Continuity and change in Russia's policy toward Central and Eastern Europe

The accession of the CEE states to NATO and the European Union has put an end to the geopolitical ambiguity and implicit insecurity in the region between Russia and the so-called ‘Old Europe’. Instead of being an area of great powers' rivalry, elements of ‘buffer belts’ lacking meaningful strategic options, objects of raw Nazi-Soviet deals, or zones under Russian occupation and domination, the three Baltic States and the Visegrad group countries became full-fledged members of the European Union and were given NATO's security guarantees. By the middle of the 2000s, one would conclude that traditional geopolitics had ended in this region.However, the changes in the strategic situation in CEE have not changed the deep rooted moving forces and long-term strategic goals of the Russian policy toward the region. Moscow seeks to have the position, as its official rhetoric says, of an ‘influential centre of a multipolar world’ that would be nearly equal to the USA, China, or the EU. With this in view Moscow seeks for the establishment of its domination over the new independent states of the former USSR and for the formation of a sphere of influence for itself in Central Eastern Europe. If it achieves these goals, then Europe may return once again to traditional geopolitics fraught with great power rivalries and permanent instabilities radiating far beyond CEE borders.Yet a few questions remain. Has Russia come to the conclusion that attempting to restore its privileged position of influence in Central-Eastern Europe is wrong? Has Russia enough power to threaten the CEE countries? How credible are NATO's security guarantees? How may Russian behavior in CEE affect a wider European geopolitical context? These questions are appropriate in the light of Russia's ‘resurgence’ as a revanchist power and because Russia is, and most probably will remain in the next five to ten years, a weighty economic and strategic factor in areas along the Western borders of the former USSR.     

Theory of Land-Ocean Peaceful Cooperation: a Geopolitical Study of the Sustainable Security of One Belt One Road

The joint establishment of One Belt One Road is a practice of international cooperation initiated by China and actively participated by other countries. One of the important issues is how to ensure sustainable common security, and what kind of geopolitical theory should be employed for guidance. Traditional geopolitical theories, such as sea power theory, land power theory and Rimland theory, mainly serve for the fi ght for geopolitical hegemony or military strategy. They are in sharp contrast with the goal of One Belt One Road, which is of mutual interest and a win-win situation. However, One Belt One Road is still regarded by some countries from the traditional geopolitical perspective. To equip One Belt One Road with new geopolitical concepts, the author hereby proposes the theory of land-ocean peaceful cooperation, which is a non-alliance network community of common interests, security and destiny. This community would be established for mutual benefi ts, between ocean countries and land countries, among ocean countries and among land countries. It could help policy communication among participant countries of One Belt One Road, and the establishment of an open net-like system of peaceful operation and common development. The theory of land-ocean peaceful cooperation of sustainable security, together with the practice of international cooperation of One Belt One Road, will undoubtedly break through the vicious cycle of the Eurasian geographical fi ght and confrontation between sea powers and land powers illustrated by the traditional geopolitics.     

中国破产法理论研究的现实状况与未来路向

尽管缺乏历史传统和深厚的理论积淀,但在与破产法立法的良性互动中,通过汲取发达国家的破产法理论的有机养分,中国破产法理论研究仍得以快速发展。目前,中国破产法理论研究已形成了相当的规模,并取得了突出的成效,但也存在"浮萍化"、"集合式"的不足。未来中国破产法理论研究应当以建立成熟的开放式的破产法学科体系为终极目标,在最近的几年内则应着力解决破产法实施中的突出问题。     

作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识初探

作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识,由两大类别或层面构成:社会心理层面的“人类命运共同体”意识和社会意识形式层面的“人类命运共同体”意识。前者是作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识的文化心理基础,是直接连接这一复杂意识体与现实世界的桥梁,并为社会意识形式层面的“人类命运共同体”意识输送“素材”和“原始动力”,以及决定其起积极作用的程度和其传播的速度和深度,影响其走向。后者是作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识的“升华”部分,直接标示着这一复杂意识体的水准;它具有以理论化、系统化、定型化的形式自觉引导现实世界,在越来越大的程度上实现“人类以相互包容为基础的共生共存共赢共享共担当共发展的可持续性趋势”的功能,并推动社会心理层面的“人类命运共同体”意识的发展,使其发挥持续和稳定的作用,规定其发展方向。这两者间的区别和联系,显示了作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识,其内部的差异和矛盾,以及其存在与发展的规律和特点。从逻辑上看,如果不能全面、正确地认识和把握作为复杂意识体的“人类命运共同体”意识这两大层面间的区别和联系,那么不仅会使对“人类命运共同体”意识的研究走入歧途,而且也会损害“共同构建人类命运共同体”的伟大事业。     

未来社会的一种精神自觉与生活态度

从思想史这个角度看 ,人类自觉精神的拓展与深化是无所不及的。近代以来 ,人的自觉与主体精神的高扬使人的解放成了时代的主题。相信经历全球现代化的过程 ,人类自觉精神的拓展必将叠位于中国传统文化的仁善之域。仁、孝在未来社会作为人类的自觉精神和生活态度将予以确认。     

云南少数民族体育产业化发展的阶段性及目标

研究云南少数民族体育产业化发展必须经历的阶段性及其目标 ,是推进少数民族体育产业化的重要依据。根据产业化的一般规律 ,结合云南省的实际 ,可将云南少数民族体育产业化发展分为三个阶段及发展目标 :培育阶段 ;成长阶段 ;成熟阶段。     

全球和合共生系统理论与中国周边命运共同体

全球和合共生系统理论是共生理论与系统理论相互融合而形成的全新框架体系,可以作为构建人类命运共同体和中国周边命运共同体的理论分析范式和理论依据。全球和合共生系统理论认为,世界上的一切事物都是一个大系统中的共生体,必须从全球的角度来构建命运共同体。国际体系各组成部分之间的关系是辩证的,即对立的统一。全球体系内部与中国周边体系内部的互相依赖既有积极的一面,又有消极的一面。积极的相互依存是指相互依存的双方都从关系中受益,而消极的相互依存是指任何一方对相互依存关系的破坏都可能给另一方甚至双方带来损失。构建中国周边命运共同体是全球共生体系高级阶段的目标。全球和合共生系统理论的相互依存论决定了优化中国周边体系以实现中国周边命运共同体的必要性。以相互尊重为前提,以公平正义为核心,以合作共赢为目标,应成为构建中国周边命运共同体的三个关键要素。我们应以此来推进构建新型国际关系,进而建立中国周边命运共同体。     

资本全球化的生态风险及其规避

资本主义崛起和发展的历史是一部资本全球化的历史,即资本流向全球、在全世界扩张蔓延的历史。在此历史过程中,造成资本积累的空间矛盾与生态危机的全球化,不断加剧对欠发达国家或地区生态空间的占有与剥夺。发展中国家总体上处于全球产业链的底端,在追求经济社会发展的道路上不可避免地会遇到资本全球化的生态风险挑战,甚至陷入资本权力构筑的生态陷阱。面对全球化浪潮与资本的全球化,发展中国家不可能完全拒斥资本,但也不能对其听之任之,应建立国内统一大市场,掌握经济社会发展的主动权;设立生态门槛,限制和导控国际资本;聚合广大发展中国家之力,构建国际公认的生态话语权;推进人类命运共同体建设,加强全球生态治理,维护全球生态安全,在持续推进全球化进程中实现人与自然的和谐共生。     

“一方有难,八方支援”在疫情防控中的实践效度与精神向度

无论从实践效度还是精神向度看,"一方有难,八方支援"都为打赢疫情防控的人民战争、总体战、阻击战贡献了巨大力量。从实践效度看,它是一种行动力量,彰显了中国特色社会主义制度优势;从精神向度看,它是一种精神力量,为抗击疫情筑牢了精神防线,提升了防疫效能,为培育社会主义核心价值观、繁荣社会主义先进文化、构建人类命运共同体发挥了应有的作用。     

人类共同价值的生成逻辑及其内在维度

人类共同价值是构建人类命运共同体的基本话语,它正在得到越来越多的国家的响应和认同,成为不同国家和民族共同接受和遵循的价值话语。多种宏观要素和社会历史条件有机统一,共同作用,形成了人类共同价值的生成逻辑及其内在维度。人类共同价值是当今人类实践活动深度融合的价值反映,是各个国家共同利益不断增强的价值共识,是当今时代各国应对共同挑战的价值立场,是国际社会反对西方普世价值的价值诉求,是不同国家自觉进行价值互鉴的价值结果,是各个国家构建全球价值格局的价值愿景。只有深刻理解人类共同价值的生成逻辑及其内在关系,才能真正把握人类共同价值的科学内涵和正确取向。