     期刊简介  本期编委 【编译】杨稚珉 刘瑛琛 房宇馨 胡瑞琨 【校对】吴天麟 【审核】杨紫茵 【排版】田意  本期目录 网络联系与东亚“轴辐式”联盟体系的出现 【题目】Network Connections and the Emergence of the Hub-and-Spokes Alliance System in East Asia 【作者】Yasuhiro Izumikawa (泉川康弘)，日本中央大学政策研究院教授。 【摘要】为什么在第二次世界大战后东亚出现了所谓的“轴辐式”联盟体系，而不是多边联盟？现实主义者和建构主义者提出了诸如美国偏好双边联盟、缺乏集体认同以及日本的帝国主义历史记忆等因素。但这些解释都不尽如人意。并且历史记录也表明，实际上直到1960年代初美国都一直在东亚尝试建立多边联盟。本文采用一种基于社会交换理论的模型来解释潜在盟友之间将如何发展出某种特定的体系。而在东亚，美国的三个盟友——日本、韩国和台湾——在它们互相交往的影响下，促成了这一地区“轴辐式”联盟体系的出现和形成。研究证明，在塑造这一体系时，这些盟友的偏好和行为与美国的行为选择同样重要。这一发现对研究当代东亚的联盟政治可能具有重要意义。 Why did the so-called hub-and-spokes alliance system emerge in East Asia after World War II instead of a multilateral alliance? Realists and constructivists offer various explanations, pointing to such factors as the United States' preference for bilateral alliances, the absence of a collective identity, and historical memories of Japanese imperialism. None of these explanations is satisfactory, however. Indeed, the historical record reveals that the United States sought a multilateral alliance in East Asia until the early 1960s. A theoretical model based on a social exchange network approach explains how a specific form of network can develop among potential allies. In East Asia, three U.S. allies—Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan—contributed to the emergence and shape of the hub-and-spokes system, which came into being as an unintended consequence of their interactions. The preferences and behavior of these allies proved at least as consequential as those of the United States in shaping this system. The implications of this finding could be significant for alliance politics in contemporary East Asia. 【编译】杨稚珉 【校对】吴天麟 【审核】杨紫茵 死亡尘埃：美苏追求放射性武器背后那些鲜为人知的故事 【题目】Death Dust: The Little-Known Story of U.S and Soviet Pursuit of Radiological Weapons 【作者】Samuel Meyer，蒙特雷米德尔伯里国际问题研究所（Middlebury Institute of International Studies）詹姆斯·马丁防扩散研究中心（James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies）副研究员；Sarah Bidgood，蒙特雷米德尔伯里国际问题研究所詹姆斯·马丁防扩散研究中心欧亚防扩散计划负责人；William C. Potter，蒙特雷米德尔伯里国际问题研究所詹姆斯·马丁防扩散研究中心主任。 【摘要】“9·11”事件以来，有关放射性武器的专家评论多数关注非国家行为体而忽视了国家层面的项目。实际上，在过去有相当多的国家表达了对放射性武器的兴趣；部分国家已经在积极追求放射性武器；其中三个国家更是在明确表示不使用放射性武器之前就已在多个场合对其进行了测试。人们为何对这些祸端知之甚少（特别是在美国以外的地方）？这些武器是否比科幻小说作者和军事专家所描绘的更难制造？放射性武器是否已成为历史，或者对一些国家而言它们仍是一个有吸引力的选项？本文对此前未经研究的美苏两国发展放射性武器项目的案例进行了比较分析，阐明了在一个特定核领域中创新武器的驱动因素与限制条件。对美苏两国放射性武器项目兴衰的检验还指明了未来可能促使一些国家对放射性武器产生新兴趣的情况，并提出了可能会被用以减少放射性武器生产、部署与使用的措施。 Since September 11, 2001, most expert commentary on radiological weapons has focused on nonstate actors, to the neglect of state-level programs. In fact, numerous countries in the past have expressed interest in radiological weapons; a number have actively pursued them; and three tested them on multiple occasions before ultimately deciding not to deploy the weapons. Why is so little known about these false starts, especially outside the United States? Are such weapons more difficult to manufacture than depicted by science-fiction authors and military pundits? Are radiological weapons a thing of the past, or do they remain an attractive option for some countries? A comparative analysis of the previously underexplored cases of radiological weapons programs in the United States and the Soviet Union illuminates the drivers and limitations of weapons innovation in one specific nuclear sector. An examination of the rise and demise of radiological weapons programs in both countries also points to circumstances in the future that might prompt renewed interest on the part of some states in radiological weapons and proposes steps that might be undertaken to reduce the possibility of their production, deployment, and use. 【编译】刘瑛琛 【校对】吴天麟 【审核】杨紫茵 普京、普京主义与俄罗斯外交政策的国内决定因素 【题目】Putin, Putinism, and the Domestic Determinants of Russian Foreign Policy 【作者】Michael McFaul，斯坦福大学政治学教授、斯坦福大学弗里曼·斯波格利国际问题研究所所长、胡佛研究所 Peter and Helen Bing高级研究员，曾任美国驻俄罗斯大使。 【摘要】为何俄罗斯与西方的关系从几十年前的“合作”走向了现如今的新对抗时代？部分分析仅局限于关注国际体系中力量对比的变化或追溯俄罗斯国际行为的历史相似性和文化延续性。但如果需要全面了解当今俄罗斯的外交政策，就必须要综合考虑普京总统（决策者个人）、普京主义（理念）以及专制政体（制度）等因素。本文选取俄罗斯2014年干预乌克兰问题、2015年介入叙利亚内战及2016年干涉美国大选为案例，对国内因素在俄罗斯外交政策制定中的影响进行了研究。 Why did Russia’s relations with the West shift from cooperation a few decades ago to a new era of confrontation today? Some explanations focus narrowly on changes in the balance of power in the international system, or trace historic parallels and cultural continuities in Russian international behavior. For a complete understanding of Russian foreign policy today, individuals, ideas, and institutions—President Vladimir Putin, Putinism, and autocracy—must be added to the analysis. An examination of three cases of recent Russian intervention (in Ukraine in 2014, Syria in 2015, and the United States in 2016) illuminates the causal influence of these domestic determinants in the making of Russian foreign policy. 【编译】房宇馨 【校对】吴天麟 【审核】杨紫茵 规范的阻止作用：饱和轰炸、平民豁免与美国对待战争法的态度 【题目】The Stopping Power of Norms: Saturation Bombing, Civilian Immunity, and U.S. Attitudes toward the Laws of War 【作者】Charli Carpenter麻省大学阿默斯特分校政治学和法学教授；Alexander H. Montgomery 里德学院政治学助理教授。 【摘要】《伊朗的“广岛”：美国人对使用核武器和杀害非战斗人员的真实想法》一文在2017年夏在《国际安全》上发表，这是一份关于民众对战争法态度的开创性调查。在该文中，Scott Sagan 与Benjamin Valentino发现美国人对于以平民为目标及反对使用核武器的国际规范与禁令相对来说并不敏感。本文作者重复了这项研究中的一个关键问题，即询问受访者是否支持饱和轰炸伊朗城市以结束战争。同时，作者在实验中引入了一些变量，以直接衡量国际规范和法律的一切潜在影响。研究结果表明，相较于Scott Sagan 与Benjamin Valentino，作者得到的结果则更为乐观，即美国人坚信针对平民是错误的。并且，在现实情况下，大多数人会反对饱和轰炸的行为。然而，研究同样显示，这些结果很大程度上取决于调研问题的对象偏好的衡量结构以及法律与道德考虑是否构成对于战争政策讨论的一部分。 In “Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans Really Think about Using Nuclear Weapons and Killing Noncombatants,” a pathbreaking survey of attitudes toward the laws of war published in the summer 2017 issue of International Security, Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino found that Americans are relatively insensitive to the targeting of civilian populations and to international norms and taboos against the use of nuclear weapons. We replicated a key question of this study, where respondents were asked if they would support saturation bombing an Iranian city to end a war. We also introduced some variations into the experiment to directly measure any potential influence of international norms and laws. Overall, our quantitative and qualitative findings are more optimistic than those of Sagan and Valentino’s study: Americans do strongly believe it is wrong to target civilians. And in a real-life scenario such as this, a majority would likely oppose such a bombing. These findings suggest, however, that much depends on how survey questions are structured in measuring those preferences and whether legal or ethical considerations are part of any national conversation about war policy. 【编译】胡瑞琨 【审核】吴天麟 【校对】杨紫茵 添加“国小政”微信 获取最新资讯 |
|
|
