族性视野中多民族国家族际政治问题比较研究——基于尼日利亚与印度尼西亚民族国家建构的经验观察

族性是影响多民族国家安全及其族际政治走向的关键变量。它既能促进族际政治整合、维护国家安全、有助于民族国家建构,也能导致族际政治冲突、危及国家安全、阻碍民族国家建构。以"族性"为分析视角,通过对尼日利亚与印度尼西亚民族国家建构历程的梳理及其族际政治问题的比较,其共性特征包括:族际政治问题的分析单位是多民族国家;族际政治问题虽然发生在现实中的多民族国家,却往往带有深刻的历史根源;政治与文化边界的重叠是族际政治问题产生的逻辑起点;国内不同民族群体无法得到平等公正对待是导致族际政治问题的核心因素;军事专政和腐败会增加族际政治问题的风险和国家安全的不确定性。解决多民族国家族际政治问题、确保国家安全的关键在于如何让一个在历史上和观念中都不曾存在的国家民族能够超越族性分界而被成功建构。结合两国国情提出应对策略:寻找重叠共识,建构文化多元、政治一体的国族共同体;借鉴差异政治和差别公民权利思想,探寻积极回应不同民族群体正当利益诉求、实现各族人民成果共享、利益均沾的政治制度、体制和机制;消除军人在政治生活中的影响,惩治腐败;探索包容促进多语言、多宗教和谐相处的民族政策。     

Guest editor's introduction

In 1933 the army of the nascent Iraqi state launched an exterminatory attack on members of the Assyrian community who had fled to Iraq during the First World War. 'The Assyrian affair' which at the time sent shock-waves around the world has now been largely forgotten. But an examination of its origins and causation reveals much about the nature and pattern of modern genocide. Levene argues that typecasting genocide as the outcome of prejudice, racism or even xenophobia, while these may be significant ingredients, proves to be insufficient as a comprehensive explanation. Rather, these factors need to be analysed within the context of an emerging international system of nation-states. This itself may be a factor in helping to catalyse the most extreme and radically ideological responses, especially from new and untried national elites seeking to overcome perceived obstacles to their state's development and genuine independence.     

“一体双权”:中国政治学的一个分析框架——与景跃进教授商榷和对话

在《中国政治学的转型:分化与定位》一文中,景跃进教授将政治共同体确立为中国政治学的逻辑起点,揭示维系中国大一统的集权逻辑,搭建了一个国体、政体和政治共同体“三位一体”的中国政治学分析框架。景跃进教授提出的问题及所做出的分析极具启发性,但仍有进一步商榷和对话的空间。中国政治学研究的逻辑起点是现代性的国家共同体;现代性国家共同体既服从统一逻辑,又遵循共和逻辑。在“一体双权”的中国政治学分析框架中,“一体”是指现代国家共同体以主权独立、领土完整、国族一体等为核心内容的一体格局和统一状态,体现统一逻辑;“双权”则包括“民权”和“国权”,处理二者之关系的制度安排事关共和逻辑能否得到实现。相对于“三位一体”的中国政治学分析框架,“一体双权”有一定的理论优势,有可能拓展中国政治学的学术研究范围,为中国政治学和西方政治学的对话提供更加开放的交集空间。     

Beyond reason: the philosophy and politics of immigration

In this paper, I critically address the role of arbitrary and contingent features in philosophical debates about migration. These features play a central role, and display the importance of ‘unreason’ in the debate and the limits of rational criticism. Certain elements of political thought have to be taken as given, as essential starting points or indispensable building blocks. As such, they cannot be exposed to rational criticism. Political arrangements such as national borders, nation-states and national identities constitute these building blocks, and justify coercive borders in order to sustain them. If we are to subject these arrangements to critical examination, then we move beyond the limits of liberal political philosophy. I examine theorists who take this kind of approach to the ethics of immigration: Michael Blake, Samuel Scheffler and David Miller. I argue that such approaches ask us to balance arbitrary and contingent features of the political world against the non-contingent moral equality of the migrant. If we are to recognize the migrant as an equal reason-giver in the moral contestation of borders, then we are compelled to theorize beyond these limits, and to theorize instead about a global community of equals, a post-national world made up of transnational belonging.     

International migration and liberal democracies: the challenge of integration

Migration theories that build on economic incentives and social network effects will generally predict much more international migration than we observe. We have to 'bring the state back in' to explain why so few potential migrations lead to actual flows, and why these flows are highly selective. Immigration policies have been strongly shaped by particular nation-building projects but the increasing diversity of origins in contemporary migrations has also challenged and transformed perceptions of national identity at the receiving end. Bauböck discusses the need for studying integration regimes from a comparative and normative perspective. He examines characteristic features of four regimes - the United States, Canada, Israel and the European Union - and defends a conception of integration that embraces the ambiguities of the term: it should be understood as referring to the inclusion of newcomers as well as to the internal cohesion of the societies and political communities that are transformed by immigration. These two meanings are combined in a third one of integration as federation: the process of forming larger political unions from distinct societies. Particularly in the context of the European Union integration policies for immigrants should live up to the same democratic principles that are invoked for the political integration of the EU. This suggests a European agenda for harmonizing the legal status of third country residents and their access to citizenship. Bringing the state back in makes us also aware that the transnational communities of migrants are no substitute for access, status and rights within territorially bounded polities. Instead of portraying migrants as harbingers of the end of the nation-state, we should rather think how to transform nation-states so that increasingly mobile populations can still share in political authority, a bounded territory and a common historical horizon. This perspective of integration is 'transnational' rather than 'postnational'. A transnational perspective does not envisage the dissolution of nation-states, but emphasizes instead that societies and cultures increasingly overlap both in space and time.     

Globalization and citizenship: an Australian dilemma

Democratic citizenship, as it exists in countries like Australia, is premised on a nation-state that has sovereignty over a specific territory demarcated by internationally agreed boundaries. According to this model, citizens are supposed to control the state through democratic processes, and the state is supposed to control what happens on its territory and to decide who or what may cross its boundaries. But today globalization is eroding the capacity of the nation-state to control cross-border flows of finance, commodities, people, ideas and pollution. Powerful pressures are reducing state autonomy with regard to economic affairs, welfare rights and national culture. This leads to important questions: Does the quality of democratic citizenship remain unchanged? Are citizens still the source of political legitimacy? Do we need to rethink the meaning and mechanisms of citizenship to find new ways of maintaining popular sovereignty? How can citizens influence decisions made by global markets, transnational corporations and international organizations? These are problems that all democratic polities face, and Australia is no exception. Political and legal institutions derived from the Anglo-American democratic heritage have worked well for a century and more, but they may need to change significantly if they are to master the new realities. The central question in Castles's article is thus: What can we do to maintain and enhance democratic citizenship for Australians in the context of a globalizing world? To answer this question, he examines some of the inherent contradictions of nation-state citizenship, discusses the meaning of globalization and how it affects citizenship and looks at the effects of globalization and regional integration on Australia. He concludes that it is important to improve the quality of Australian citizenship by various measures: recognizing the special position of indigenous Australians and action to combat racism; combatting social exclusion; reforming the constitution to inscribe rights of active citizenship in a bill of rights; and reasserting the model of multicultural citizenship.     

女性的身体 国家的目光——国际运动会礼仪小姐研究

本文在"身体—文化象征身份—民族国家"的框架下论述了微观权力机制下礼仪小姐的公共性别身份的建构。一方面,礼仪小姐在与民族国家的互动中实现了身体资本的理性运作,这体现在对身体的自我评估和对男性他者评定的认同上,但在公共父权制下,身体的主体性淹没在力图使之客体化的微观权力的技术策略中;另一方面,公共父权的凝视和民族国家的责任话语借助礼仪小姐的自我规训而建构起她们作为民族国家文化象征的性别身份。     

Migration and justice: a reply to my critics

In this response to six critics, I begin by clarifying the sense in which my approach to the issue of immigration is ‘realistic’. I also explain why a realistic approach must place immigration in a nation-state context, although without treating it as primarily reparative for historic injustice. I suggest that it is implausible to regard global equality of opportunity, as opposed to global sufficiency, as setting limits to national self-determination. I then defend my use of the distinction between refugees and economic migrants to frame the discussion of immigration against the charge that all migrants are potentially vulnerable to the decisions of admitting states, since these may determine the fate of their life-projects. And I also defend the claim that, in the case of refugees, justice requires only that each state should discharge its fair share of the burden of admitting them; doing more than this would require popular consent. Finally, I consider the case of irregular migrants, and explain in what sense they have taken unfair advantage of other potential migrants; I defend offering a conditional amnesty to people in this category.     

Renegotiating the empire,forging the nation(-state): the Bohemian/Czechoslovakian case through the political–economic thought of Thomas G. Masaryk and Karel Kramář, c. 1890–1920s

This article explores the dilemma of the small Bohemian Lands/Czechoslovak nation(-state) in staying “in” or “out” of the larger Habsburg supranational entity in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth century. It does so mainly through the language of political economy (on national wealth creation and redistribution) articulated in the opinions and political actions of Czechoslovakia’s two founding statesmen, the first president, Thomas G. Masaryk, and the first prime minister, Karel Krama?. The article argues that their choice of staying “in” the large imperial space was premised upon renegotiating a better political and political–economic deal for the Bohemian Lands, whereas the option of abandoning it and of forging the Czechoslovak nation-state was essentially based on political reasons. And while both advocated an interventionist role for the state in the economy during the imperial period, they considered such a prerogative even more essential for their new nation-state.     

Cosmopolitanism and National Tradition: The Case of Slovenia

This paper discusses the contradictions of maintaining national identity in the age of globalization. It investigates the central relevance of the concept of citizenship in light of the encroaching forces of economic and cultural globalization, on the one hand; and ethnic, nationalistic, and religious fundamentalism, on the other. The paper argues for the need to recognize not only the meaning of national identity, derived mainly from works of art and literature in a given tradition, but also its potential to head off forms of reductionism, be they economic or ethnic. In this regard, the paper calls for a theoretically subtle approach to the contemporary dilemmas of small nations, caught between the fundamentalist temptation (nationalism) and global corporate homogeneity. The case of Slovenia is used here to spell out the necessity to develop a cosmopolitan attitude, characterized as it is by both local cultural tradition and international codes of expression. Such an attitude may best be developed in a civic sphere that provides the mediating ground between the solipsistic pursuit of individual happiness and governmental political regimentation.