图片

期刊简介

图片

《欧洲海外干系杂志》（European Journal of International Relations）普通地代表了已在欧洲发展的海外干系畛域。自1995年创刊以来，该杂志已成为海外干系学界一个弥留而独处的声息。它以其欧洲发祥为基础，经过二十多年的发展，已成为海外干系界最好服从的缩影，包括前沿的表面狡辩、现代和畴昔的学术热门以及表面丰富的实证分析。

本期目次

1

谈德地位——东谈主类地位？探讨大限制暴力事件中谈德与非东谈主化之间的筹划

Moral status – human status? Interrogating the connection between morality and dehumanisation during mass violence

2

寰球非正义和践诺不安全的产生

Global injustice and the production of ontological insecurity

3

转型性方针？性别民众与时刻官僚的和平

Transformative indicators? Gender expertise and technocratic peace

4

探讨相聚国维和活动对东谈国对外事务的影响

Exploring the impact of United Nations peacekeeping operations on the external affairs of host states

5

西方对中国海外基础方法融资的替代有打算为何失败

Why the West’s alternative to China’s international infrastructure financing is failing

6

成员国退出何时会导致海外组织的沉迷？

When do member state withdrawals lead to the death of international organizations?

内容摘抄

谈德地位——东谈主类地位？探讨大限制暴力事件中谈德与非东谈主化之间的筹划

题目：Moral status – human status? Interrogating the connection between morality and dehumanisation during mass violence

作家简介：Torsten Michel，布里斯托大学海外干系高档讲师。主要商讨兴味在于海外干系（元）表面和大限制暴力的政事与伦理，尤其怜惜冲突时期和冲突后信任的作用，以及非东谈主化的观点过头在大限制暴行中的性质和功能。

摘抄：从20世纪70年代的早期商讨驱动，非东谈主化迟缓成为归并大限制暴行发生的基本能源和条目的一个弥留特征。永恒以来，一种广为禁受的主导不雅点觉得，谈德地位的丧失口角东谈主化经过中的要津组成身分，觉得受害者被撤废在义务的谈德范围以外，冲突了谈德壁垒，从而使得某些败坏风光突破了东谈主类群体中既有的暴力轨范。本文以大屠杀这一典型案例为参照，批判性地质疑了迄今为止将丧失谈德地位等同于非东谈主化这一紧闭置疑的不雅点。总体而言，本文主张对非东谈主化的表淘气使用和分析性使用进行更缜密的区分，需要对其训诲性气象和筹划性进行更详备的反想，并对其观点基础进行更为批判的探讨。这么作念不仅大略鞭策非东谈主化商讨突出现时的情景，还能使咱们大略更潜入地评估其在大限制暴力事件中的用途、深嗜过头弥留性。

Beginning with early studies in the 1970s， dehumanisation has become a key feature in attempts to grasp the fundamental dynamics and conditions under which mass atrocities emerge. One of the most long-standing， prominent and widely accepted conceptions sees the loss of moral status as a key constitutive component of processes of dehumanisation， suggesting that the victims’ exclusion from the moral universe of obligation breaks down moral barriers， enabling forms of persecution outside the established practices of violence among human communities. With reference to the paradigmatic case of the Holocaust， this article critically interrogates this so far unquestioned equation of a loss of moral standing with dehumanisation. Overall， it argues for a much more nuanced differentiation between normative and analytical uses of dehumanisation， the need for more detailed reflections on its empirical appearances and relevance， and a more critical engagement with its conceptual grounding. Doing so will lead dehumanisation research beyond its current state and would allow for a more intricate assessment of its uses， meanings and relevance in cases of mass violence.

寰球非正义与践诺不安全的产生

题目：Global injustice and the production of ontological insecurity

作家简介：Adam B. Lerner，马萨诸塞大学洛厄尔分校政事学副教学。

摘抄：本文建议，从头怜惜占主导地位的海外老例怎么产生践诺层面上的不安全，有助于将践诺安全商讨（OSS）更好大地向宇宙政事中的不公平，十分是当它在多个层面上影响结构边际化的政事活动者时。本商讨将伊里斯-马里恩·扬（Iris Marion Young）的商讨服从，十分是她对于正义是扬弃总揽和压迫的表面引入践诺安全商讨，从而建议了这一论点。本文鉴戒杨的“压迫的五面性”表面，觉得海外体系中大量存在的多重非正义应被归并为海外体系中践诺不安全的主要开头，它们不仅径直收缩身份的安谧性，还扼制了处于弱势的活动体追求践诺安全的实践。在海外层面，这些经过突出单一分析档次，以不同的样式影响着个东谈主、社会群体致使国度。将扬的表面纳入践诺安全商讨，不仅有助于在政事表面和海外干系这两个同样分离的子学科之间成立弥留筹划，还能为学者提供更潜入的表面框架，探讨海外体系非正义怎么不时导致践诺不安全。著述临了建议，践诺安全商讨应进行表淘气转向，想考寰球正义是否应被视为多个共存活动体寻求践诺安全的前提条目。

This article argues that a renewed focus on how dominant international practices produce ontological insecurity can help better orient ontological security studies (OSS) to injustice in world politics， particularly as it affects structurally marginalized political actors at multiple levels. It makes this case by bringing the work of Iris Marion Young to bear on OSS， particularly her theory of justice as the elimination of domination and oppression. Drawing on Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression，” this paper argues that multiple injustices endemic to the international system should be understood as key producers of ontological insecurity in the international system， both in their direct ability to destabilize identities and in their undermining of disadvantaged actors’ ontological security-seeking practices. On international scales， these processes transcend levels of analysis， affecting individuals， social groups， and even states in differing ways. Incorporating Young’s work into OSS not only helps build a vital bridge between the oft estranged sub-disciplines of political theory and IR， but also can provide scholars a means of better theorizing how ontological insecurity is so often a product of the international system’s injustices. The paper thus concludes by proposing a normative turn within OSS， asking whether global justice should be understood as a precondition for ontological security-seeking among multiple co-existing actors.

转型性方针？性别民众与时刻官僚的和平

题目：Transformative indicators? Gender expertise and technocratic peace

作家简介：Laura McLeod，英国曼彻斯特大学海外政事学高档讲师。她的商讨包括性别、女权主张、安全以及冲突后的和平拔擢。

摘抄：在畴昔十年中，使用方针来跟踪海外和平拔擢和维和名堂、政策与实践的执行情况日益大量。好多学者品评这些方针具有时刻官僚化、措施化及殖民化的效应。然则，本文从不同的角度进行探讨：方针能带来变革吗？现代对方针的品评平常将其视为一身、去情境化的官僚器用，淡薄了开辟、使用和颠覆方针的东谈主类主体的复杂性。本文将方针界说为一种强有劲的性别化常识坐蓐时刻，既可被轨制活动体开辟、使用，也可被他们颠覆。本文通过对轨制活动体的访谈以及相聚国通告长论说的分析，探究了26个方针之一的发展经过，该方针用于辩论相聚国“妇女、和平与安全”（WPS）议程的执行情况。所商讨的方针跟踪了相聚国维和与十分政事任务中遴聘高档性别民众的数目。2010年至2020年间，围绕这一方针的弘扬、手段和所在的论说揭示了相聚国中提倡变革的女性主张者所采用的策略和收拢的契机，鞭策了WPS议程的潜入执行。尽管方针有固化新开脱主张轨范的风险，但淡薄其开辟、使用或颠覆方面的后劲无疑是一种情愿，抵制了完安谧质性变革的契机。

In the last decade， the use of indicators to track implementation of international peacebuilding and peacekeeping programmes， policies and practices has proliferated. Indicators are criticised by many scholars for their technocratic， standardised and colonialising effects. This article follows a different line of inquiry. Can indicators be transformative? Contemporary critiques place indicators as bureaucratic artefacts in a vacuum， detached and decontextualised from the nuances of human agency developing， utilising and subverting them. I conceptualise indicators as powerful gendered technologies of knowledge creation developed， used and subverted by institutional actors. Using interviews with institutional actors and United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Reports， I trace institutional stories of one indicator (out of 26) developed to capture implementation of the UN Women， Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. The indicator investigated tracks the number of senior gender experts employed within UN Peacekeeping and Special Political Missions. Stories of progress， skill， and location in the reporting of this indicator between 2010 and 2020 highlight strategies deployed and opportunities taken by feminist-change advocates within the UN to prompt a deeper implementation of the WPS agenda. While indicators hold the danger of reinforcing neoliberal norms， the failure to conceptualise the potential for developing， utilising and/or subverting the indicators smacks of hubris， limiting opportunities for meaningful transformation.

探讨相聚国维和活动对东谈国对外事务的影响

题目：Exploring the impact of United Nations peacekeeping operations on the external affairs of host states

作家简介：Richard Caplan，牛津大学政事与海外干系系海外干系教学。John Gledhill，麦克奈因催情迷幻喷剂牛津大学海外发展系寰球治理副教学。Maline Meiske，牛津大学政事与海外干系系博士后商讨员。

摘抄：相聚国（UN）维和活动（PKOs）的商讨平常很少怜惜东谈国发展的一个弥留方面——对外事务。本文聚焦于冷战后时期的相聚国维和活动，旨在探讨相聚国维和活动怎么影响东谈国的对外事务。咱们通过对相聚国维和活动要津文献的定量内容分析，细则了相聚国怜惜的东谈国对外事务的具体方面。接着，本文建议一个观点框架，分离出维和活动对东谈国对外事务十分具影响力的三个畛域：干系构建、轨制与酬酢才调拔擢以及政策制定。咱们识别了维和活动影响东谈国对外事务的三条旅途：授权脚色、自主活动以及无意后果。结合文献分析和原创访谈数据，本文以东帝汶和利比里亚这两个连年来采用过大限制相聚国维和任务的两个国度为例，阐释了该观点框架的践诺应用。

Studies of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations (PKOs) typically give scant attention to an important aspect of host states’ development: their external affairs. This article identifies ways in which UN PKOs can shape the external affairs of host states， focusing on UN peacekeeping in the post-Cold War period. We present the findings of a quantitative content analysis of key UN peacekeeping documents to establish which aspects of host state external affairs have been of concern to the UN. We then provide a conceptual framework that maps three areas of external affairs in which PKOs are particularly influential: relationship-building; institution- and diplomatic capacity-building; and the shaping of policy in domains of external affairs. We identify three pathways through which PKOs shape the external affairs of host states: mandated roles， improvised actions， and unintended consequences. Drawing on documentary analysis and original interview data， we illustrate our conceptual framework through an exploration of the impact of peacekeeping on the external affairs of two countries that have hosted large-scale UN-led peacekeeping missions in recent decades: Timor-Leste (East Timor) and Liberia.

西方对中国海外基础方法融资的替代有打算为何失败

题目：Why the West’s alternative to China’s international infrastructure financing is failing

作家简介：Shahar Hameiri，昆士兰大学政事学与海外干系学院的海外政事学教学，澳大利亚商讨理事会改日商讨员，他的主要商讨东亚和太平洋地区的安全与发展问题。Lee Jones，伦敦玛丽女王大学政事经济学与海外干系教学。他的商讨重心是政事经济、安全、治理、主权和打扰，尤其是在东亚。

摘抄：跟着地缘政事竞争加重，西方国度试图与中国的“一带一齐”倡议（BRI）竞争。然则，寰球基础方法的资金动员依然不及，标明西方国度难以挑战中国在此畛域的主导地位。为什么会这么？通过对中国和好意思国的相比政事经济分析，本文觉得，单靠地缘计策想维的国度束缚者无法创造确凿的竞争力。国度的上风和弱势根植于结构性政事经济动态。当国度束缚者的规画合适或响应繁密社会力量过头所掌控的成本和坐蓐力的利益时，同样会产生强有劲的影响。这在中国尤其彰着，其倡议主淌若为处置工业饱和和成本过度积存问题提供空间和时分上的诊治器用。违反，当地缘政事抱负与势力集团的利益和物资现实脱节时，效果同样乏善可陈。这小数适用于好意思国，其脾性是基础方法老化、工业空腹化以及占主导地位的金融部门对基础方法基本不感兴味。尽管好意思国国度束缚者已转向加大对国内基础方法的进入，但在海外上，西方络续遴荐的新开脱主张作念法仍然依赖于动员私东谈主成本参与基础方法投资这一还是失败的作念法。

As geopolitical rivalry intensifies， Western states have moved to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However， the mobilisation of funds for global infrastructure remains paltry， suggesting that Western states cannot contest Chinese dominance here. Why? Through comparative political economy analysis of China and the United States， we argue that serious competition cannot be willed into being by state managers thinking geostrategically. States’ strengths and weaknesses are rooted in structural political economy dynamics. Where state managers’ plans jibe with， or express， the interests of powerful social forces and the capital and productive forces they command， a powerful impact results. This is true of China， whose BRI is principally a spatio-temporal fix for industrial overcapacity and over-accumulated capital. Conversely， where geopolitical ambitions are divorced from powerful groups’ interests and material realities， results are lacklustre. This applies to the United States， characterised by infrastructural decay， industrial hollowing-out and a dominant financial sector largely disinterested in infrastructure. Although US state managers are turning towards increased state spending on domestic infrastructure， internationally， the West’s continued neoliberal approach still relies on the already-failed approach of mobilising private capital into infrastructure investment.

成员国退出何时会导致海外组织的沉迷？

题目：When do member state withdrawals lead to the death of international organizations?

作家简介：Inken von Borzyskowski，牛津大学海外干系学教学。她的商讨侧重于海外干系的国内务治，重心是海外组织过头对国内冲突和选举的影响。Felicity Vabulas，佩珀代因大学海外商讨副教学。她的商讨重心是海外组织的政事经济学和异邦游说。

摘抄：

近来的商讨怜惜到列国对海外组织（IOs）的反弹，包括成员国退出是否会影响海外组织的存续。因此，咱们建议问题：成员国退出何时会导致海外组织的沉迷？咱们对退出与海外组织沉迷之间存在大量关联抓怀疑气派，因为平常单个成员国并非海外组织生涯的要津。此外，退出同样是由于个别成员国的偏好与其他成员产生不对，这些留存成员可能在退出后相聚在沿途，从而确保致使延伸海外组织的存续。即使是多个国度的退出，也无意导致海外组织的沉迷，因为一个较小的成员团体可能更易克服集体活动的挑战。然则，弥留成员的退出可能会因资源、商场影响力和引导的缺失而影响组织的存续。咱们操纵生涯模子，对1909至2014/2020年时期532个海外组织的退出数据进行测试，并通过案例分析讲明其动态。终结复古咱们的不雅点：退出总体上并不导致海外组织的沉迷，但首创成员的退出可能加快其沉迷。深嗜的是，经济实力较强的国度的退出似乎有助于海外组织的存续（平常通过改良和/或从头加入罢了）。这些发现存助于更好地归并海外组织的人命周期，以及海外互助的韧性和脆弱性。

Recent research has drawn attention to states’ backlash against international organizations (IOs)， including whether member state withdrawals affect the longevity of IOs. We therefore ask when do member state withdrawals lead to the death of IOs? We are skeptical of a general link between withdrawal and IO death because on average， any one member is not critical for the survival of an IO. Also， withdrawal is often driven by one member state’s preferences diverging from remaining members; these remaining states may band together after withdrawal， ensuring or even enhancing the longevity of the IO. Even withdrawal by several states may not contribute to IO death because a smaller group of remaining members may better overcome collective action challenges. Nonetheless， exit by an important member may affect IO survival by removing resources， market power， and guidance. We test these arguments using survival models on an original dataset of withdrawals across 532 IOs from 1909 to 2014/2020 and illustrate the dynamics with case vignettes. The results support our arguments: withdrawals in general do not lead to IO death but the withdrawal of founding members can speed IO death. Interestingly， withdrawal by economically powerful states seems to facilitate IO survival (often through reform and/or re-entry). These findings contribute to a better understanding of the lifecycle of IOs as well as to the resilience and vulnerabilities of international cooperation.

编译 | 束任翔

审校 | 张潇文

排版 | 杨语灵

本文源于《欧洲海外干系杂志》（EJIR） Vol. 30， No. 3， 2024，本文为公益共享，办事于科研教学，不代表本平台不雅点。如有省略，接待指正。