期刊簡介
《國際關係》（International Relations）是國際關係領域的頂尖期刊之一，由SAGE出版社與大衛·戴維斯紀念研究所（David Davies Memorial Institute）聯合出版編輯，其2020年的影響因子為2.135。
本期目錄
1 處於戰爭還是拯救生命？關於新冠疫情的安全化語義庫
At war or saving lives? On the securitizing semantic repertoires of Covid-19
2 暴力的再定向：適當關懷和傷亡轉移戰爭的道德挑戰
Violence re-directed: due care and the moral challenge of casualty displacement warfare
3 干涉主義還是國際主義？第三世界實踐中的強制、自決與人道主義
Interventionist or internationalist? Coercion, self-determination, and humanitarianism in Third World practice
4 追求性別平等規範：性健康、生殖健康與權利的韌性
Chasing gender equality norms: the robustness of sexual and reproductive health and rights
5 北方之王：評估斯堪地那維亞國家的地位承認與表現
King in the North: evaluating the status recognition and performance of the Scandinavian coUNtries
6 印太地區的霸權穩定：美印關係與誘發性平衡
Hegemonic stability in the Indo-Pacific: US-India relations and induced balancing
7 新現實主義、新古典現實主義和歷史問題
Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history
8 顛倒的世界：對國際關係自下而上的審視
The world is upside down: seeing IR from below
文章摘要
處於戰爭還是拯救生命？關於新冠疫情的安全化語義庫
題目：At war or saving lives? On the securitizing semantic repertoires of Covid-19
作者：Stephane Baele，埃克塞特大學高級國際研究中心（CAIS）副教授、聯合主任。
摘要：本文提供了一個多維度的分析，探討了美國總統和英國首相在他們的公開演講中對新冠疫情進行安全化的方式和程度。這一評估基於並展示了兩個方面的優點：一是安全化理論（ST）對安全化語言概念化遲來的理論整合，二是一種用於研究「安全化語義詞彙表」的新方法論藍圖。通過比較和對照兩位領導人在新冠疫情爆發初期分別採用的安全化語義詞彙表，表明安全化語言雖然非常有限，但在英國更為強烈，其詞彙表由「拯救生命」的生命政治要求構成，而美國的詞彙表則以「戰爭」隱喻為中心。
This paper offers a multi-dimensional analysis of the ways and extent to which the US president and UK prime minister have securitized the Covid-19 pandemic in their public speeches. This assessment rests on, and illustrates the merits of, both an overdue theoretical consolidation of Securitization Theory’s (ST) conceptualization of securitizing language, and a new methodological blueprint for the study of 『securitizing semantic repertoire』. Comparing and contrasting the two leaders』 respective securitizing semantic repertoires adopted in the early months of the coronavirus outbreak shows that securitizing language, while very limited, has been more intense in the UK, whose repertoire was structured by a biopolitical imperative to 『save lives』 in contrast to the US repertoire centred on the 『war』 metaphor.
暴力的再定向：適當關懷和傷亡轉移戰爭的道德挑戰
題目：Violence re-directed: due care and the moral challenge of casualty displacement warfare
作者：Neil Renic，漢堡大學和平研究與安全政策研究所研究員，研究興趣為國際安全、正義戰爭理論、和平與衝突研究、戰爭法、美國外交政策等；Sebastian Kaempf，昆士蘭大學政治與國際關係學院高級講師，研究興趣為和平與衝突研究、道德與戰爭法、全球政治和暴力衝突的相關信息技術等。
摘要：本文作者主張對正義戰爭理念中的「適當關懷（due care）」進行概念上的擴展，以包括西方國家對軍隊保護所產生的可預見但間接的傷害。這種傷害包括「傷亡轉移戰爭（casualty displacement warfare）」的現象——即西方國家保護軍隊的優先性和相對成功激勵了一些西方國家的敵人將更多暴力從西方國家士兵身上轉移到平民身上的情況。對這種暴力的主要道德責任應該歸咎於那些違反非戰鬥人員免受侵害原則的人，無論他們的動機是什麼。然而，關鍵的是，本文認為西方國家的軍隊確實對構成這種暴力的衝突條件負有一定的間接責任。文章認為，這些軍隊有道德義務盡其所能地減少傷亡轉移的風險，即使這需要放鬆他們對保護軍人的承諾。
In this article, we argue in favour of a conceptual expansion of the Just War idea of 『due care』, to include the foreseeable, but indirect harm generated by Western force protection. This harm includes the phenomenon of 『casualty displacement warfare』 – circumstances in which the prioritisation and relative success of Western force protection incentivises some Western adversaries to redirect more of their own violence away from Western soldiers and onto civilians. Primary moral responsibility for such violence should be allocated to those who violate the principle of non-combatant immunity, whatever their motivations. Critically though, we argue that Western militaries do bear some indirect culpability for the conflict conditions that structure such violence. These same militaries, we argue, are morally duty bound to do what they feasibly can to reduce the risks of casualty displacement, even if this necessitates a relaxation of their own commitment to force protection.
干涉主義還是國際主義？第三世界實踐中的強制、自決與人道主義
題目：Interventionist or internationalist? Coercion, self-determination, and humanitarianism in Third World practice
作者：Patrick Quinton-Brown，牛津大學國際關係系講師，研究方向為全球秩序與全球治理、詮釋主義與後殖民方法等。
摘要：本文認為，當代關於干涉，特別是人道主義干涉的辯論，誤解了冷戰時期國際社會中這些概念的含義。通過將一種特定的人道主義干涉主義與一種特定的國際主義，即第三世界實踐中的一種革命性傾向進行比較，表明現有研究對強制、自決和人道主義的話語糾纏關注不夠。安哥拉案例提供了一個重要的例證：1975年，干涉問題不僅與獨裁干涉有關，而且與自決的邏輯有關，而這種邏輯又與反殖民主義和反種族主義的訴求有關。人們很容易會認為，該時期的不干涉規則排除了防止暴行和相關的國際犯罪的合法強制手段。與促進自決權相聯繫的國際主義的特定做法，為執行國際人權條約，包括《滅絕種族罪公約》提供了基礎。所有這些似乎與我們通常所知道的拯救陌生人的合法性和20世紀中葉第三世界組織的特點大不相同。
This article argues that contemporary debates around intervention, and especially humanitarian intervention, have misunderstood the meaning of these concepts in Cold War international society. By comparing a specific kind of humanitarian interventionism with a specific kind of internationalism, that of a revolutionist strain of Third World practice, it shows that existing studies have paid too little attention to discursive entanglements of coercion, self-determination, and humanitarianism. The Angola case provides a significant illustration: in 1975 the problem of intervention comes to be tied not just to dictatorial interference, but to a logic of self-determination, which is itself tied to causes of anticolonialism and anti-racism. It is too easy to say that the period’s rules of non-intervention precluded the legitimate coercive prevention of atrocities and related international crimes. Particular practices of internationalism, linked to the promotion of self-determination, provided a basis for enforcing international human rights treaties, including the Genocide Convention. All this seems very different from what we usually know of the legitimacy of saving strangers and the character of Third World organising in the mid-20th century.
追求性別平等規範：性健康、生殖健康與權利的韌性
題目：Chasing gender equality norms: the robustness of sexual and reproductive health and rights
作者：Esther Barbé，巴塞隆納自治大學國際關係教授，研究領域為性別與國際安全、權力過渡與多邊機構中的規範問題等；Diego Badell，巴塞隆納自治大學政治學、公共政策和國際關係博士。
摘要：這篇文章研究了聯合國（UN）的性與生殖健康與權利（SRHR）。SRHR是一種將人權應用於性和生殖的性別平等規範，傳統上得到了由美國（US）和歐盟領導的一系列行為體的支持。然而，自從20世紀90年代初提出SRHR以來，一個對立的網絡就對其進行了質疑。我們研究了2009年至2020年間在聯合國五個論壇上SRHR的穩健性，重點關注行為體構成、生產力和規範一致性。在2009年至2016年期間，規範的現狀得以維持，除了在人權理事會和安全理事會。2017年，美國加入了對立的網絡，並加速了該規範在安理會和人口與發展委員會的削弱。然而，為了進一步削弱或加強該規範，兩個相對立的網絡都認為有必要在聯合國之外處理SRHR問題。
This article studies Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) at the United Nations (UN). SRHR, a gender equality norm that applies human rights to sexuality and reproduction, have traditionally been supported by a network of actors led by the United States (US) and the European Union. Nevertheless, a rival network has contested SRHR since their conception in the early 1990s. We study the robustness of SRHR in five UN fora between 2009 and 2020, focusing on actor constellations, productive power and norm concordance. Between 2009 and 2016, the normative status quo was maintained, except in the Human Rights Council and the Security Council. In 2017, the US joined the network of rivals and accelerated the norm’s weakening in the Security Council and the Commission on Population and Development. However, to weaken or strengthen the norm further, both networks see a need to address SRHR outside the UN.
北方之王：評估斯堪地那維亞國家的地位承認與表現
題目：King in the North: evaluating the status recognition and performance of the Scandinavian countries
作者：Pål Røren，劍橋大學政治與國際研究系客座研究員。
摘要：斯堪地那維亞國家在世界政治中追求地位的行為已經得到了充分的記錄。然而，學術界對這些努力是否為這些國家帶來了更高的地位知之甚少。本文認為斯堪地那維亞國家是一個有用的案例，可以探討類似的外交政策姿態和共同的俱樂部成員身份是否平衡或加劇了世界政治中地位承認的不平等分配。為了測量瑞典、丹麥和挪威的地位承認，文章使用了一個網絡中心性指標來衡量1970年至2010年間的外交代表和交流。本文還測量了這些國家在利用其可用的地位資源（用軍事能力和財富衡量）和其地位追求努力（用相對外交外延來衡量）來提高其地位承認方面的表現如何。本文結果顯示，瑞典在分析中獲得了顯著更多的承認，並且表現得比丹麥和挪威都要好得多。本文提出了三個解釋這些發展的原因。首先，利用斯堪地那維亞標籤尋求地位的收益類似於一個區域零和博弈，其中瑞典作為三個國家中最顯眼的國家，是俱樂部方向上地位承認的主要受益者。其次，地位承認往往滯後於成就或地位資源的增加，因為外交政策行為者的信念只是偶爾更新。當國家努力將其資源轉化為地位（挪威），或者當它們成功地保持其地位，儘管經歷了地位資源的下降（瑞典）時，這種地位滯後尤其明顯。第三，地位資源的增加只有在它與相應的敘事相呼應時才會影響地位承認。與新興的挪威不同，瑞典成功地重新表述了其外交政策，以一種吸引世界政治承認的方式。
The Scandinavian states』 pursuit of status in world politics is well documented. However, little is known about whether these endeavors have resulted in higher status for these states. In this article, we suggest that the Scandinavian countries represent a useful case to explore whether similar foreign policy profiles and common club membership equalizes or exacerbates the unequal distribution of status recognition in world politics. To measure the status recognition of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, we use a network centrality measure of diplomatic representation and exchange from 1970 to 2010. We also measure how well the states have performed to increase their status recognition given their available status resources (measured by military capabilities and wealth) and their status-seeking effort (measured by relative diplomatic outreach). Our results show that Sweden has received significantly more recognition and performed much better than both Denmark and Norway in the measured period. We offer three explanations for these developments. First, the spoils of seeking status using the Scandinavian brand is akin to a regional zero-sum game in which Sweden, as the most visible state of the three, is the main beneficiary of the status recognition in the direction of the club. Second, status recognition often lags achievements or increases in status resources because the beliefs of foreign policy practitioners are only updated sporadically. This status lag is especially visible when states struggle to convert their resources into status (Norway), or when they succeed in maintaining their status despite experiencing a drop in status resources (Sweden). Third, an increase in status resources will only influence status recognition if it plays into a corresponding narrative. Sweden, in contrast to the nouveau riche Norwegians, has managed to rearticulate its foreign policy in a way that has attracted recognition in world politics.
印太地區的霸權穩定：美印關係與誘導性平衡
題目：Hegemonic stability in the Indo-Pacific: US-India relations and induced balancing
作者：Jan Hornát，布拉格和平研究中心高級研究員，布拉格查理大學國際問題研究所北美研究系主任。
摘要：在川普政府期間，美國與任何其他國家的關係都沒有像它與印度的關係那樣得到改善。自從川普上任以來，美印關係可以說達到了歷史高點，印度似乎正在克服對與美國更緊密合作的懷疑。鑑於這些發展，本文旨在通過霸權穩定論來理論化這種關係，並解釋美國對印度的戰略。我們首先說明了印度為什麼接受美國在印太地區的霸權地位，然後——由於權力制衡政治仍然是決策者對印太地區進行穩定的主要方法——我們引入了誘導性平衡的概念，以顯示美國採取了什麼樣的方法來賦予印度擴大其對華制衡的能力。本文的最後一部分從經驗上繪製了美國為了期待將印度置於制衡中國的代理人位置而提供的各種激勵措施。
The United States has improved relations with no other country during the Trump administration as much as it advanced its relationship with India. US-India relations have arguably marked their historical high points since Trump entered office and India seems to be overcoming its suspicion of closer cooperation with the US. Given these developments, this article aims to theorize the relationship through the hegemonic stability theory and explain US strategy toward India. We first demonstrate why India is accepting the hegemonic standing of the US in the Indo-Pacific and then – since balance of power politics are still a staple of policymakers』 approach to stability in the Indo-Pacific – we introduce the notion of induced balancing to show what approach the United States has adopted to empower India to expand its balancing capacity vis-à-vis China. The last section of the article empirically maps the various incentives that Washington offers to New Delhi in order to situate it in the desired position of a proxy China-balancer.
新現實主義、新古典現實主義和歷史問題
題目：Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history
作者：Gustav Meibauer，內梅根大學國際關係系助理教授，研究興趣為外交政策分析、安全研究與國際關係理論。
摘要：本文借鑑了關於國際關係「歷史轉向」以及新現實主義和新現實主義的學術研究，特別指出了新現實主義的錯誤，它隱含了對歷史上偶然的、不完全概念化的系統因素對國家行為傳遞的依賴。相反，它認為新現實主義（NCR）非常適合利用「歷史」進行系統性和一般性的解釋。本文探討了兩條通向歷史敏感性NCR的途徑（干預變量和結構修正因素），以及它們如何使「歷史」作為一系列事件、認知工具或集體敘事的不同操作化。第一條途徑認為，歷史支撐了新現實主義者目前使用的概念和變量。在這裡，歷史更容易被操作化，並且允許更清晰地看到學習和模仿過程。它也更清晰地界定了範圍，因此在範式特徵方面的需要的「成本」更低。第二條途徑，即歷史修改結構性的激勵和約束，從理論上更具挑戰性，特別是在區分NCR和建構主義方法方面，但有利於理論化系統變化。這兩條途徑都為現實主義理論提供了富有成果的途徑，可以使NCR從國際關係中的新現實主義中解放出來，並促進跨範式對話。通過考察如何在現實主義中利用「歷史」，可以探討其他「主流」的實證主義方法如何以及應該如何利用歷史的偶然性、背景和證據來解釋國際過程和結果。
Following scholarship on IR’s 『historical turn』 as well as on neorealism and neoclassical realism, this article finds fault particularly in neorealism’s implicit reliance on the historically contingent but incompletely conceptualised transmission of systemic factors into state behaviour. Instead, it suggests that neoclassical realism (NCR) is well-suited to leveraging 『history』 in systematic and general explanation. This article interrogates two routes towards a historically sensitive NCR (intervening variables and structural modifiers), and how they enable different operationalisations of 『history』 as a sequence of events, cognitive tool or collective narrative. The first route suggests history underpins concepts and variables currently used by neoclassical realists. Here, history is more easily operationalised and allows a clearer view at learning and emulation processes. It is also more clearly scoped, and therefore less 『costly』 in terms of paradigmatic distinctiveness. The second route, in which history modifies structural incentives and constraints, is more theoretically challenging especially in terms of differentiating NCR from constructivist approaches, but lends itself to theorising systemic change. Both routes provide fruitful avenues for realist theorising, can serve to emancipate NCR from neorealism in IR and foster cross-paradigmatic dialog. Examining how 『history』 can be leveraged in realism allows interrogating how other 『mainstream』, positivist approaches can and should leverage historical contingency, context and evidence to explain international processes and outcomes.
顛倒的世界：對國際關係自下而上的審視
題目：The world is upside down: seeing IR from below
作者：J. Ann Tickner：南加州大學名譽教授、莫納什大學政治與國際關係系教授、美利堅大學傑出常駐學者，研究方向為國際關係理論、和平與安全研究以及國際關係中的女權主義理論。
摘要：這篇評論文章涉及了三本關注20世紀初至中期參與國際思想的女性的文本。《女性的國際思想：一部新史》和《女性的國際思想：走向一部新的標準》，都是由帕特里夏·歐文斯和她的合編者編輯的。第三本是由凱莎·布萊恩和蒂芙尼·吉爾編輯的《顛覆整個世界：黑人婦女與國際主義》。這些文本中討論的一些女性在今天得到了認可，大多數已經完全被遺忘。有些人渴望在學術界發展事業，但由於性別和（或）種族的原因遇到了障礙。許多人是學者活動家，她們聲稱她們的著作應該解決現實世界的問題。這些文本強調了非裔美國學者的工作，關注種族主義和帝國主義，這些是國際關系所忽視的主題。由於一些人的文本被拒絕出版，許多人寫日記並在報紙上發表。儘管以前被忽視，但這些婦女關於國際關係都有重要的東西要告訴我們。
This review essay engages three texts focused on women who engaged with international thought in the early to mid-20th century. Women’s International Thought: A New History and Women’s International Thought: Towards a New Canon, both edited by Patricia Owens and her co-editors. The third, To Turn the Whole World Over: Black Women and Internationalism, edited by Keisha Blain and Tiffany Gill. A few women discussed in these texts are recognized today, most are completely forgotten. Some aspired to careers in the academy but encountered obstacles on account of their sex and/or race. Many were scholar activists who claimed that their writings should address real world problems. These texts foreground the work of African American scholars, focused on racism and imperialism, subjects that IR ignores. Since some were denied publication outlets many wrote journals and published in newspapers. Although previously ignored, all these women had important things to tell us about international relations.
編譯 | 譚政
審校 | 周杼樾
排版 | 郭思佳
文章來源於《國際關係》。文章評譯內容為公益分享，服務於學術科研教學工作，不代表國政學人觀點。