【新刊速递】《欧洲国际关系杂志》（EJIR）, Vol.27, Issue 2, 2021. / 四六文摘

期刊简介

《欧洲国际关系杂志》（EJIR）是欧洲政治研究联盟国际关系常设小组（SGIR）的同行评审旗舰期刊，由SGIR和欧洲国际研究协会的联合委员会负责。该期刊广泛代表了欧洲发展的国际关系领域，自1995年该期刊成立以来，EJIR已成为国际关系奖学金的主要独立代言人。在其欧洲起源的基础上，它已经发展了二十多年，集中体现最前沿的理论辩论和理论上知情的实证分析，这些分析反映了全球国际关系界的精华。2018年该期刊的影响因子为2.756。

本期编委

【编译】赵雷姚博文王嘉许何伊楠

【校对】陈想

【审核】赖永祯

【排版】韩柯

【美编】方引弓

本期目录

1.全球治理的组织生态学

The Organizational Ecology of Global Governance

2.霸权的不稳定：当代国际体系中复合相互依赖与金融危机的动力

Hegemonic Instability: Complex Interdependence and the Dynamics of Financial Crisis in the Contemporary International System

3.地方政党怎样影响外交政策？以印度各层次政党联盟谈判为例

How Do Regional Parties Influence Foreign Policy? Insights from Multilevel Coalitional Bargaining in India

4.解释精英对全球治理合法性的看法

Explaining Elite Perceptions of Legitimacy in Global Governance

全球治理的组织生态学

【题目】The Organizational Ecology of Global Governance

【作者】David A. Lake，美国加州大学圣地亚哥分校政治科学杰出教授，曾任美国政治学会主席、国际研究协会主席、《国际组织》杂志共同主编，主要研究领域涉及地区秩序、国际关系中的等级制、政治经济学等。

【摘要】治理组织(GOs)的生态学关系到什么是被治理的，什么是不被治理的，任何管理者可以拥有什么样的合法权力，以及谁的政治偏好在规则中体现出来。近几十年来，构成当前全球治理体系的行为体数量急剧增加。尤其值得注意的是私人治理组织(PGOs)的增长。基于组织生态学的观点，本文认为私人治理组织的兴起既是必要的，也是由于国家间的意见分歧而促成的，这些分歧阻碍了本可能有效的政府间组织(IGOs)的建立。国家以一种“双重否定监管”的形式阻碍了政府间组织，这反过来又留下了空缺，然后由私人治理组织填补，这些私人治理组织既是国家法律的补充，有时也替代了国家法律。这里概述的组织生态学方法以系统的方式对研究进行扩展和聚焦，使我们更全面地理解私人治理组织如何以及为何能成为当代世界秩序中最显著的特征之一。本文的关键创新是(1)将分析水平从单一的个体或群体转移到整个政府间组织领域，包括国家、政府间组织和私人治理组织，(2)利用生态学原理理解治理系统的构成和动态。

The ecology of governance organizations (GOs) matters for what is or is not governed, what legitimate powers any governor may hold, and whose political preferences are instantiated in rules. The array of actors who comprise the current system of global governance has grown dramatically in recent decades. Especially notable has been the growth of private governance organizations (PGOs). Drawing on organizational ecology, I posit that the rise of PGOs is both required and facilitated by disagreements between states that block the creation of what might be otherwise effective intergovernmental organizations (IGOs). In a form of “double-negative regulation,” states block IGOs, which in turn leave open niches that are then filled by PGOs, which then both complement and sometimes substitute for state law. The organizational ecology approach outlined here extends and refocuses inquiry in systematic ways that give us a fuller understanding of how and why PGOs have emerged as one of the most striking features of the contemporary world order. The key innovations in this paper are to (a) shift the level of analysis from single agents or populations of agents to the entire field of GOs, including states, IGOs, and PGOs and (b) draw on principles of ecology to understand the composition and dynamics of systems of governance.

【编译】赵雷

【校对】陈想

霸权的不稳定：当代国际体系中复合相互依赖与金融危机的动力

【题目】Hegemonic Instability: Complex Interdependence and the Dynamics of Financial Crisis in the Contemporary International System

【作者】Heather-Leigh Ba，密苏里大学政治学系助理教授，主要研究领域包括国际政治经济学、美国外交政策与美国总统。

【摘要】国际关系学者早已认识到，为了解国家权力和影响力的经济来源，有必要研究国际经济中的复合相互依赖关系。近年来对有关国际经济相互依赖模式与全球化结构的重新关注，使得学者们对复合相互依赖之于国际权力演变的意义有了更好、更基于以往经验的理解。本文研究了复合相互依赖的一个重要而持久的特征——美国在国际银行体系中的中心地位，并认为美国金融周期的变化推动了国际金融波动和危机。这些动力构成了美国金融霸权的软肋，并对美国在当代自由主义国际秩序中的领导地位形成了根本性挑战。金融稳定是经济增长的关键，而经济增长反过来又使自由主义的政治规范和制度永久化。另一方面，金融不稳定滋生了政治不满，这种不满可能以民粹主义或民族主义的形式出现。美国控制自己金融体系的能力和意愿可能是确保其75年前建立的自由国际体系在未来几十年生存和发展的关键。

International Relations scholars have long recognized the need to study the complex interdependencies of the international economy in order to understand the economic sources of national power and influence. Renewed interest in the patterns of international economic interdependencies and the structure of globalization has led scholars to a better, more empirically grounded understanding of the significance of complex interdependence for the evolution of international power. This paper examines the effect of one important and persistent characteristic of complex interdependence, American centrality within the international banking system, and argues that changes in the US financial cycle drive international financial volatility and crisis. These dynamics comprise the underbelly of American financial hegemony and pose a fundamental challenge to US leadership in the contemporary liberal international order. Financial stability is key to economic growth, which in turn perpetuates liberal political norms and institutions. Financial instability, on the other hand, breeds political discontent, which may take the form of populism or nationalism. The ability and willingness of the United States to reign in its own financial system may be key to ensuring that the liberal international system it established 75 years ago survives and thrives in the coming decades.

【编译】姚博闻

【校对】陈想

地方政党怎样影响外交政策？以印度各层次政党联盟谈判为例

【题目】How Do Regional Parties Influence Foreign Policy? Insights from Multilevel Coalitional Bargaining in India

【作者】Nicolas Blarel，荷兰莱顿大学国际关系学副教授，主要研究领域为外交政策与南亚安全问题，印度与中东关系等。曾任法国外交部政策规划人员，负责阿富汗、南亚和核扩散等问题。现任新德里国防与分析研究所（IDSA）客座研究员；Niels Van Willigen，荷兰莱顿大学国际关系学副教授，曾参与北约“欧洲安全与防务身份”研究计划，现任全球治理研究所和平与安全部门高级分析师。主要研究领域包括国际关系理论、外交政策分析、安全研究（和平行动、军备控制和欧洲安全）与国际法。

【摘要】地方政党会在何时，以何种方式影响联邦制民主国家中多党联合政府的外交政策？现有文献大多侧重于多民族国家中次国家政党与中央政府之间的外交政策分歧。但是本文认为，在不同的条件下，中央政府要么在制定外交政策时顺应地方政党的偏好，要么指派这些地方政党来推行自己的外交纲领。部分学者研究了中央权力下放，以及联邦政府通过权力安排在为地方政党提供更多对外政策决策权方面发挥的作用。其他研究表明，特定的政党联盟结构有助于将小党派的关切纳入外交政策制定中。结合上述两种理论，本文认为，联邦制国家背景下地方与民族政党联盟的组建过程中，结构性与施动性条件都会以不同的方式影响外交政策的制定，而且不一定会出现分歧与阻碍。为了阐明这些机制，本文考察了印度的两个案例：地方政党在2008年美印核协议中的作用，以及地方政党在塑造2009-2014年印度对斯里兰卡政策方面的作用。

When and how do regional parties influence foreign policy in federal democracies with multiparty coalition governments? The existing literature has focused on situations of foreign policy disagreements between subnational parties and the central government in multinational states. By contrast, we argue that under varying conditions, central governments either decide to accommodate the preferences of small regional parties when designing foreign policies, or co-opt these regional parties to push their own foreign policy agenda. Some scholars looked at the role of decentralization and federal power arrangements in providing more control to political sub-units over the external affairs of a state. Other studies showed that certain coalition-building configurations facilitated the inclusion of the concerns of small parties in the foreign policy debate. Bridging these two literatures, we argue that both structural and agential conditions behind regional and national coalition building processes—visible in federal settings—affect foreign policy-making in different ways, and not necessarily toward disagreement and obstruction. To illustrate these hypothesized mechanisms, we look at two case studies in the Indian context: the role of regional parties in the debate over the US–India nuclear deal of 2008 and the role of regional parties in shaping India’s Sri Lanka policy from 2009 to 2014.

【编译】王嘉许

【校对】陈想

解释精英对全球治理合法性的看法

【题目】Explaining Elite Perceptions of Legitimacy in Global Governance

【作者】Soetkin Verhaegen，马斯特里赫特大学政治学系助理教授，研究领域主要为地区、国际政府及机构；Jan Aart Scholte，莱顿大学教授，研究领域包括全球化和社会变革、多中心治理、全球治理的合法性、全球民主、全球政治的公民社会以及互联网治理；Jonas Tallberg，斯德哥尔摩大学政治学系教授，研究领域主要为全球治理与欧盟政治。

【摘要】精英在国际组织（IOs）创建、运营、保护和竞争方面居于核心地位，但关于他们对这些组织的态度的研究很少。为弥补这一不足，本文首次将精英对国际组织合法性的看法进行了系统性和比较性分析。基于2017-2019年对860名精英进行的一项独特的多国和多部门调查，我们描绘并解释了精英对不同议题领域的三个关键性国际组织的合法性观念，这三个组织分别是国际货币基金组织（IMF）、联合国气候变化框架公约（UNFCCC）和联合国安全理事会（UNSC）。结合民意调查和国际关系理论，本文提出了对精英合法性观念的解释，强调其对国际组织制度质量的满意度。本文将这一论点与三种常见的替代性解释进行对比，这三种解释分别强调功利主义计算、全球导向和国内线索。分析表明，精英阶层对国际组织的制度质量满意度与合法性观念最为一致：当精英阶层对国际组织中的民主、有效性和公平性更满意时，他们也认为这些国际组织更具合法性。这些发现表明，此前在功利主义计算、全球导向和国内线索方法之间的争论忽略了制度满意度作为对国际组织看法的解释的重要性。

Elites are central in creating, operating, defending and contesting international organisations (IOs), but little research is available about their attitudes toward these bodies. To address this gap, this article offers the first systematic and comparative analysis of elite perceptions of IO legitimacy. Building on a unique multi-country and multi-sector survey of 860 elites undertaken in 2017–19, we map and explain elite legitimacy beliefs toward three key IOs in different issue-areas: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Integrating public opinion research and international relations theory, the article advances an explanation of elites’ legitimacy beliefs that emphasises their satisfaction with the institutional qualities of IOs. We contrast this argument with three common alternative explanations, which respectively highlight utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues. The analyses show that elites’ satisfaction with institutional qualities of IOs is most consistently related to legitimacy beliefs: when elites are more satisfied with democracy, effectiveness and fairness in IOs, they also regard these IOs as more legitimate. These findings suggest that the prevailing debate between utilitarian calculation, global orientation and domestic cues approaches neglects the importance of institutional satisfaction as an explanation of attitudes toward IOs.

【编译】何伊楠

【校对】陈想

好好学习，天天“在看”

【新刊速递】《欧洲国际关系杂志》（EJIR）, Vol.27, Issue 2, 2021.

相关推荐