东南亚地区形势:2006年

进入2006年以来,来自东南亚的一些坏消息频频传来,菲律宾发生泥石流,死亡上千人。泰国和菲律宾政府再次面对反对派的严峻挑战。尽管有这些坏消息,但对于大多数东南亚国家来说,2006年可能是一个好年头。经过几年的努力,新加坡、马来西亚和泰国已经从金融危机中走出来,重新进入一个新的增长期。在政治方面,大部分东南亚国家已经初步完成了从权威政治体制向民主政治体制的过渡,然而,这种转变带给一些国家的并不是经济发展与人民的福利, 而是更多的混乱。在安全方面,恐怖主义仍然是许多国家面临的严重威胁。在对外关系方面,面对迅速崛起的中国,东盟正在不断调整对华关系,新型的中国—东盟关系正在建立。     

公共管理学：定位与使命

公共管理学由行政学、公共行政学发展而来,其最初源头在政治学。所以,政治学对于公共行政学的意义,犹如经济学对工商管理学的意义。但是,公共管理学有自己特定的研究对象、学科体系和指导原则,因为,公共管理是一项独立的管理活动,其对象就是公共资源,其主体就是以政府为核心所形成的政府、市场、社会多元统一的公共治理体系;而其原则就是公共性、公正性和效益性的有机统一。在中国,公共管理学要走向成熟,实现科学化,关键是要关注中国公共管理的实践,创造中国公共管理理论。为此,中国公共管理学应该在3个方面作出努力:一是确立公共管理学特有的问题意识;二是确立中国公共管理的规范性价值体系;三是形成理论与实践能够相互转化的研究能力。     

Memorial for a Revolutionist: Dwight Macdonald,A Critical American

A quarter century after his death in 1982, Dwight Macdonald is, unjustly, a largely forgotten man. But for 35 years, from 1940 to 1975, he was America’s leading literary-intellectual journalist and the best-known cultural critic to the general public. An undogmatic iconoclast and self-professed “revolutionist,” his finest work makes him a worthy descendent of H.L. Mencken and Edmund Wilson. He is worth remembering. John Rodden is the author, most recently, of Every Intellectual’s big brother: George Orwell’s Literary Siblings (2007).     

威权政体转型中的政党与民主——印尼与韩国比较研究

政党是现代政治的产物,现代政党理论一般认为从政党政治里会自然生长出民主政治来.但是对于后发展国家来说,历史使其没有足够的时间重复西方发达国家渐进发展的道路,威权政体中政党活动对民主政治的影响要根据不同国家的具体情况.政党政治能否带来民主政治与这些国家的政党成熟程度、对法治的尊重、军队的改革特别是市民社会的发育程度有关.     

论“后后冷战时代”

自20世纪以来,国际政治经历了"帝国主义时代"、"冷战时代"和"后冷战时代"."9·11"事件后,世界进入"后后冷战时代"."后后冷战时代"具有包括大国冲突"退场"、多极世界形成、世界多样化和全球治理成为国际政治主题等特点.     

在推动农村妇女参政中促进社会性别平等--政府和非政府组织的努力与挑战

本文用社会性别视角分析了以民政部门为代表的政府机构如何在推动农村妇女参政中促进社会性别平等——制定积极的法规/政策、提高政策执行者的社会性别意识、在宣传动员中纳入社会性别平等、重视和发挥妇联组织作用等,分析了这些举措的效果和不足。     

适应世界潮流合乎人群需要--试论佛教与社会主义社会相适应

包括佛教在内的"宗教与社会主义社会相适应",不仅是党和政府的号召和要求,而且也是宗教界的自觉要求与行动.佛教应从经济、政治、思想文化等方面全面适应社会发展的需要.     

‘We’, ‘they’ and the ‘human’ in the middle: foreign interventions for ‘humanitarian reasons’ during the nineteenth century in Turkish historiography

This paper explores the way in which historiography produced in Turkey (or by Turkish scholars abroad) approaches foreign military/diplomatic interventions in the Ottoman Empire during the long nineteenth century. It focuses on three case studies where ‘humanitarian reasons’ formed the discursive basis/justification of such interventions. The author argues that when the distinction between victims and perpetrators, civilians and combatants, emerges as an interpretive dilemma in the debates of the historical period examined, similar interpretive and normative challenges are inherited by the historiographical accounts of it. The paper distinguishes two contrasting ways in which Turkish historiographical scholarship responds to such a dilemma. The first remains confined by the way Ottomans themselves viewed the world around them and uncritically reproduces rigid categories of selfhood and otherhood between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The second trajectory offers tools for understanding the conflicts behind the construction of the category of the human worth of international protection, and disentangles itself from the normative bind described above.     

Nakhchyvan,the Armenian arguments and the Allied Powers in 1919

The article explores the territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nakhchyvan region after the South Caucasus came under the Allied control following the Mudros Armistice of 30 October 1918. It analyses the arguments of the Armenian Government submitted to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 to substantiate its vision of territorial delimitation between the two republics with regard to Nakhchyvan, examines the positions of Azerbaijan and Armenia and the Allied Powers on the Nakhchyvan problem and assesses the impact of their stance on the settlement of the issue. It argues that the Armenian claims to the region were land-related, being part of the Armenian nationalist aim of constructing an expanded Armenia from the Mediterranean to Garabagh. It also argues that the Allied Powers were guided by their own interests while making proposals on the settlement of the conflict.     

When the butcher calls the hunter foul,and the muddied politics which follow: speciesism and the EU opposition to the Swedish wolf hunt

Abstract

Rarely does the death of animals cause conflict between governments. However, the killing of some animals, such as seals, wolves, and other exotic wildlife, can cause heated conflict over whether the act of killing is itself justifiable. This paper provides an overview of a recent disagreement along these lines: between the EU and Sweden over the management of wolves. It juxtaposes the recent politicalization of the wolf hunt with an overview of two very different moral frameworks that humans use to conceive of the value of animals. This paper argues that these two moral frameworks share in employing a human-centrism which consequently restricts how the issue of justice can be introduced into policy discussions regarding the treatment of animals. However, the primary assertion made here is that while these two frameworks are constituted by speciesism, they represent two different positions which as is illustrated by the debate surrounding the justifiability of the wolf hunt, provide very different points to which questions of justice are truncated or introduced. Therefore, the assertion made in this paper is that the conflict between the EU and Sweden, over the justifiability of the wolf hunt stems from competing speciesist positions.