国家保护责任理论论析

国家保护责任理论以个人的主权观与安全观为核心,提出了国家与国际社会向处在危险中的人民提供生命支持保护及援助的预防责任、做出反应责任以及重建责任。国家保护责任理论是对传统的主权、安全观的重新阐释,同时也对安理会的作用进行了扩张解释。我们必须警惕国家保护责任理论以所谓普世的西方价值观来对另一个国家实施预防、反应以及重建的责任,如果不对相关的干涉行为设定必要的限制,必然会是对他国赤裸裸的干涉。     

国际法视角下的柏威夏寺领土争端及其对我国的启示

柬埔寨、泰国间的柏威夏寺领土争端吸引了全世界的关注.联合国国际法院曾于1962年对柬埔寨与泰国间的柏威夏寺领土争端案进行裁判,该裁判对国际领土争端的相关原则进行了阐释和重申,在国际法上产生了广泛的影响.对这一裁判进行回顾和解析,不仅有利于我们更好地了解当前柬埔寨与泰国间关于柏威夏寺的争端,也可对我国边界争端的解决提供某种借鉴.     

特朗普政府“印太战略构想”评析

特朗普政府推出“印太战略构想”是为了应对世界大变局,替代奥巴马政府“亚太再平衡”战略和保持有利于美国的地区战略平衡。其主要特点包括：在“有原则的现实主义”和“美国优先的国家安全战略”指导下,加强印太地区联盟和伙伴体系;构建“美日澳印四边形安全合作机制”;形成有利于美国的印太地区经济关系。特朗普政府“印太战略构想”将增加美国联盟体系的内在矛盾;美日澳印四边形安全机制面临印度弱角问题;“印太战略构想”目标与财政资源不相称;战略目标之间自相矛盾。特朗普政府“印太战略构想”将进一步增加中美关系的复杂性和竞争性;向美国的盟国和伙伴国发出错误信号;有利于日本加强自身军事实力和扩张海权势力范围。     

North Korea and the East Asian Security order: competing views on what South Korea ought to do

This article investigates South Korean views on how to deal with the two major security issues regarding North Korea: its nuclear threat and regime instability. In this Special Section, the article analyzes the ongoing debate in South Korea over the government's policy toward North Korea in regard to these two issues. It argues that uncertainties about these two major issues are shaping the regional order in East Asia. In particular, the different levels of cooperation between South Korea and the United States may affect the regional security order in East Asia. In analyzing policy options available to South Korea, the riskiest option would be to employ early preemptive attacks and accelerate the collapse of North Korea given the security dilemma-driven action?reaction in East Asia. Given that the role of China has become the most crucial factor in dealing with North Korea, the most promising strategy would be to reinforce guarantees of extended nuclear deterrence and prompt a soft-landing unification.     

Islamophobic conspiracism and neoliberal subjectivity: the inassimilable society

O’Donnell analyses the confluence of Islamophobia and anti-government conspiracy theory in the works of the far-right think tank, the Center for Security Policy (CSP). He argues that, rather than only being a contemporary form of the religious and racialized demonologies that code ‘Islam’ as being the constitutive outside of ‘the ‘West—irrational, religious and authoritarian versus rational, secular and democratic—Islamophobic conspiracism should also be examined in the context of anxieties over the erosion of personal and state sovereignty under neoliberalization. Mobilizing an Islamophobic demonology that constructs ‘Muslims’ as inassimilable to ‘American’ subjectivity, the CSP's Islamophobic conspiracism projects this construction of absolute alterity on to American social and state systems. In doing so, O’Donnell contends, Islamophobic conspiracism takes neoliberalization's estrangement of the state and its citizens to its logical conclusion, transfiguring the societal processes that impact on the freedom of the individual—notably the state and civil society—into something inassimilable to that individual's claims to self-ownership and self-mastery.     

Public support for coercive diplomacy: Exploring public opinion data from ten European countries

Scholarship has increasingly acknowledged the importance of public attitudes for shaping the European Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Economic sanctions emerged as one of CFSP's central tools. Yet despite the emergence of sanctions as a popular instrument in the EU foreign policy toolbox, public attitudes towards sanctions are yet to be studied in depth. This article explains public support for EU sanctions, using the empirical example of sanctions against Russia. It looks at geopolitical attitudes, economic motivations and ideational factors to explain the variation in public support for sanctions. The conclusion suggests that geopolitical factors are the most important, and that economic factors matter very little. Euroscepticism and anti‐Americanism play an important role in explaining the support for sanctions at the individual level.     

The In-securitisation of Youth in the South and East Mediterranean

The securitisation of youth as a social category has been well-documented. For the South and East Mediterranean (SEM) countries, moral panics over demographic youth bulges, Islamist radicalisation and protracted conflicts have placed youth centre-stage as a threat to the security of states and societies. Rejecting such assertions as themselves being what Foucault might have termed ‘technologies of power’ in a neoliberal order, and instead taking a critical approach to security, the spotlight is turned towards youth themselves as the referent object of study. This reveals the multidimensional hyper-precarity and insecuritisation of young peoples’ lives which derive from that same neoliberal economic order and the political structures that sustain it in the SEM countries. The finding resonates with other studies of new, insecure, formats for adulthood in Africa and suggests that we should look at the insecurity of young people today to understand global neoliberal futures in countries beyond the post-industrial ‘core’.     

Towards food sovereignty: interrogating peasant voice in the United Nations Committee on World Food Security

The goal of the direct participation of food producer constituencies – and other citizens – is a key component of food sovereignty, the policy framework first launched by La Vía Campesina and engendering the much wider food sovereignty movement. In this paper, I outline the reasons why the reform of the United Nations Committee on World Food Security (CFS) can be regarded as historically significant to this goal. Focusing upon the CFS's aspirations for inclusivity, I outline a framework for interrogating the experiences of social movement activists representing food producer constituencies seeking to convert their formal right to participate in the CFS into substantive participation. Going beyond the capturing of their experiences, the framework also reveals the different ways in which their challenges in attaining substantive participation can be overcome, with a particular emphasis upon adjustments within the arena itself. The paper concludes with an overview of the research agenda suggested by Raj Patel (2009), amongst others, and alluded to further in the content of this paper.     

东盟争端解决机制的兴起、演进与启示

东盟争端解决机制自1996年正式形成以来,已历经1996年的《争端解决机制议定书》、2004年的《东盟促进争端解决机制议定书》和2010年的《东盟宪章争端解决机制议定书》三次变化。东盟争端解决机制的成因在于东盟区域一体化目标的推动以及“东盟方式”固有的制度缺陷。东盟争端解决机制的演进动因在于1996年的《争端解决机制议定书》缺乏操作性以及“规则导向”型争端解决机制在全球范围的兴起。东盟争端解决机制的三次变革可在争端解决机制的价值走向、模式选择及修正时机上给中国构建区域经贸争端解决机制提供一定的启示与借鉴。