendra Modi represents a return to single party rule. This paper investigates whether and why single party governments in India differ in their extremity of foreign policies from coalition governments. It particularly focuses on how different forms of government influence the saliency, contestation, and enactment of national conceptions about India’s global role. First, I situate India within the academic debate regarding coalitional governments and foreign policy. I suggest that one reason why India challenges scholars‘ assumption is the missing link between partisan conceptions of India’s global role and their institutional representation. Second, I propose a role theoretical approach and argue that the process of self-identification, consisting of ego and anticipated alter expectations, conditions a state’s role set and extreme foreign policy. It is hypothesized that the nature of contestation of national role conceptions varies between factions and fractions because of the nature of India’s party system, as well as the relative significance of external others for India’s identity. Third, I examine instances of role-taking in the field of nuclearization and Sino-Indian relations. Findings suggest that contested role conceptions during single-party rule caused more extreme variances in international role-taking, while coalition governments proved to induce more complementary role-taking processes.     

"国际关系理论"辩识

对什么是"国际关系理论",人们存在着诸多争议,这些争议有些来源于对"国际关系"这一学科本身的定义,有些则来源于对什么是"理论"的分歧,本文拟从这两个方面着手,阐述对"国际关系理论"这一概念本身的看法.     

为什么没有中国的国际关系理论?

本文对中国国际关系研究中存在的问题进行了进一步的反思,认为机构中稳定的职业国际关系学者的匮乏,研究中科学与实证精神的忽视,问题意识的缺失,是中国国际关系研究发展的障碍所在。文章最后建议,中国国际关系研究应该坚持人文与科学两条研究方向,赋予国际关系研究以更多的政治哲学与科学含义。     

International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War

Ever since the first Korean war in 1950, scholars and policymakers have been predicting a second one, started by an invasion from the North. Whether seen as arising from preventive, preemptive, desperation, or simple aggressive motivations, the predominant perspective in the west sees North Korea as likely to instigate conflict. Yet for fifty years North Korea has not come close to starting a war. Why were so many scholars so consistently wrong about North Korea's intentions? Social scientists can learn as much from events that did not happen as from those that did. The case of North Korea provides a window with which to examine these theories of conflict initiation, and reveals how the assumptions underlying these theories can become mis-specified. Either scholars misunderstood the initial conditions, or they misunderstood the theory, and I show that scholars have made mistakes in both areas. Social science moves forward from clear statement of a theory, its causal logic, and its predictions. However, just as important is the rigorous assessment of a theory, especially if the predictions fail to materialize. North Korea never had the material capabilities to be a serious contender to the U.S.–ROK alliance, and it quickly fell further behind. The real question has not been whether North Korea would preempt as South Korea caught up, but instead why North Korea might fight as it fell further and further behind. The explanation for a half-century of stability and peace on the Korean peninsula is actually quite simple: deterrence works.     

本体论问题与国际关系理论研究

国际关系理论历来存在着本体论、认识论和方法论之间的整合问题。这三者整合得好 ,会发展出成功的理论范式 ,从而极大地促进国际关系理论的创新和发展。其中 ,就“理论价值”而言 ,本体论显然具有更为重要的意义。因为它关系到国际关系的存在形式是什么的最基本问题 ,也关系到国际关系理论的基本内核是什么的本源性课题。从西方国际关系主流理论的第三次、第四次论战来看 ,它们均直接与本体论问题有关 ,被认为是国际关系学界最大的理论反思和本体思辨 ,这种理论反思和本体思辨已经大大促进了国际关系理论的发展。就中国的国际关系理论发展和建设来说 ,只有在本体论上取得突破 ,才能建构起中国学派。需要强调的是 ,以自己的本体论为基础 ,建构中国式的国际关系理论 ,可以为中国的国际关系理论和学科建设不断注入新的知识源泉 ,并提供知识再生产的能力     

Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations

A half-decade after the first systematic applications of prospect theory to international relations, scholars continue to debate its potential utility as a theoretical framework. Key questions include the validity of the experimental findings themselves, their relevance for real-world international behavior that involves high-stakes decisions by collective actors in interactive settings, and the conceptual status of prospect theory with respect to rational choice. In this essay I assess theoretical and methodological debates over these issues. I review work in social psychology and experimental economics and conclude that challenges to the external validity of prospect theory-based hypotheses for international behavior are much more serious than challenges to their internal validity. I emphasize the similarities between prospect theory and expected-utility theory, argue that hypotheses regarding loss aversion and the reflection effect are easily subsumed within the latter, and that evidence of framing effects and nonlinear responses to probabilities are more problematic for the theory. I conclude that priorities for future research include the construction of hypotheses on the framing of foreign policy decisions and research designs for testing them; the incorporation of framing, loss aversion, and the reflection effect into theories of collective and interactive decision making; and experimental research that is sensitive to the political and strategic context of foreign policy decision making.     

Toward an International Relations Theory of National Innovation Rates

The ability of nations to innovate technologically plays an important causal role in both security studies and international political economy. Explanations for national differences in technological capabilities, however, have had little place in international relations theory. This gap is partly the result of assumptions made by scholars that the rate and direction of technological change are determined by a state's domestic institutions and policies. This article will bring together recent findings about the political economy of technological innovation in order to show that much of this conventional wisdom is incorrect. Instead, it will be shown that, due to the distributive nature of technological change, different combinations of domestic tensions and external security concerns motivate elites to pursue or eschew a technologically competitive economy. Institutions are not causal, they are merely instrumental. Recent findings in the economic development literature therefore have important implications for security studies.     

超越两分法:女性主义国际关系理论的前途

女性主义国际关系理论为国际关系学的发展做出了重大贡献。遗憾的是,近二十年的发展依然没有使其摆脱国际关系学边缘的地位。本文从两分法的批判出发,探讨女性主义兴起的根源,由此阐述女性主义国际关系理论的议程、困境和重构之路。本文认为,女性主义者与传统理论学者之间不正常的争论及女性主义理论在经验论、立场论和方法论上的悖论是女性主义国际关系理论长期处于边缘的两大原因。女性主义者未能超越两分法逻辑,不得不寻求理论的重构之路。     

依附论与拉美国际关系研究

依附论作为二战后拉美主流意识形态,其影响甚广。依附论对拉美国际关系研究产生的影响主要体现在它是一种研究拉美国际关系的本土化的研究视角,也是一种分析拉美外交政策的工具。20世纪80年代以来,由于这一理论所持的极端外因论和悲观论缺陷,逐渐出现了拉美国际关系研究领域主流理论和本土化理论相结合的趋势。同时,依附论也开始走出拉美进入主流国际关系理论家的视野,成为引发国际政治学界关注不发达问题的主要理论动因,也成为国际政治经济学中超越现实主义和自由主义两大发展脉络的“第三种声音”。     

西方国际关系学界的五次学派争论及启示

在20世纪西方国际关系理论史上,共爆发了传统现实主义与理想主义、传统主义与行为主义、跨国主义与现实主义、新现实主义与新自由主义、反思主义与理性主义五次学派争论。争论既有尖锐对立、不可通约性的一面,也有着相互渗透、互相融合的一面,既展示了学科中的分歧与对立,也在理论观点、学派建设、方法论等方面为国际关系学壳的发展作出了重要的贡献,促进了学科建设。更重要的是,通过学科争论逐渐形成了国际关系学科的一些基本共识,这些共识不仅推动了国际关系作为独立学科的进程,也是今后国际关系学科进一步发展的重要基础。     

国际关系格局的调整与拉美对外关系的变化

随着全球化深入发展、新兴发展中大国崛起以及伊拉克战争和金融危机对美国霸权的冲击,当前国际关系格局正发生深刻的变化.     

拉丁美洲国家对外关系的变化与调整

在2009年拉美国家对外关系的变化与调整中,值得关注的问题有以下几个方面. 一美国对拉美政策的调整及美拉关系 奥巴马的政治及少数族裔背景、多边主义的主张、奉行变革外交和改善美拉关系的承诺令拉美国家对奥巴马上台后的美拉关系充满期待.     

Contemporary International Relations

About Us Contemporary International Relations (ISSN1003-3408), a policy-oriented research journal, was inspired by the need for international communication in a period of rapid Chinese development; it has been published by China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations since 1990. Originally produced as a single-paper pamphlet, in 1992 it was established as a regular monthly     

Contemporary International Relations

About Us Contemporary International Relations (ISSN1003-3408), a policy-oriented research journal, was inspired by the need for international communication in a period of rapid Chinese development; it has been published by China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations since 1990. Originally produced as a single-paper pamphlet, in