【新刊速递】第42期 | Security Studies, Vol.29, No.3, 2020 / 四六文摘

期刊简介

《安全研究》收录出版创新性的学术稿件——无论是理论研究、实践经验分享还是两者兼而有之。安全研究包含广泛的议题，从核扩散、核威慑、军民关系、战略文化、种族冲突、流行病与国家安全、民主政治、外交决策到定性与多方法研究的发展。根据2019年的Journal Citation Reports显示，其2018年的影响因子为2.167，在95种国际关系类期刊中排名第21。

本期编委

【编译】戴赟李思刘颖哲徐一凡姚寰宇朱曈菲

【审校】李博轩王国欣戴赟姚寰宇

【排版】赵怡雯

本期目录

1.盲人摸象：对各期刊对国际安全研究的比较

The Blind Men and the Elephant: Comparing the Study of International Security Across Journals

2. 自由主义、外交政策建制派与美国对外政策：论据与方法论

Liberalism, the Blob, and American Foreign Policy: Evidence and Methodology

3.酷刑的代价:来自西班牙宗教裁判所的证据

The Cost of Torture: Evidence from the Spanish Inquisition

4. 现实主义外交政策和跨大西洋安全机制

Realist Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Security Institutions

5.和平使者还是铁娘子？跨国研究视角下的性别与国际冲突研究

Peacemakers or Iron Ladies? A Cross-National Study of Gender and International Conflict

6.民族主义、威胁和对外部干预的支持：以伊拉克为例

Nationalism, Threat, and Support for External Intervention: Evidence from Iraq

盲人摸象：对各期刊对国际安全研究的比较

【题目】The Blind Men and the Elephant: Comparing the Study of International Security Across Journals

【作者】Jack Hoagland，美国约翰霍普金斯大学高级国际研究学院硕士研究生；Amy Oakes，威廉玛丽学院助理教授；Eric Parajon，威廉玛丽学院“教学、研究与国际政策”项目经理；Susan Peterson，威廉玛丽学院政府与国际关系学教授、全球研究中心主任。

【摘要】作者利用“教学、研究与国际政策”项目（TRIP Project）收集的数据库对国际安全（分/子）领域进行了了解，对该（分/子）领域的传统观点——性别构成、理论、方法和政策相关性等进行了检验。乍看之下，安全研究的期刊在这些问题上与政治科学和国际关系领域的期刊有很大的相似性，但是细察之后，作者发现对国际安全问题进行规范思考的期刊只有两个：《国际安全》（International Security）和《安全研究》（Security Studies）。第一，女性在这两种期刊上发表文章数量的占比较小，且并未随时间推移而增加。但是在其他顶级期刊女性独作或合作发表的文章却逐渐呈上升之势。第二，《国际安全》和《安全研究》两部期刊更多的采用现实主义的理论方法，对于其他非传统范式的接受速度较慢。第三，与其他类型期刊的刊文相比，这两部期刊较少采用定量研究方法。第四，这两部期刊相较其他期刊更能体现政策规范性。值得一提的是，《国际安全》杂志刊发包含明确政策建议文章的数量要远多于其他期刊。如果不考虑不同期刊和不同类型期刊之间关于安全议题研究的差异，那么本文对该国际安全（分/子）领域的理解就如盲人摸象，只揭示了一部分。

We use two major datasets collected by the Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project to map the international security subfield, examining conventional wisdom about the subfield’s gender composition, theories, methods, and policy relevance. At first glance, articles in security journals appear similar to security articles, in general, political science and international relations field journals on these variables. On closer inspection, however, we find that much of the standard thinking about international security describes only two security journals, International Security (IS) and Security Studies (SS). First, women author a small percentage of articles in these two journals, with little increase over time, whereas a growing share of articles in other top journals has a female author or coauthor. Second, more articles in IS and SS employ a realist theoretical approach, and these journals have been slower to embrace nonparadigmatic scholarship. Third, in contrast with articles published in the other journal types, only a small percentage of articles in IS and SS use quantitative methods. Finally, these journals are more policy prescriptive than journals representing other parts of the discipline. IS, in particular, publishes more articles containing explicit policy recommendations than any other journal. Our understanding of the international security subfield may reveal only part of the metaphorical elephant explored by the blind men if observers do not consider variation in security-related research across different journals and types of journals.

【编译】姚寰宇

【审校】戴赟

自由主义、外交政策建制派与美国对外政策：论据与方法论

【题目】Liberalism, the Blob, and American Foreign Policy: Evidence and Methodology

【作者】罗伯特·杰维斯（Robert Jervis）, 哥伦比亚大学政治学系教授、美国科学进步协会会员、美国艺术与科学院院士，2000-2001年任美国政治学会主席。他的研究领域涉及政治心理学、国际关系理论、决策分析、核战略和美国外交政策等，是国际政治心理学的集大成者。他的专著《国际政治中的知觉与错误知觉》《系统效应：政治与社会生活中的复杂性》是政治心理学和社会科学的经典名著，近期著有《领导人怎么思考》（2017）。

【摘要】约翰·米尔斯海默和斯蒂芬·沃尔特认为：自冷战结束以来，美国对外政策一直是失败的，而这种失败源于美国国内的政治体制。米尔斯海默认为自由主义的某种主流形式是有缺陷的，沃尔特认为自由主义是外交政策建制派（“the Blob”）的共识。这些论点虽然有一定道理，但没有充分的论据支撑，因为两位学者都忽视了各种标准的检验方法：反事实法（counterfactuals）、假说演绎法（hypothetico-deductive method）和比较分析中的差异法。从该角度考察这些论点具有多重作用：暴露其弱点、为进一步检验提供机会，凸显现实主义理论化过程中的解释性与规范性之间的张力，以及指出低估环境因素影响的其他案例。

John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt argue that American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War has been a failure and that the reasons stem from the American domestic political system. For Mearsheimer, a prevailing form of Liberalism is at fault; for Walt it is the consensus of the foreign policy establishment (“the Blob”). These arguments have much to be said for them but are not supported by adequate evidence because both authors neglect standard methods of verification: counterfactuals, the applications of the hypothetico-deductive method, and the use of comparisons to countries or cases in which the posited independent variable is absent. Examining the arguments in this light brings out weaknesses and opportunities for further testing, highlights the tension between the explanatory and the normative aspects of realist theorizing, and points to other cases in which the impact of the situation is discounted.

【编译】刘颖哲

【审校】姚寰宇

酷刑的代价:来自西班牙宗教裁判所的证据

【题目】The Cost of Torture: Evidence from the Spanish Inquisition

【作者】Ron E. Hassner 加州大学伯克利分校政治科学教授

【摘要】关于当代酷刑的经验证据很少。西班牙宗教裁判所的档案提供了关于审讯酷刑的定量和定性信息的详细历史来源。宗教裁判所的酷刑既残忍又系统，且对所有它认为隐瞒了证据的人进行严刑拷打。这种严刑拷打所得出的信息往往是可靠的：酷刑室中的证人和未受酷刑的证人提供了有关合作者、地点、事件和做法的相应信息。尽管如此，审讯人员对酷刑室的审讯结果仍持怀疑态度。这种官僚化的酷刑与“定时炸弹”理念行成鲜明对比，后者在9/11后推动了美国的酷刑政策。来自西班牙宗教裁判所档案的证据表明，酷刑并不能提供一个折中方案：在愤怒和恐惧的驱使下，人员无法在快速、业余且敷衍的酷刑中希望获取可靠的情报。

Empirical evidence on contemporary torture is sparse. The archives of the Spanish Inquisition provide a detailed historical source of quantitative and qualitative information about interrogational torture. The inquisition tortured brutally and systematically, willing to torment all who it deemed as withholding evidence. This torture yielded information that was often reliable: witnesses in the torture chamber and witnesses that were not tortured provided corresponding information about collaborators, locations, events, and practices. Nonetheless, inquisitors treated the results of interrogations in the torture chamber with skepticism. This bureaucratized torture stands in stark contrast to the “ticking bomb” philosophy that has motivated US torture policy in the aftermath of 9/11. Evidence from the archives of the Spanish Inquisition suggests torture affords no middle ground: one cannot improvise quick, amateurish, and half-hearted torture sessions, motivated by anger and fear, and hope to extract reliable intelligence.

【编译】朱曈菲

【审校】王国欣

现实主义外交政策和跨大西洋安全机制

【题目】Realist Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Security Institutions

【作者】Sean I. Kay，俄亥俄卫斯理大学（Ohio Wesleyan University）罗布森政治学教授（Robson Professor of Politics and Government），俄亥俄州立大学莫尚国际安全研究中心（Mershon Center for International Security Studies）莫尚研究员（Mershon Associate）。

【摘要】本文重新审视了国际关系理论中最重要的辩论之一，即现实主义和自由主义在安全机制问题上的辩论。对北大西洋公约组织(NATO，北约)所遭受的现实主义挑战的研究表明，现实主义假设反映在该联盟采取的制度形式上，即引导美国力量为西欧提供对抗苏联的集体防御。然而，现实主义却未能与冷战后的各国领导产生共鸣，后者以一种自由主义愿景来指导联盟发展，主要是通过军事干预和扩大成员来传播西方价值。北约的自由主义路径是基于对机制和安全的错误假设，因此导致了低效的军事行动和代价高昂的过度扩张。至2020年，北约正在冒着提供虚假安全承诺的风险。

This article revisits one of the most important debates in international relations theory—that between realists and liberals over security institutions. A test of the realist challenge to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) shows realist assumptions were reflected in the institutional form the alliance took channeling American power to provide collective defense of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. However, realism failed to resonate with post–Cold War leaders who guided the alliance with a liberal vision focused on spreading Western values via military interventions and membership enlargement. The liberal approach to NATO was based on faulty assumptions about institutions and security, leading to inefficient military operations and costly overextension. NATO risked, by 2020, offering a false promise of security.

【编译】徐一凡

【审校】王国欣

女性领导人都是和平使者还是铁娘子？跨国研究视角下的性别与国际冲突研究

【题目】Peacemakers or Iron Ladies? A Cross-National Study of Gender and International Conflict

【作者】Madison Schramm 美国圣母大学大战略创新方法博士后研究员；

Alexandra Stark 新美国（New America）政治改革项目高级研究员

【摘要】传统观点认为，当女性获得高级政治职位时，相比较男性而言，她们更有可能成为和平缔造者。然而，这篇文章认为，女性政治领导人可能比她们的男性同行更容易挑起冲突。文章的理论借鉴了女性主义理论的观点，尤其是性别是“表现型行为”的概念，认为领导人的性别对外交政策决策的影响因社会和制度背景而异。为了在精英政策群体中获得和维持地位，女性领导者通过挑起冲突来显示自己的坚韧和能力，从而彰显出她们的性别特点。对土耳其总理坦苏·奇莱尔（Tansu Çiller）和智利总统米歇尔·巴切莱特(Michelle Bachelet)任期内的统计检验和定性案例研究表明，在民主国家中，女性作为政府首脑比男性领导人更容易挑起冲突，这种影响源于国内政治的约束和整体女性政治权利水平两个因素。

Conventional wisdom suggests that when women attain high political office they are more likely to act as peacemakers than their male counterparts. In contrast, this article argues that women political leaders may be more likely to initiate conflict than their male colleagues. The theory draws on insights from feminist theory, particularly the notion that gender is performative, to argue that the effects of a leader’s gender on foreign policy decision making vary with social and institutional context. To gain and maintain status in elite policy in-groups, female leaders are incentivized to perform gender by signaling their toughness and competence through initiating conflict. Statistical tests and qualitative case studies of the tenures of Turkish prime minister Tansu Çiller and Chilean president Michelle Bachelet provide evidence that female heads of government in democracies are more likely to initiate conflict than their male counterparts and that this effect is conditioned both by domestic political constraints and overall levels of women’s political empowerment.

【编译】戴赟

【审校】李博轩

民族主义、威胁和对外部干预的支持：以伊拉克为例

【题目】Nationalism, Threat, and Support for External Intervention: Evidence from Iraq

【作者】Kaltenthaler, Karl C：艾克朗大学政治科学系教授；

Silverman, Daniel M：卡内基梅隆大学政治与战略研究所博士后研究员；

Dagher, Munqith M：阿尔·穆斯塔基拉研究中心（Al Mustakilla Research Center ，IIACSS)首席执行官。

【摘要】在一个经历武装冲突的社会中，影响公民对于外部军事干预的态度的因素是什么？从殖民时期的阿尔及利亚到当代的阿富汗，传统观点认为民族主义是反对和抵制此类干预的重要因素。相反，我们认为，民族主义对关于外部干预的态度的影响取决于这个国家所面临的战略背景。当一国的主要威胁来自于干预者自身时，民族主义确实会减少对于外界干预的支持。但当威胁来自其他国家时，民族主义实际上会对外界干预持支持态度以击败威胁。为了调查这些动态，作者使用了2016年在伊拉克进行的一项调查数据，这份特殊的调查内容包括美国领导的联盟和伊朗对伊斯兰国(ISIS)的军事干预，以及俄罗斯对其潜在的军事干预。调查结果与作者的观点大体一致，调查结果表示，与宗派主义等其他因素不同，民族主义促使伊拉克人在认为对国家存亡有必要的情况下寻求外国军事援助。

What drives citizens’ attitudes toward external military intervention in a society experiencing armed conflict? From colonial Algeria to contemporary Afghanistan, conventional wisdom holds that nationalism is a critical source of opposition and resistance to such intervention. In contrast, we argue that the impact of nationalism on views of external intervention hinges on the strategic context facing the target nation. When the country’s principal threat is from the intervener itself, nationalism will indeed reduce support for outside intervention. But when the threat comes from elsewhere, nationalism will actually boost support for external intervention to defeat it. To investigate these dynamics, we use public opinion data from a unique survey fielded across Iraq in 2016 that includes questions about the military interventions against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant by both the US-led coalition and Iran, as well as a potential military intervention by Russia. The results are broadly consistent with our argument, showing that, unlike other factors such as sectarianism, nationalism pushes Iraqis to seek foreign military help from any quarter when deemed necessary for national survival.

【编译】李思

【审校】姚寰宇

好好学习，天天“在看”

【新刊速递】第42期 | Security Studies, Vol.29, No.3, 2020

相关推荐