期刊简介
《国际研究评论》（Review of International Studies）是由剑桥大学出版社代表英国国际研究协会出版且同行评审的国际关系学术期刊，其前身为British Journal of International Studies (1975 - 1980)。该期刊致力于反映全球政治的性质变化和新兴的政治挑战，旨在为国际社会搭建一个可供辩论的平台用以讨论当下紧迫的全球议题。过去五年综合影响因子为3.6。
本期目录
1
基础设施与整体国家：内在关系、国家形成过程及葛兰西国家理论
Infrastructure and the integral state: Internal Relations, processes of state formation, and Gramscian state theory
2
内战中武装团体的形成：“运动型”“叛乱型”和“国家分裂型”起源
Armed group formation in civil war: ‘Movement’, ‘insurgent’, and ‘state splinter’ origins
3
国际政治中的合法治理：迈向合法化的关系理论
Legitimate governance in international politics: Towards a relational theory of legitimation
4
“民族征服了国家”：阿伦特视角下的民族国家内部矛盾
‘The nation has conquered the state’: Arendtian insights on the internal contradictions of the nation-state
5
成为人道主义国家：对世界政治中将“地位追求”作为治国方略的表演性分析
Becoming a humanitarian state: A performative analysis of ‘status-seeking’ as statecraft in world politics
6
乌克兰战争中的“概念运作”之韧性（resilience）：对其国际与国内意义的探讨
Resilience as a ‘concept at work’ in the war in Ukraine: Exploring its international and domestic significance
7
帝国主义、反帝国抵抗与国际等级制度的塑造：以20世纪30年代的波斯为例
Imperial power, anti-imperial resistance, and the shaping of international hierarchies: Lessons from 1930s Persia
8
后苏联时期权力等级制度的形成：塔吉克斯坦与俄罗斯关系中的后殖民主义
Post-Soviet power hierarchies in the making: Postcolonialism in Tajikistan’s relations with Russia
内容摘要
基础设施与整体国家：内在关系、国家形成过程及葛兰西国家理论
题目：Infrastructure and the integral state: Internal Relations, processes of state formation, and Gramscian state theory
作者：Daniel R. McCarthy，墨尔本大学社会与政治科学学院讲师，研究兴趣包括国际关系理论、科学与技术研究、社会权力理论、历史唯物主义和美国外交政策。
摘要：基础设施在国家形成过程中占据核心地位。国际关系学中物质主义的复兴通过对基础设施政治和国家建构的深入分析，为我们理解国家形态做出了重要贡献。然而，迄今为止，学界中与安东尼奥·葛兰西、尼科斯·普兰查斯和鲍勃·杰索普的国家理论传统相关的研究尚显不足。本文通过与布鲁诺·拉图尔的外部关系本体论和行动者网络理论（ANT）的比较，认为国家理论及其内在关系本体论在避免将国家实体化的同时，提供了一种对基础设施与国家形成进行分析的方法，该方法敏锐地捕捉到了社会秩序随时间推移的再现过程。通过发展葛兰西的“整体国家”（integral state）概念，本文强调了公民社会、国家机器与基础设施创建之间的必要相互渗透。此外，本文通过对冷战初期美国发展核基础设施的分析阐明以上概念性论点，并以民防教育计划为例，探讨了基础设施与整体国家之间的内在关系。理解过去、现在及未来潜在的社会技术秩序形式的内在关系，对于重新思考国际关系中技术设计政治具有重要意义。
Infrastructures are central to processes of state formation. The revival of materialism in International Relations has made an important contribution to our understanding of states through careful analysis of the politics of infrastructure and state building. Yet, to date, engagement with the state-theoretical tradition associated with the work of Antonio Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, and Bob Jessop has been absent. Through comparison with the external-relational ontology of Bruno Latour and actor-network theory (ANT), this article argues that state theory and its internal-relational ontology avoids reifying the state while providing an analysis of infrastructure and state formation sensitive to the historical reproduction of social orders over time. Developing Gramsci’s concept of the ‘integral state’, it emphasises the necessary interpenetration between civil society, the state apparatus, and the creation of infrastructure. These conceptual arguments are illustrated through an analysis of the United States’ development of nuclear infrastructures during the early Cold War period, in the internal relations between infrastructure and the integral state are explored through Civil Defense Education programmes. Clarifying the internal relations of past, present, and potential future forms of socio-technical order is an important task for rethinking the politics of technological design in International Relations.
内战中武装团体的形成：“运动型”“叛乱型”和“国家分裂型”起源
题目：Armed group formation in civil war: ‘Movement’, ‘insurgent’, and ‘state splinter’ origins
作者：Anastasia Shesterinina，约克大学政治学系比较政治学教授、系主任，研究兴趣为比较政治和国际关系等；Michael Livesey，英国谢菲尔德大学政治与国际关系系博士生，研究兴趣为安全、恐怖主义研究与英国政治等。
摘要：非国家武装团体如何在国内武装冲突中形成？研究者们已开始将武装团体细分，但我们对武装团体如何以不同方式出现仍知之甚少。本文结合社会运动、内战和军政关系领域的相关文献，提出了一种将武装团体的起源分为“运动型”、“叛乱型”和“国家分裂型”的类型学。我们认为，在广泛动员、边缘地区对国家的挑战以及政权内部碎片化的背景下，不同的冲突动态塑造了不同的武装团体起源。在这些背景下出现的武装团体在初始成员和领导层上通常存在差异，而这正是我们关注的基本组织维度。我们通过将不同起源的武装团体映射到现有的跨国数据上，并结合实例案例绘制类型叙述，展示了这种类型学的有效性。这一讨论通过超越单一的起源类型或高度细分的组织分析，关注更广泛的冲突动态，推动了对武装团体形成在冲突研究中的重要性的理解。因此，这一进展也有助于深入探究武装团体的形成过程，并揭示其行为模式与冲突动态之间的关联。未来的研究应通过深入分析武装团体的复杂历史，来比较和考察我们在本文中识别出的不同起源类型。
How do non-state armed groups form in intra-state armed conflicts? Researchers have started to disaggregate armed groups, but we still know little about how armed groups emerge in different ways. Drawing on the literature on social movements, civil wars, and civil–military relations, we generate a typology of ‘movement’, ‘insurgent’, and ‘state splinter’ origins of armed groups. We argue that fundamentally different dynamics of conflict shape armed group origins in the context of broad-based mobilisation, peripheral challenges to the state, and intra-regime fragmentation. Armed groups that emerge in these contexts in general differ in their initial membership and leadership, the basic organisational dimensions that we focus on. We demonstrate the utility of our typology by mapping different origins of armed groups onto existing cross-national data and charting type narratives in illustrative cases. This discussion advances recent efforts to understand the importance of armed group emergence for outcomes of interest to conflict scholars by moving beyond either separate types of origins or highly disaggregated organisational analyses to broader conflict dynamics through which armed groups form, with implications for how these groups act. Future research should consider different origins which we identify in comparison through an in-depth analysis of armed groups’ complex histories.
国际政治中的合法治理：迈向合法化的关系理论
题目：Legitimate governance in international politics: Towards a relational theory of legitimation
作者：Wolfgang Minatti，德国波茨坦大学博士后研究员，欧洲大学学院政治与社会科学系博士，研究兴趣为国际政治中治理的合法性，特别是内战中的非国家暴力行为体。
摘要：国际政治中的治理主体如何获得合法性？目前关于合法化的研究方法由于预先设定了合法性的“来源”，并将受众对正当统治期望的变化视为合法化过程的外生因素，因此无法充分解释当代国际和全球政治中治理的复杂性。而本文将现有的合法化模型与关系理论相结合，认为要分析制度复杂性的构成，需要重点关注嵌入治理网络中的受众及其期望。本文还提出了一个合法化的关系理论，以强调合法化背后的机制：合法化应被概念化为一种在行为体之间寻求规范期望一致性的过程。治理关系的一致性程度可能受多种机制影响，这些机制在关系层面及更广泛的网络中运作，更高的一致性则会促成更稳定的治理实践。由此，该理论通过发展研究国际政治不同背景下的合法化途径，在合法化研究领域取得了进展：它不依赖于预设的正当性来源理论，并通过考虑合法化的内生机制，为理解制度合法性随时间的变化提供了一个改进框架。
How do governing actors in international politics become legitimised? Current approaches to the study of legitimation do not fully account for the complexities of governance in contemporary international and global politics because they pre-specify ‘sources’ of legitimacy and treat change in audience expectations towards rightful rule as exogenous to legitimation processes. Instead, this article synthesises existing models of legitimation with relational theory to argue that constellations of institutional complexities necessitate an analytical focus on audiences and their expectations as embedded in governance networks. It then provides a relational theory of legitimation, emphasising the mechanisms undergirding legitimation: legitimation should be conceptualised as a process of congruence-finding between actors’ normative expectations. A governance relation might be influenced towards greater or lesser congruence via several mechanisms working at the level of the relation and the wider network, with more congruence giving rise to stabler governance practices. In this way, the theory builds upon legitimation scholarship by developing pathways to investigate legitimation across the varied contexts of international politics: it avoids a normative background theory of legitimacy sources and provides an improved framework for understanding change in the legitimacy of institutions over time by considering endogenous mechanisms of legitimation.
“民族征服了国家”：阿伦特视角下的民族国家内部矛盾
题目：‘The nation has conquered the state’: Arendtian insights on the internal contradictions of the nation-state
作者：Peter J. Verovšek，荷兰格罗宁根大学欧洲一体化历史与理论系（Department of History and Theory of European Integration）助理教授，研究兴趣为欧洲一体化、记忆研究、当代欧陆政治理论等。
摘要：作为当代政治中“主权主义转向”（sovereigntist turn）的一部分，政治权力全球化向“超越”或“凌驾于”民族国家之上的结构转型正日益受到质疑。尽管这些由有界限的民族对地方控制的诉求可能是民主的，但在实证上，它们通常也带有民族主义色彩。基于汉娜·阿伦特对“民族征服了国家”这一论述的分析，本文认为，从民主主权主义向民族主权主义的转变根植于民族国家概念内部的基本不稳定性。在这个连字符复合词中，前者“民族”（nation）基于人们的族裔背景偏向某些特定个体，而后者“国家”（state）则是一个普遍性的概念，要求平等对待所有人。本文的基本论点是，这些内部矛盾有助于解释呼吁将政治权力归还民族国家的民族主义倾向。本文将以中东欧的“非自由民主国家”为例，并聚焦于波兰和匈牙利，阐明以上观点。
The globalisation of political power into structures ‘above’ or ‘beyond’ the nation-state has increasingly been called into question as part of a ‘sovereigntist turn’ in contemporary politics. While such demands for local control by bounded peoples may be democratic, empirically they often also take a nationalist form. Building on Hannah Arendt’s analysis of how ‘the nation conquered the state’, I argue that the slippage from democratic to national sovereigntism is rooted in fundamental conceptual instabilities within the concept of the nation-state. Whereas the first term in this hyphenated construct favours certain individuals based on their ethnic background, the latter is a universal concept that demands the equal treatment of all. My basic thesis is that these internal contradictions help to explain the nationalist tendency in calls to return political power to the nation-state. I illustrate these points by drawing on examples from the ‘illiberal democracies’ of Central-Eastern Europe, focusing on Poland and Hungary.
成为人道主义国家：对世界政治中将“地位追求”作为治国方略的表演性分析
题目：Becoming a humanitarian state: A performative analysis of ‘status-seeking’ as statecraft in world politics
作者：Ali Bilgic，英国拉夫堡大学社会科学与人文学院国际关系与安全专业准教授，研究兴趣包括中东政治和国际关系、安全研究、后殖民和女性主义国际关系、全球政治中的情感、政治和国际关系中的信任构建。
摘要：地位追求现象在世界政治中普遍存在，而现有文献却以国家中心主义和理性主义为主，几乎完全聚焦于国家精英，这导致学界对“地位追求”的本质、作用领域及其作用机制的理解相对片面和有限。本文通过引入表演性框架，对现有研究方法提出挑战，并提供了一种研究“地位”的新视角。本文建议用“地位展演”（status performances）替代“地位追求”（status-seeking），并将前者视为治国方略的一部分。基于后结构主义和酷儿理论，以及国际关系中的美学理论，本文认为，地位展演参与了国家自身作为世界政治主体的生产过程，因此所有国家都是“地位追求者”。这种主体生产过程发生在多个政治场域，包括一国的学术国际关系话语和媒体中的视觉呈现。本文结论指出，没有脱离主体的“地位”，且地位永远无法真正达成，因为它总是需要重复的表演。该论点通过分析“土耳其”作为人道主义国家的地位建构过程来印证，并展示了这一过程如何在国家精英的声明、土耳其国际关系学术研究及视觉呈现中得以实现。
Status-seeking is ubiquitous in world politics, and the literature is currently dominated by state-centrism and rationalism, which is almost exclusively focus on state elites. This results in a thin and limited understanding of what ‘status-seeking’ is, where it works, and how it is effected. This article challenges the existing approaches by introducing a performativity framework and offers an overhaul of how ‘status’ can be studied. It suggests replacing ‘status-seeking’ with ‘status performances’ that are conceptualised as part of ‘statecraft’ process. Drawing on post-structuralist and queer approaches as well as aesthetics in International Relations (IR), it is argued that status performances participate in the production of the state itself as a subject in world politics, so all states are ‘status-seekers’. This subject-production process occurs in multiple political sites, including the academic IR discourse in a country and visual presentations in the media. It is concluded that there is no ‘status’ beyond the subject, and status can never be achieved because it always needs repetitive performances. The argument is illustrated by an analysis of the production of ‘Turkey’ as a humanitarian state and demonstrates how this is effected in state-elite pronouncements, IR scholarship in Turkey, and visual representations.
乌克兰战争中的“概念运作”之韧性（resilience）：对其国际与国内意义的探讨
题目：Resilience as a ‘concept at work’ in the war in Ukraine: Exploring its international and domestic significance
作者：Janine Natalya Clark，英国伯明翰大学法学院过渡司法与国际刑法教授，研究兴趣包括过渡司法、武装冲突、社会生态系统、后人类主义和新唯物主义等。
摘要：在乌克兰持续进行的战争背景下，韧性（resilience）这一概念频繁被西方与乌克兰领导人提及，这一现象尤为引人注目。本文聚焦于他们如何运用韧性话语，并为现有冲突情境中的韧性研究做出两项重要贡献。首先，借鉴Ish-Shalom的“概念运作”（concepts at work）理论，本文通过分析一系列提及韧性的演讲和政策声明（来自西方领导人与乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽连斯基），揭示了韧性在战争中被用于“概念运作”的重要性，其使得某些特定形式的国际与国内政治得以实现。其次，虽然关于韧性的研究通常讨论该概念在工程学、生态学和心理学等领域的不同定义和应用，但本文指出，各种韧性框架在乌克兰战争中交织运作，突显了从个体到系统不同层面的韧性如何在话语上共同作用以达成特定的政治目的。由此，本文提供了一种从多系统角度思考韧性以及韧性与复杂性关系的方法。
In the context of the ongoing war in Ukraine, it is striking that there have been many references to resilience, including by Western and Ukrainian leaders. This article is precisely about their use of resilience discourse, and it makes two important contributions to existing scholarship on resilience in conflict settings. First, drawing on Ish-Shalom’s idea of ‘concepts at work’ and analysing a selection of speeches and policy statements (by Western leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky) that specifically refer to resilience, it demonstrates that resilience is a significant ‘concept at work’ in the war, making certain forms of international and domestic politics possible. Second, while research on resilience frequently discusses different ways that the concept has been defined and approached in fields such as engineering, ecology, and psychology, this article highlights that diverse framings of resilience have become entangled as the concept is ‘at work’ in the war in Ukraine. More specifically, its analysis makes prominent the fusion of different resiliences at different levels – from the individual to the systemic – discursively working together for particular political ends. In this way, it offers a novel way of thinking multi-systemically about resilience and, by extension, about resilience and complexity.
帝国主义、反帝国抵抗与国际等级制度的塑造：以20世纪30年代的波斯为例
题目：Imperial power, anti-imperial resistance, and the shaping of international hierarchies: Lessons from 1930s Persia
作者：Evaleila Pesaran，剑桥大学默里·爱德华兹学院政治与国际研究系讲师，研究兴趣为中东地区的经济和政治变革过程。
摘要：本文探讨了支配与抵抗关系在国际等级体系形成中的作用。通过聚焦由1932年波斯政府取消达西（D’Arcy，英国石油公司创始人）石油特许权引发的相关事件，本文认为，尽管西方主导的国际等级制度具有韧性，但这种等级关系的某些方面通过反抗事件有所改变。笔者之所以选择这一案例，是因为它能够突显战间期是通向新世界秩序的重要过渡时期，以及波斯作为当时少数未被殖民的非西方国家的特殊性。通过回顾英国石油公司（BP p.l.c.）档案和国家档案的详细历史文献，本文展示了20世纪30年代的石油争端事件如何促成了战间期物质、法律和社会等级的转变，同时仍然从总体上巩固了等级制度的存在。本文还展示了多边外交如何取代公开的军事威胁、国际法框架如何得到扩展以及边缘国家如何通过集体数量获得力量。最后，本文探讨了等级化的国际体系的长期韧性。
This article explores how relations of both domination and resistance have been involved in the constitution of international hierarchies. Focusing on events arising from the Persian government’s 1932 cancellation of the D’Arcy oil concession, it argues that while Western-dominated international hierarchies have proved resilient, some aspects of these hierarchical relationships have been altered by episodes of resistance such as the one under examination in this article. The case study has been chosen because of its ability to highlight the interwar years as an important period of transition to a new world order, as well as the significance of Persia as one of the few non-Western countries that remained uncolonised at that time. The article revisits detailed historical documents from the BP Archives and the National Archives to show how the events of the 1930s oil dispute contributed to the emergence of shifts in the material, legal, and social hierarchies of the interwar period, while nevertheless reinforcing the existence of hierarchies overall. It shows how multilateral diplomacy replaced overt military intimidation, the framework of international law broadened, and peripheral countries found strength in numbers. Finally, the article considers the longer-term resilience of the hierarchical international system.
后苏联时期权力等级制度的形成：塔吉克斯坦与俄罗斯关系中的后殖民主义
题目：Post-Soviet power hierarchies in the making: Postcolonialism in Tajikistan’s relations with Russia
作者：Karolina Kluczewska，德国根特国际和欧洲研究所（GIES）FWO博士后研究员，英国圣安德鲁斯大学中东、中亚和高加索研究学院研究员，研究兴趣为发展援助、国际组织、福利、健康和社会政策等。
摘要：本文探讨了后苏联时期的权力等级制度，它构成了世界政治中独特的垂直分层体系。通过分析1991年苏联解体后塔吉克斯坦与俄罗斯之间的关系，本文研究了这两个前苏联国家权力不对称的根本原因、等级制度的维持和强化方式，以及这些等级在政治和社会层面如何被感知和应对。本文认为，尽管在苏联时期没有明确的殖民前例，塔吉克斯坦与俄罗斯的关系仍具有明显的后殖民特征。后殖民主义并非苏联解体的直接结果，它是在两国融入全球资本主义经济的不同路径中逐渐形成的，这也使得塔吉克斯坦逐渐处于对俄罗斯的从属地位。由此，新的经济不对称放大了苏联时代遗留的问题，并以一种新的等级制度形式对其进行了重塑。总体而言，本文对后苏联遗产的本质以及“后苏联”这一概念的意义展开了讨论并作出贡献。总体而言，本文对后苏联遗留问题的本质以及“后苏联”这一概念的意义展开讨论并作出贡献。
This article explores post-Soviet power hierarchies which constitute a unique system of vertical stratification in world politics. It does so by analysing relations between two former Soviet states, Tajikistan and Russia, in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. The article investigates the underlying reasons for power asymmetries between the two countries, the ways hierarchies are sustained and enforced, as well as perceived and navigated at political and social levels. It is argued that Tajikistan’s relations with Russia are explicitly postcolonial without clear-cut colonial precedents in Soviet times. Postcolonialism did not automatically result from the Soviet breakdown. Rather, it has gradually emerged because of the two countries’ very different paths of integration into the global capitalist economy, which subordinated Tajikistan to Russia. In this way, new economic asymmetries exacerbated Soviet-era legacies and reinvented them in a new, hierarchical manner. Overall, the article contributes to the debate on the nature of post-Soviet legacies and what it means to be post-Soviet.
编译 | 崔馨月
审校 | 赖永桢
排版 | 张奕睿
本文源于《国际研究评论》(RIS), Vol. 50, No. 4, July 2024，本文为公益分享，服务于科研教学，不代表本平台观点。如有疏漏，欢迎指正。
