【新刊速递】International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, No.1, 2021
期刊简介
《亚太国际关系》（International Relations of the Asia-Pacific），成立于2001年，由牛津大学出版社代表日本国际关系协会出版，每年1月、5月和9月出版共三次。该期刊主要关注亚太地区的国际政治动态，包括中国国内政治、美国在亚太地区的地位、地区治理、日本对外关系、亚洲与国际关系理论、中国的全球化道路以及中国的国家认同等。根据2018 Journal Citation Reports显示，最新影响因子为1.406。
本期编委
【编译】陈勇、谢菁、张彦赪、赖永祯、
何伊楠
【审校】王泽尘
【排版】张湘苹
本期目录
1. 东盟10+3金融合作如何影响了
全球金融治理？
How has ASEAN+3 Financial Cooperation Affected Global Financial Governance?
2. 中日太空治理：竞争与合作的前景
China, Japan, and the Governance of Space: Prospects for Competition and Cooperation
3. 国家如何应对国际制度对移民的复杂性：东南亚及其他地区案例研究
How States React to the International Regime Complexities on Migration: A Study of Cases in South East Asia and Beyond
4. 亚洲的发展与战略竞争：
通向极化的可能
Development and Strategic Competition in Asia: Toward Polarization?
5. 日本环境外交与亚太地区环境合作前景
Japan’s Environmental Diplomacy and the Future of Asia-Pacific Environmental Cooperation
01
东盟10+3金融合作如何影响了全球金融治理？
【题目】 How has ASEAN+3 financial cooperation affected global financial governance?
【作者】William N. Kring，现全球发展政策研究中心（Global Development Policy Center）助理主任，2019年在布朗大学获得博士学位。主要研究议题涉及国际政治经济学、比较政治和发展；William W. Grimes，波士顿大学帕蒂全球研究学院（Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies）副院长，自1996年开始在该学院任教，主要研究比较政治学和国际政治经济学的结合。
【摘要】在亚洲金融危机后，东亚国家努力加强地区金融合作，这也使东亚地区更有可能在全球金融治理中扮演更强势的角色。然而，尽管东亚国家在全球治理中的话语权和经济份额都有所增长，但大多数东亚的金融系统和市场仍然采用了形成于纽约、伦敦和华盛顿等地的全球规范。作者认为，东亚之所以未能推出一个有别于目前状况的金融治理的图景，原因在于区域内缺少政治团结，更关键的是，重要的东亚经济体之间及内部存在利益分歧。在亚洲金融危机之后，虽然东亚国家普遍对全球标准和制度表示不满，但上述两个因素的共同作用阻碍了一种可以推广至全球层面的，独特的区域金融治理模式发展。
In the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis, East Asia’s efforts to enhance regional financial cooperation raised the possibility of East Asia playing a more assertive role in global financial governance. However, despite the region’s increased voice in governance and economic weight, East Asian financial systems and markets have mostly adapted to global norms developed in New York, London, and Washington, DC. We argue that the failure of East Asia to push an alternative vision of financial governance reflects both the lack of regional political unity and, more crucially, the divisions of interests both between and within key East Asian economies. Despite nearly universal regional dissatisfaction with global standards and institutions in the wake of the Asian Financial Crisis, these two factors have combined to prevent the development of a distinctive regional model that could be promoted at the global level.
【编译】陈勇
【校对】王泽尘
02
中日太空治理：竞争与合作的前景
【题目】China, Japan, and the Governance of Space: Prospects for Competition and Cooperation
【作者】Saadia M. Pekkanen, 华盛顿大学杰克逊国际关系学院教授，太空政策与研究中心联合创始人。她的研究方向为国际关系及国际法的交叉领域，具体研究兴趣包括与外太空事务相关的商业、法律和安全政策。
【摘要】中国和日本都是世界太空大国，都有着常规及“新空间”能力上的优异的技术能力。从90年代初期，两国都开始对建立外层太空活动治理有了很大的兴趣。然而，两国建立治理的方式截然不同，这使得我们重新思考一般所认为的亚洲国家对于软性及非正式机制的偏好。日本在一系列原则下主导了亚太区域空间机构论坛（Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum，APRSAF），囊括了许多国家及非国家行为体。而中国选择了一种高调的、正式的、政府间的方式，主导了拥有公约以及正式组织架构的亚太空间合作组织（Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization，APSCO）。本文评价中国和日本在新空间竞赛中的活动，讨论它们的太空治理设计如何以及为什么不同，并思考两国竞争及合作的前景。
China and Japan are among the world’s top space powers, with significant technical competence in both conventional and ‘newspace’ capabilities. Since the early 1990s, each country has also taken a keen interest in shaping the governance of outer space activities. But they have done so in remarkably different ways, calling into question Asian states’ supposed preferences for soft and informal institutions. Japan has led the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum, involving both state and nonstate participants, which is guided by a set of principles. China has opted for a high-profile formal intergovernmental design, the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, with a Convention and all the trappings of a formal organizational structure. This article assesses the activities of China and Japan in the new space race, discusses how and why the design of their space governance differs, and reflects on prospects for competition and cooperation.
【编译】谢菁
【校对】王泽尘
03
国家如何应对国际制度对移民的复杂性：东南亚及其他地区案例研究
【题目】How states react to the international regime complexities on migration: a study of cases in South East Asia and beyond
【作者】Midori Okabe，日本上智大学国际关系学教授（法学院），研究领域包括国际移民、全球治理理论、区域融合、欧盟研究、国际关系学、国际合作等。
【摘要】本文对亚洲的“移民制度综合体”(migration regime complex)进行了全面分析。区别于世界其他地区，该综合体缺乏难民保护制度。贝茨的“难民制度复杂性”(refugee regime complexity)论点没有考虑到被排除在核心制度建设之外的亚洲国家的异常行为。亚洲国家的移民管控政策反映了各自的战略，这些战略试图在国内社会政治情况的约束下，通过国际环境所提供的经济机会获利。案例研究表明，亚洲国家在拒绝由联合国领导的难民制度的同时，却容忍了非正规移民，这不仅是为了保护其经济发展的切身利益，也旨在维护国家和区域层面的政治稳定。
This article provides a holistic analysis of the ‘migration regime complex’ in Asia, which is distinguished from other regions of the world in the absence of a refugee protection regime. The ‘refugee regime complexity’ argument (Betts) fails to take into consideration the deviant behaviors of Asian states that have been excluded from the core institution building. The immigration control policies of Asian countries reflect their respective strategies that seek to take advantage of the economic opportunities provided by the international environment within the domestic sociopolitical constraints. The case studies show that Asian states while rejecting the UN-led refugee regime, tolerate irregular migration not only to protect their vital interest in economic development but also to maintain political stability at both national and regional levels.
【编译】张彦赪
【校对】王泽尘
04
亚洲的发展与战略竞争：
通向极化的可能
【题目】Development and Strategic Competition in Asia: Toward Polarization?
【作者】Ken Masujima，日本神户大学大学院法学研究科（Graduate School of Law, Kobe University）政治学教授，其研究方向涉及区域主义与对外发展援助问题。
【摘要】亚洲存在安全局势上的日趋紧张与经济上的相互依存的共存，理解这一现象的关键，在于亚洲国家优先关注经济发展的优先程度。同时，经济发展的优先级应当被为理解为政治精英在其各自政治语境下进行的战略选择，而非对经济发展议题形成了普遍性共识的结果。近年来，围绕中国所主张的“一带一路”与美国、日本、澳大利亚与印度所提出的“自由与开放的印太地区”（Free and Open Indo-Pacific, FOIP）两项倡议的竞争，进一步证实了在中美关系日趋紧张的背景下，各国在运用发展政策上具有战略目的上的日趋突出的趋势。与此同时，亚洲国家在优先发展上仍然存在合作性的成分。
Abstract: The prioritization of economic development, considered as a key in understanding the coexistence of heightened security situations and growing economic interdependence in Asia, should be considered as a political strategy among many chosen by political elites in their own political context rather than a consensus implying general acquiescence to the idea. The recent competition between the Belt and Road Initiative by China and the Free and Open Indo-Pacific by the United States, Japan, Australia, and India confirms and reinforces the tendency toward the mobilization of development policy for increasingly strategic purposes in the context of rising tension between the United States and China. At the same time, there is some cooperative element in prioritizing development in Asia.
【编译】赖永祯
【校对】王泽尘
05
日本环境外交与亚太地区
环境合作前景
【题目】Japan’s environmental diplomacy and the future of Asia-Pacific environmental cooperation
【作者】Isao Sakaguchi，日本学习院大学法学院政治学系教授，主要研究国际环境制度、全球环境治理、日本渔业治理等；Atsushi Ishii，日本东北大学东北亚研究中心副教授，主要研究国际环境制度、环境污染、国际渔业管理等；Yasuhiro Sanada，日本早稻田大学区域及区域间研究组织副教授，主要研究国际渔业管理、环境外交等；Yasuko Kameyama，日本国立环境研究所社会与环境系统研究中心研究员，主要研究气候变化、可持续发展及全球环境治理；Ayako Okubo，日本东海大学海洋科学技术学院讲师，曾进行有关海洋生物资源管理的国际制度的决策过程、科技-政策对接和有效性的相关研究；Katsuhiko Mori，日本国际基督教大学文学院教授，主要研究全球环境治理及可持续发展。
【摘要】当前亚太地区缺乏一位环境方面的领袖。20世纪70年代，日本作为协调国际环境事务的先驱，开始通过主办《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》（Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES）、《联合国气候变化框架公约》（United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC）等多边环境协定的缔约国会议以及提供大量环境援助的方式，在后冷战时代进行积极的环境外交。21世纪头10年，由于日本在巴黎协定中持消极立场，对《濒危野生动植物种国际贸易公约》相关决议提出许多保留意见，并退出国际捕鲸委员会（International Whaling Commission），日本参与环境事务的主动性显著减弱，国际声誉也趋于负面。本文通过六个简要的案例研究，探讨系统性阻碍日本取得环境方面领导地位和规范内化的因素及体系。文章重点强调了日本政府权力下放背后的两大制约因素，包含封闭的官僚体系以及积极投身环境事务的科学家短缺。最后，本文展望了未来亚太地区开展环境合作的前景。
Asia-Pacific lacks an environmental leader. Japan, a forerunner of environmental regulation in the 1970s, started to engage in active environmental diplomacy in the post-Cold War era by hosting conferences of parties to multilateral environmental agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as well as providing a massive amount of environmental aid. Then, in the 2000s, Japan’s initiatives became substantially weakened and have gained a negative international reputation as the country took a considerably passive position to the Paris Agreement, filed many reservations to the CITES listing decisions, and withdrew from the International Whaling Commission. This article explores, through six brief case studies, the factors and structures that systemically impede Japan’s environmental leadership and norm internalization. It highlights the constraining factors behind Japan’s devolution including its closed bureaucratic system and the lack of positive engagement of Japanese scientists. Finally, it addresses the future prospects of environmental cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.
【编译】何伊楠
【校对】王泽尘
好好学习，天天“在看”