【題目】Chinese views of the United States: evidence from Weibo

【作者】官逸塵（Yichen Guan）,哈佛大學(xué)政府學(xué)系博士生；Dustin Tingley, 哈佛大學(xué)政治系教授；David Romney ，哈佛大學(xué)政府學(xué)系博士生；Amaney Jamal ，普林斯頓大學(xué)政治學(xué)教授；Robert Keohane ，普林斯頓大學(xué)伍德羅·威爾遜學(xué)院政治學(xué)教授。

【摘要】

  通過分析中國社交媒體網(wǎng)站，即微博上的社交媒體話語，我們研究了中國對美國的態(tài)度，其次是中國對日本，俄羅斯和越南的態(tài)度。我們分別著重研究了普遍性的態(tài)度分析以及涉及美國的特定事件時(shí)中國的反應(yīng)?？傮w來看，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)中國網(wǎng)民對美國政治的興趣遠(yuǎn)大于對美國社會的興趣。他們對美國的看法存有強(qiáng)烈的矛盾情緒。無論是在經(jīng)濟(jì)、政治、思想還是文化上，中國網(wǎng)民對美國影響力的各個(gè)方面都持有顯著的正面態(tài)度。而當(dāng)焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)向美國外交政策時(shí)，網(wǎng)民對美國便持有負(fù)面態(tài)度。他們認(rèn)為美國的行動往往與中國針鋒相對。相反，中國網(wǎng)民對日本，俄羅斯和越南的態(tài)度卻千差萬別。一方面，中國網(wǎng)民對其他國家與對美國的態(tài)度存在差異。另一方面，在中東地區(qū)反美主義占據(jù)著主導(dǎo)地位。這兩方面的對比是驚人的。

【原文】

  We study Chinese attitudes toward the United States, and secondarily toward Japan, Russia, and Vietnam, by analyzing social media discourse on the Chinese social media site, Weibo. We focus separately on a general analysis of attitudes and on Chinese responses to specific international events involving the United States. In general, we find that Chinese netizens are much more interested in US politics than US society. Their views of the United States are characterized by deep ambivalence; they have remarkably favorable attitudes toward many aspects of US influence, whether economic, political, intellectual, or cultural. Attitudes toward the United States become negative when the focus turns to US foreign policy - actions that Chinese netizens view as antithetical to Chinese interests. On the contrary, attitudes toward Japan, Russia, and Vietnam vary a great deal from one another. The contrast between these differentiated Chinese views toward the United States and other countries, on the one hand, and the predominant anti-Americanism in the Middle East, on the other, is striking.

【編譯】戴赟

【審核】李思

【題目】The ‘Abe Doctrine’: Japan’s new regional realism

【作者】H.D.P. Envall，澳大利亞國立大學(xué)國際關(guān)系專職研究員。

【摘要】

  自2012年以來，日本首相安倍晉三一直試圖重塑日本的外交和安全政策。安倍的議程也逐漸被稱為“安倍主義”(Abe Doctrine)。然而，“安倍主義”的實(shí)質(zhì)引發(fā)了相當(dāng)多的爭論：安倍主義究竟是民族主義、修正主義還是現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的？本文通過研究安倍主義充滿矛盾性的政策理念，并根據(jù)安倍主義的政策處方評估這些政策理念，從而為這些爭論做出一定的貢獻(xiàn)。文章認(rèn)為，處在日本政策制定的長期演變過程中的安倍主義，在其政策處方上主要是現(xiàn)實(shí)主義的，而不是民族主義的。事實(shí)上，直到現(xiàn)在，安倍主義才被認(rèn)為與過去的政策實(shí)踐大相徑庭，這一點(diǎn)并不體現(xiàn)在它如何擴(kuò)大了日本在國際上的作用，而是體現(xiàn)在它如何減小了日本在國際上的作用（即更強(qiáng)調(diào)地區(qū)性的作用）。因此，安倍主義的基本邏輯可能推動日本走上一條新的區(qū)域現(xiàn)實(shí)主義道路。

【原文】

  Since 2012, Japan’s Prime Minister Abe Shinzo has sought to remake  the country’s foreign and security policy. Abe’s agenda, which is increasingly called an ‘Abe Doctrine’, has prompted considerable debate as to its true nature. Is the Abe Doctrine nationalist, revisionist, or realist? This article contributes to these debates by tracing the competing characterizations of an Abe Doctrine’s policy ideas and assessing these against the doctrine’s policy prescriptions. It argues that the Abe Doctrine–situated within the long-term evolution of Japanese policymaking – is chiefly realist rather than nationalist in its policy prescriptions. In fact, where the doctrine does constitute a major departure from past policy practice, largely unrecognized until now, is not so much in how it expands Japan’s international role but in how it narrows this role. The underlying logic of the Abe Doctrine may therefore be pushing Japan towards a new form of regional realism.

【編譯】馮毓婧

【校對】李思

【題目】Unfaithful allies? US security clients in China-led international institutions

【作者】Dong Jung Kim，耶魯-新加坡國立大學(xué)學(xué)院（Yale-NUS College）助理教授。

【摘要】

  本文考察了美國的安全委托國在支持美國國際地位挑戰(zhàn)者所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的國際制度時(shí)的決定。安全委托國的決定受到兩個(gè)因素的影響：(1)挑戰(zhàn)者所領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的制度的性質(zhì)， (2)委托國在地區(qū)安全環(huán)境中所處的地位。作者認(rèn)為，當(dāng)挑戰(zhàn)者主導(dǎo)的制度是旨在對美國主導(dǎo)的制度框架進(jìn)行補(bǔ)充而不是與之競爭時(shí)，面臨廣泛安全問題的委托國更有可能對其進(jìn)行支持。相比之下，當(dāng)挑戰(zhàn)者主導(dǎo)的制度旨在與以美國主導(dǎo)的制度進(jìn)行競爭時(shí)，受到挑戰(zhàn)者所帶來的明確安全威脅的委托國則不會對其進(jìn)行支持。對2014年至2016年間日本和韓國在對中國主導(dǎo)的兩個(gè)制度所作出的回應(yīng)的案例研究印證了這一觀點(diǎn)。

【原文】

  This article examines a US security client’s decision to support an international institution led by a challenger to its patron’s leadership position in the international system. Two factors together shape the client’s decision: (i) the nature of the institution led by the challenger and (ii) the position of the client in the regional security environment. I argue that a challenger-led institution that aims to complement rather than compete with the institutional framework of the US-led order is likely to be supported by the client that is only facing a diffused security concern from the challenger. In contrast, the challenger’s institution that is designed to compete with US-led institutions will not be supported by the client that is facing a specific security concern from the challenger. This argument is substantiated by case studies of Japanese and South Korean responses to two China-led institutions between 2014 and 2016.

【編譯】姚寰宇

【校對】李博軒

【題目】The Prospects of Human Rights in US-China Relations: A Constructivist Understanding

【作者】Hun Joon Kim，高麗大學(xué)政治學(xué)與國際關(guān)系系教授。

【摘要】

  中美關(guān)系在人權(quán)領(lǐng)域的前景如何？懷疑論者認(rèn)為，人權(quán)不再是中美之間的問題。傳統(tǒng)權(quán)力政治對中美關(guān)系的理解忽略了規(guī)范的作用，而建構(gòu)主義的觀點(diǎn)承認(rèn)規(guī)范的獨(dú)立影響。本文將中美權(quán)力政治的傳統(tǒng)理解與建構(gòu)主義的規(guī)范研究聯(lián)系起來。建構(gòu)主義的規(guī)范理論有三個(gè)密切相關(guān)的發(fā)現(xiàn)：規(guī)范的歷史建構(gòu)（historical construction）、規(guī)范的長期且多方面的影響、規(guī)范的持久性（persistence），它們可以被用來預(yù)測中美關(guān)系中的人權(quán)狀況?；谶@些理論的預(yù)測，本文認(rèn)為：盡管中美在人權(quán)領(lǐng)域的趨同并非完全不可能，但過去的競爭與對抗將會延續(xù)下去，人權(quán)仍將是中美關(guān)系中頗受爭議的問題。

【原文】

  What are the prospects of U.S.-China relations in the area of human rights? Skeptics maintain that human rights is no longer an issue between the United States and China. A traditional understanding of U.S.-China relations ignores the role of norms, while the constructivist perspective recognizes their independent effects. This paper links the traditional understanding of power politics between the United States and China with the study of constructivist norm research. The three findings of constructivist norm theories are relevant and applied to predict the status of human rights in U.S.-China relations: the historical construction of norms, the long-term and multifaceted effects of norms, and the persistence of norms. Based on these theoretical predictions, it is expected that, although convergence is not completely impossible, the past dynamic of competition and confrontation will continue and human rights will still be a contentious issue in U.S.-China relations.

【編譯】劉穎哲

【校對】王國欣

【題目】Reacting to China’s rise throughout history: balancing and accommodating in East Asia

【作者】孟維瞻(Weizhan Meng)，復(fù)旦大學(xué)中國研究院助理研究員兼助理教授；胡偉星(Weixing Hu) ，香港大學(xué)政治與公共行政學(xué)系名譽(yù)教授。

【摘要】

  學(xué)界對中國的崛起及其他國家對此的反應(yīng)進(jìn)行了廣泛的研究。但是，對于歷史上其他國家如何應(yīng)對中國的崛起，以及中國如何與這些國家進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)略互動的研究卻相對較少。傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，東亞國家間的關(guān)系并不是以威斯特伐利亞體系的模式運(yùn)作的，中國在歷史上的崛起并未引發(fā)這一地區(qū)的制衡行為。本文對此觀點(diǎn)提出了挑戰(zhàn)。我們認(rèn)為，東亞國際關(guān)系并不是威斯特伐利亞體系基本規(guī)則的例外。中國的每一次崛起，都會引發(fā)包括游牧帝國與定居王國在內(nèi)的周邊政權(quán)的制衡行動。只有在被中國或親中國政權(quán)擊敗后，這些鄰國才會接納中國。在東亞歷史上，中國的霸權(quán)并不是理所當(dāng)然的。在過去的2000多年里，只有在三個(gè)時(shí)間段（秦漢，隋唐，明清）中，中國可以成功壓制區(qū)域內(nèi)的抵抗并且與鄰國保持穩(wěn)定的朝貢關(guān)系。在其余的時(shí)間內(nèi)，中國無法在東亞維持霸權(quán)地位。

【原文】

  The rise of China and how other countries respond to China’s rising is widely studied. But little has been done on how other countries reacted to the rise of China throughout history and how China strategically interacted with them. The conventional wisdom holds East Asian inter-national relations did not operate in the Westphalian way and China’s rising in history did not trigger regional balancing actions. In this article, we challenge that view. We argue East Asian international relations were not exceptional to basic rules of the Westphalian system. Each time China rose up, it triggered balancing actions from neighboring regimes, including nomadic empires and settled kingdoms. The neighboring regimes would accommodate China only after they were defeated by China or pro-China regimes propped up in these countries. The Chinese hegemony in East Asian history could not be taken for granted. Over last 2,000 plus years, only during three periods of time (the Qin-Han, Sui-Tang, and Ming-Qing dynasties) China could successfully overpower regional resistance and enjoyed a stable tributary relationship with neighboring states. In the rest of time, the Chinese state could not retain hegemony in East Asia.

【編譯】朱曈菲

【校對】李博軒