Sovereignty and the Foreign Fighter Problem

Sovereignty is the bedrock of international law. If security requires that the United States transgress sovereign borders to attack foreign fighters and their support networks hiding in third countries, then the U.S. should adopt a strategy to amend international law accordingly. One should not be too quick, however, to disregard a robust notion of sovereignty, a concept that has helped avert conflict among the world's major powers. The United States needs a strategy for sovereignty's future that is based in the emerging security context and a prioritization of American interests. Instead, the United States and the rest of the world are meandering toward a less robust sovereignty with weaker and more ambiguous international law. The U.S. and its global interests would be better served by strong and clear international rules that increase predictability and that confer legitimacy to action against dangerous enemies.     

China-U.S. Trade——the Path of Development

The United States is the world's largest economy and China is ranked number four; together the two countries comprise one third of the global economy. 40% of the international economic growth is sustained by the two countries. In terms of international trade, the United States and China are the first and the third largest trading nations respectively. Trade developments of these two countries have a huge impact on international imports and exports.     

China-U.S. Trade——the Path of Development

The United States is the world's largest economy and China is ranked number four; together the two countries comprise one third of the global economy. 40% of the international economic growth is sustained by the two countries. In terms of international trade, the United States and China are the first and the third largest trading nations respectively. Trade developments of these two countries have a huge impact on international imports and exports.     

Defense Industries and Global Dependency

The global defense industrial sector is a remarkably accurate indicator of the distribution of power in the post-Cold War international system. However, the defense industrial sector as a policy tool has received relatively little scrutiny, even though it not only reflects the international order, but also provides the United States with the ability to influence the foreign policy behavior of other states. The defense industrial sector is a powerful, if undervalued, diplomatic tool in the United States’ political arsenal.     

美国全球卫生安全战略及其对世界卫生安全体系的挑战

进入21世纪以来,新型冠状病毒、埃博拉、重症急性呼吸综合征以及甲流感等新发和复发传染病危机对全球卫生安全构成严重威胁,因此,如何促进全球卫生安全治理是当今国际社会亟待解决的问题。尽管美国曾经在全球卫生安全治理中发挥了重要作用,但尚未形成清晰的全球卫生安全治理政策。美国于2019年5月首次发布《全球卫生安全战略》,标志着特朗普政府全球卫生安全政策正式出台。该《全球卫生安全战略》以应对传染病威胁为核心,呈现出了以国家安全为导向和"全政府"路径的特点,充分体现了特朗普政府的"负担分担""美国优先"和反多边主义的思维。在全球卫生安全领域,各国已成为"因病相依"的全球命运共同体。有效的全球卫生安全治理需要全球多边主义,特朗普政府以国家安全为导向和以"美国优先"为原则的《全球卫生安全战略》与全球卫生安全的实现之间存在张力。特朗普政府的上述思维不仅侵蚀了全球卫生安全体系建构所必需的国际政治合作基础,也恶化了全球卫生安全的融资体系,因此对全球卫生安全体系构成了挑战。     

China and Global Energy Markets

China's emergence as a global economic powerhouse has caused the world economy to become more oil intensive and energy policy to become a key component of China's foreign policy. Responsibility for the country's energy policy is split among various commissions and is further complicated by overlaps with social, industrial, local-central governmental relations, and geopolitical considerations. To the extent China's leadership succeeds in meeting these challenges, it will have major repercussions for the rest of the world, and in particular on China's relations with the United States. But conflict between the United States and China is far from inevitable, as long as the global price mechanism operates reasonably efficiently and Washington and Beijing can operate in partnership rather than rivalry.     

Command of the Sea with Chinese Characteristics

As globalization accelerates, U.S. foreign policy makers have become less convinced of the influence geopolitics and power politics have on international affairs. They now risk losing touch with rising competitors like China that continue to view the international system in geopolitical terms. Chinese geopolitical strategists have great influence with the country's defense policy makers, who are focusing increasingly on the need for China to establish command of the seas—a goal that threatens conflict between it and the United States throughout Asia. In order to prevent a return to a world dominated by aggressive, geopolitically driven actors, the United States cannot afford to assume that China shares its worldview and that geopolitics has disappeared from international relations.     

澳大利亚与东南亚关系研究述论

随着澳大利亚白皮书明确将其与美国、日本、中国和印尼的关系列为最为重要的四大外交关系,学术界日益重视对澳大利亚对外关系和外交决策的研究。本文对近年来我国学术界对澳大利亚与东南亚关系的研究进行回顾和评析,并提出一些学术设想。     

The Beliefs of the Blob

The conventional wisdom of US foreign policy has at its core a set of widely held yet underexamined beliefs. Together, these notions constitute the essence of what has become tendentiously known as “the blob,” or the official mind of US national security. Debates and analyses can proceed more productively if foreign policy beliefs, rather than the people who hold them, are moved to the center of analysis. The blob is a mindset, not a group of individuals—one that is based on a few basic assumptions about the world and the United States’ place in it. This article describes what those beliefs are and how they influence US foreign policy.     

New Structures of American Foreign Strategy Since 9/11--Seeking Cooperation with Asia-Pacific Countries

When George W. Bush entered the White House in early 2001,American foreign policy was based on unilateral principles and favored disengagement from global conflict resolution. The United States declared it's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, refused to negotiate with North Korea, and, in particular, it's pursuit of a national ballstic missile defense system,in face of global opposition, further reinforced the position of its unilateralism.The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 came as a shock to the world. The United States suffered not only physical casualties, but felt a psychological blow as well. For the first time since the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States had been attacked at home. Unlike Pearl Harbor, the attacks on September 11 targeted civilians and the cornerstones of the American way of life- their financial and government centers. The terrorist attacks forced the Bush administration to re-examine it approach to foreign policy Seeking cooperation with other powers will be the new choice for American foreign strategy.     

Statecraft and Migration: A Research Note on American Strategies to Use Immigration in Foreign Policy from the Founding Era through the Early Twenty-First Century

How has the United States used migration as part of its statecraft and foreign policy? This question is significant because migration is an important contemporary transnational policy area for the United States; and because a state’s foreign-immigration policy nexus remains an under-explored vantage point for examining diplomatic and international history. This review article answers the question and lays conceptual and empirical ground in the area by examining the historical record and extant research to show that American leaders from the country’s founding through the early twenty-first century have used migration as an instrument of statecraft by primarily attempting to reach three foreign policy objectives: pleasing, harming, and bargaining with states. For each of these categories, the analysis explicates relationships between statecraft and migration for the United States, identifies policy instruments used by American leaders to influence migration for diplomatic and foreign policy objectives, and presents historical cases of American migration policies designed for foreign policy goals. The conclusion provides the research and policy implications of its findings.     

Reviving the Rhetoric of Realism: Politics and Responsibility in Grand Strategy

In both disciplinary history and contemporary methodology, realism is conventionally cast as the antithesis of rhetoric. Born in reaction against the empty liberal rhetoric of interwar liberalism and espousing a robust materialism and rigorous rationalism, realism often seems the obstacle that rhetoric's focus on language, narrative, and social construction must inevitably confront and the challenge around which debates must again inevitably revolve. This article challenges this vision of the relationship between rhetoric and realism. Returning to the birth of international relations in the immediate post-war era, we demonstrate that early realists perceived rhetoric as central to action in domestic as well as international politics and that it was particularly important in the United States. This realist rhetoric is marked by an engagement with grand politics, with the relationship between rhetoric, political identity, social mobilization, political leadership, and foreign policy. Rather than taking either the American state or its national interest for granted, post-war realists sought to counter the dangers of the dominant historical rhetorics of American foreign policy and to develop an alternative rhetoric that could insulate American democracy from destructive tensions and provide the basis for robust and responsible action in world affairs. Recovering the relationship between realism and rhetoric is important not only in challenging disciplinary and methodological orthodoxies that obstruct creative theorizing, but also for its incisive contributions to thinking about American foreign policy amidst the profound changes and challenges it confronts today.     

《中导条约》与全球战略稳定论析

《中导条约》是冷战期间美苏达成的一项重要军控条约,是全球战略稳定的支柱之一。2019年8月,美俄相继退约,引发国际社会极大关注。人们担心,条约退场将冲击全球战略稳定,刺激军备竞赛,影响欧亚安全形势,削弱国际军控体系。中国是美国退约重要借口之一,条约作废势必深刻影响中国外部安全环境。《中导条约》从诞生、发展到消亡,有着深刻的国际、国内和个人三个层面的演变动因,归根结底起决定性作用的是国际格局变迁。20世纪80年代,苏美攻守异势促成了《中导条约》的诞生;进入21世纪后,北约对俄的挤压以及中导技术扩散促使俄罗斯抛出条约全球化倡议;近年来,美国霸权地位相对衰落促其选择退约。但美俄两国政治形势变化及领导人更迭也深刻影响了条约的“生、住、变、灭”的时机和方式。戈尔巴乔夫的“新思维”改革与当时高涨的核裁军运动为签署《中导条约》提供了特殊的政治、社会背景。特朗普政府奉行“美国优先”理念,频频废约“退群”,《中导条约》随之沦为牺牲品。在不同历史时期,陆基中导在全球战略稳定中所起的作用不同。在20世纪60年代初,它是美苏中央威慑的支柱。在20世纪70~80年代,它是影响延伸威慑的重要因素。进入21世纪后,它成为俄罗斯对付美国导弹防御的斗争手段。当前,陆基中导在跨域威慑中扮演日益重要的角色。大国中导博弈正卷土重来,但它必将带有与以往不同的诸多新特点。     

新一届美国政府对外政策及影响前瞻笔谈

近年来,世界多极化趋势不断发展,美国主导的全球秩序开始显露坍缩征兆。然而,美国仍然保持着当今世界唯一的超级大国地位,其内政外交政策选择一直具有全球性影响。特朗普政府实施的"美国优先"政策对全球秩序造成了严重冲击,特别是对华发动极限施压性的"贸易战"和战略竞争,使中美关系发生严重倒退。特朗普政府随心所欲、极端强硬的执政风格,不仅招致很多国家的激烈批判和反对,在美国国内也引起了巨大争议。美国大选已经落下帷幕,尽管现任总统特朗普仍然没有承认和接受败选事实,但美国政府更迭已经无可逆转。新一届美国政府将采取什么样的对外政策?我们将如何应对美国因政府更迭而发生的政策调整?为加强对美国对外政策的前瞻研究,2020年11月5日,本刊编辑部联合吉林大学经济学院、现代国际关系研究所、东北亚研究院、东北亚研究中心、美国研究所等单位召开了"美国大选后的世界格局与中美关系"学术研讨会,10位专家做了会议发言。本刊选择其中3篇和另外1篇投稿摘要刊发,希望能够促进对美国新一届政府内政外交政策的前瞻性研究。     

全球公共卫生治理的制度重叠及其应对之策

近年来,全球公共卫生治理体系彼此通过议题联结、成员联系和功能互动形成了密切的国际制度重叠,包括以世卫组织为核心的联合国诸公共卫生制度、以盖茨基金会等为代表的非正式公共卫生制度、以二十国集团为代表的涉卫新型国际制度以及特朗普政府试图打造的美式国际公共卫生制度。制度重叠是国际公共卫生秩序的结构性特征,可能会约束与限制世卫组织治理有效性的发挥。全球公共卫生议题的复杂性、全球公共卫生治理的政治化倾向和世卫组织的治理限度决定了协同治理具有必然性和紧迫性,为此,国际社会需要秉持人类卫生健康共同体理念,坚持公共卫生多边主义,警惕美国另起炉灶对全球公共卫生治理的冲击。同时,世卫组织发挥协同治理功能的制度化需求迫在眉睫。此外,新型国际公共卫生治理制度是推动多元制度协同治理的重要力量,将发挥愈加凸显的关键作用。作为国际公共卫生体系的重要成员,中国的负责任国际承诺为国际公共卫生制度重叠提供了重要的协调路径,中国支持世卫组织发挥领导作用,加强在联合国、二十国集团、世贸组织、金砖国家集团等多边制度框架内的协调配合和相互支撑,推动构建人类卫生健康共同体。     

从错误知觉角度看中国印尼复交迟滞问题

中国和印尼关系是亚太地区重要的双边关系。然而历史上两国关系发展却并不顺利。苏哈托统治时期,中印尼关系长期处于中断状态。即使在亚洲乃至世界各国纷纷与中国建交、复交的情况下,印尼仍坚持不与中国复交,其中原因非常复杂。文章从国际政治认知心理学的角度,着重从历史包袱、诱发定势和认知相符这3个方面分析印尼对中国的错误知觉及其对印尼决定与中国复交的影响,并就构建两国友好关系的心理基础提出自己的建议。     

Working with the European Union

The past year saw growing uncertainty about the future of the European Union. Whether it becomes weaker or stronger, and whether it acts as a global partner or competitor, the United States cannot afford to ignore the eu. By understanding the different eu decision-making processes for defense, foreign policy, counterterrorism, and economic issues, the United States can do a better job of advancing its interests in Europe.     

陆国忠文英译文

Ever since Sept. 11 events, international situation has undergone remarkable changes. Not only has the United States made major readjustments to its security strategy and foreign policy, but major powers in the world have also adjusted their foreign and security policies in order to adapt to the new development in international situation. In its effort to fight terrorism, the U.S. has to rely heavily on its allies, and in Asia it attaches much importance to the role Japan can play while the latter has given active support to the former in that war. The greater intimacy of the Japan- US relations has become even more outstanding in the recent interrelations of major powers in the Asia- Pacific region. This development and its effect on the international situation deserve to be reckoned with.     

The Two Halves of Sports-Diplomacy

ABSTRACT

What strategies does the United States pursue when it no longer perceives overt military intervention as politically viable or desirable but the problems or issues for which it was formerly undertaken remain? This analysis identifies three such periods in American foreign policy since the United States became a World Power and draws from the work of Peter Hall to develop a typology of strategies according to the magnitude of policy change. These range from adjustment in the settings of interventionism – persistence; the substitution of alternative instruments of foreign policy – ameliorism; and the principled rejection of interventionism in conjunction with a more systematic critique of prevailing foreign policy assumptions – transformationalism. Yet each approach is beset by certain structural limits and contradictions arising from the domestic politics and constitutional-institutional system of the United States that are important in understandiing and appreciating more fully the challenges – and opportunities – of the period ‘after interventionism’.