期刊简介
《剑桥国际事务评论》（Cambridge Review of International Affairs）是一份同行评审期刊，发表关于国际事务的创新学术成果。其涵盖社会科学领域，包括国际关系、历史、法律、政治经济学、地区研究、发展研究和性别研究。它致力于采用多样化的方法和方法，并鼓励学术界和政策制定者提交多学科和跨学科的贡献。2023年该期刊的影响因子为1.7。
本期目录
1
国际组织的危机管理：国际联盟对早期挑战的应对
Crisis management in international organisations: the League of Nations’ response to early challenges
2
欧盟对外政策中的规范争论：反对与异议的影响
Norm contestation in EU foreign policy: understanding the effects of opposition and dissidence
3
留意差距：中国挑战主权债务管理国际规范？
Minding the gap: China contesting norms for public debt management?
4
区域能源合作的困境：东北亚联合石油进口机制的教训
When regional energy cooperation fails: learning from the struggles of Northeast Asia’s joint oil import mechanism
5
“凭什么？”：外国政策制定者对2014-2019年委内瑞拉民主崩溃制裁合法性的认知
‘What gives you the right?’ Foreign policymakers’ perceptions of the legitimacy of sanctions against democratic breakdown in Venezuela (2014–2019)
6
人权与国家安全之争：韩国公众如何看待2008-2019年间的本国对朝政策
Human rights versus national security in public opinion on foreign affairs: South Korean views of North Korea 2008–2019
内容摘要
国际组织的危机管理：国际联盟对早期挑战的应对
题目：Crisis management in international organisations: the League of Nations’ response to early challenges
作者：Gisela Hirschmann，莱顿大学政治学研究所国际关系专业助理教授，主要研究方向为国际组织、制度变革、人权与和平行动。
摘要：国际组织（IOs）如何应对成员退出或预算削减等生存危机？一些国际组织选择忽视或适应挑战者的要求，而其他组织则通过增强制度性能力以抵御压力。然而，我们对塑造国际组织应对这些挑战的内部动态知之甚少。本文探讨了国际组织对威胁的感知在何种程度上决定了其应对危机的强度和方向。对国际联盟（League of Nations）应对早期危机的历史个案进行探索性分析表明，及时且一致的危机感知有助于组织采取更为果断和有力的应对策略。基于该分析，对于国际组织研究，可以得出两点结论：首先，在国际组织应对危机的过程中，国际官僚的作用不容忽视；其次，研究结果表明，对国际联盟危机管理的深入研究，有助于超越以往在国际关系研究中占主导地位的“国联失败”叙事。
How do international organisations (IOs) respond to existential challenges such as membership withdrawals or budget cuts? Some IOs manage to ignore the challenge or adapt to the demands of the challenging state whereas others build institutional capacities to resist the pressure. Yet, we know little about the internal dynamics that shape IOs’ responses to such challenges. This article investigates to what extent IOs’ threat perception determines the intensity and direction of their responses to crises. Using the League of Nations’ responses to early crises as an explorative historical case study, the analysis shows that a timely and homogenous perception of a crisis leads to a more assertive and substantial response. Two broader conclusions can be drawn from the analysis for IO research. First, the role of international bureaucrats should not be underestimated in shaping an IO’s response to crises. Second, the findings indicate that a more nuanced perspective on the League’s crisis management can help overcome the failure narrative that dominates the current understanding of the League in International Relations research.
欧盟外交政策中的规范争论：反对与异议的影响
题目：Norm contestation in EU foreign policy: understanding the effects of opposition and dissidence
作者：Diego Badell，西班牙巴塞罗那国际研究所博士前研究员，主要研究方向为国际安全、欧盟外交政策、国际人道法和国际规范。
摘要：欧盟作为一个自由规范共同体，自由主义规范在其中起着核心作用。欧盟内部的规范争论既是建立规范合法性的必要条件，也可能对既有规范的有效性构成挑战。这引出了关于此类抗争如何作用于欧盟外交政策的问题。本研究深入剖析了两种极端的争论形式：反对与异议。通过对《全球移民契约》及《性与生殖健康及权利》两个案例的深入分析，我们发现，欧盟外交政策体系能够承受反对的压力，但异议则有可能挑战或削弱既有规范。
The EU is as a liberal normative community, where liberal norms play a central role. While contestation is considered essential within a normative community to establish the legitimacy of norms, within the EU, contestation can also challenge the validity of its foundational norms. This raises the question of how this type of contestation affects EU foreign policy. This study examines two radical forms of contestation: opposition and dissidence. Through the analysis of two case studies, namely the Global Compact for Migration and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, it becomes evident that the EU’s foreign policy system can sustain opposition, but dissidence has the potential to challenge or undermine those norms.
留意差距：中国挑战主权债务管理国际规范？
题目：Minding the gap: China contesting norms for public debt management?
作者：Hai Yang（杨海），澳门大学政府与行政学系助理教授，主要研究方向为国际组织合法性和国际政治语言学。
摘要：本文探讨中国是否挑战、在何种程度上挑战以及如何挑战目前由七国集团（G7）及其主导的多边机构在发展中国家主权债务管理中所推崇的规范与实践。具体而言，本文关注三方面的规范：债务可持续性、债务透明度和附加条件的债务减免。为此，本文构建了一个规范竞争的分析框架（norm contestation typology），并据此分析中国如何在话语层面对上述规范提出质疑。同时，本文将中国的官方话语与其具体行动进行对比。基于分析，文章得出两点结论。首先，在话语层面，中国确实有挑战上述三个规范：中国推崇对债务可持续性和债务透明的独特理解，并强调（债权国）减免债务不应附加条件且应该公正平等。其次，中国的话语和具体行动存在脱节：其贷款和债务减免实践（正在）趋近既有主导行为体（G7）所偏好或倡导的实践。
This article addresses the questions of whether, to what extent, and how China contests the norms and practices for public debt management in developing countries as currently preferred by the Group of Seven (G7) and G7-led multilateral institutions. More specifically, it considers three norms: debt sustainability, debt transparency and conditional debt relief. To that end, I elaborate a norm contestation typology and apply it to analyse how China discursively contests these norms. Equally, I contrast China’s rhetoric with its actual behaviours. Two findings emerge from the analysis. First, there are notable efforts by China to contest the three norms, with Chinese officials emphasising a qualitatively distinct understanding of debt sustainability and debt transparency and the appropriateness of non-conditionality and equality in the provision of debt relief. Second, there is an apparent disjunction between China’s words and actions, with its actual lending and debt relief practices (becoming) more aligned with what is currently preferred or advocated by the established actors.
区域能源合作的困境：东北亚联合石油进口机制的教训
题目：When regional energy cooperation fails: learning from the struggles of Northeast Asia’s joint oil import mechanism
作者：Elai Rettig，巴伊兰大学政治学系助理教授，主要研究方向为能源政策、国家安全和国际环境政治。
摘要：某些地区拒绝旨在提升其整体能源供应安全的合作倡议，这一问题困扰着提倡通过能源贸易深化区域一体化的学者和政策制定者。东北亚即为一例：该地区多次尝试建立联合石油进口机制，以增强中、韩、日三国对中东石油供应商的集体议价能力，但屡遭失败，导致三国陷入了以更高价格签订竞争性双边合同的境地。本文针对这一困境提供了两点解释。首先，在地理位置偏远且成员国间应对供应中断的脆弱性差异显著的地区，建立可靠的油气供应线路面临巨大的技术挑战与高昂的物流成本，这使得双边协议比多边合作更加可靠。其次，政策制定者往往将本国的能源供应问题安全化，这促使其过分强调本国相对脆弱性，并担忧失去能源供应自主权。
The question of why some regions reject energy cooperation initiatives that aim to improve their overall security of supply puzzles scholars and policymakers advocating for deeper regional integration through energy trade. This was the case in Northeast Asia, where efforts to create a joint oil import mechanism to improve China, South Korea and Japan’s collective bargaining power against Middle East suppliers repeatedly failed and turned instead into competing bilateral contracts at higher prices for all three countries. This article offers two explanations for this puzzle. First, the unique technical challenges and costly logistics of establishing reliable oil and gas supply routes make bilateral agreements more credible than multilateral guarantees in regions characterised by geographical remoteness and high differential vulnerability to disruptions among its members. Second, the tendency of policymakers to securitise their country’s energy supply pushes them to overemphasise their relative vulnerabilities and fear any loss of autonomy over their supplies.
“凭什么？”：外国政策制定者对2014-2019年委内瑞拉民主崩溃制裁合法性的认知
题目：‘What gives you the right?’ Foreign policymakers’ perceptions of the legitimacy of sanctions against democratic breakdown in Venezuela (2014–2019)
作者：Stefano Palestinia，意大利特伦托大学国际关系学院助理教，主要研究兴趣为独裁化与民主倒退；Yancy Villarroel，伦敦政治经济学院国际关系硕士。
摘要：本文借鉴国际关系领域关于合法性及其争论的现有研究，提出了一个用于研究国际制裁合法化与去合法化过程的分析框架。笔者将此框架应用于分析外国政策制定者对各国及国际组织针对委内瑞拉尼古拉斯·马杜罗政权实施制裁合法性的评估。对评价性陈述的内容分析表明，合法化与去合法化过程主要聚焦于“谁有权实施制裁”，并揭示了对多边和单边（制裁）实施者以及不同类型国际组织的差异化合法性评估。研究结果显示，多边且影响范围有限的制裁比单边且影响范围广泛的制裁被认为更具合法性。笔者认为，对制裁合法化与去合法化的研究不仅对提高合规性具有重要意义，而且对于将国际制裁转变为全球治理的合法机制有重要启示。
Drawing on contemporary debates on legitimacy and contestation in international relations, the article offers a novel analytical framework to study processes of legitimation and delegitimation of international sanctions. We apply the framework to analyse foreign policymakers’ evaluations of the legitimacy of the sanctions imposed by states and international organisations against Nicolás Maduro’s regime in Venezuela. The content analysis of evaluative statements shows that (de)legitimation processes focus mostly on who has the right to enforce sanctions and reveals differentiated legitimacy evaluations of multilateral versus unilateral enforcers, as well as of different types of international organisations. Sanctions imposed by multilateral senders and with a restricted impact on targeted individuals are evaluated as more legitimate than unilateral sanctions with a wider scope. We argue that the study of the (de)legitimation of sanctions may have important implications not only for enhancing compliance, but especially for transforming international sanctions into a legitimate mechanism of global governance.
人权与国家安全之争：韩国公众如何看待2008-2019年间的本国对朝政策
题目：Human rights versus national security in public opinion on foreign affairs: South Korean views of North Korea 2008–2019
作者：Joonbum Bae，科罗拉多州立大学政治学系助理教授，主要研究方向为国际安全、外交政策和军政关系；YuJung Julia Lee，科罗拉多州立大学政治学系助理教授，研究兴趣为发展政治学、妇女与政治问题以及亚洲政治。
摘要：人权虽为自由民主治理的核心要素，但民主国家的公众舆论在对外政策中是否优先关注他国人权，以及相较其他优先事项的权重如何，尚无定论。当一个国家系统性侵犯人权，又对外构成重大安全威胁，同时本国还存在改善与该政权关系的动机时，这种问题尤为明显。本文设计了调查问卷，聚焦韩国公众在对朝关系中对人权与国家安全的相对偏好，以探究公众在对外事务中如何以及何种程度上看待人权的重要性。研究显示，当一个民主国家试图改善与严重侵犯人权政权的关系时，其公众舆论往往会降低对人权的重视程度，转而更注重缓和军事紧张局势。研究结果表明，在试图改善与一个既对安全构成威胁又系统性侵犯人权的政权关系时，必须面对权衡取舍的挑战。
While human rights are an integral part of liberal democratic rule, the extent to which public opinion in democracies prioritises human rights in other countries relative to other competing foreign policy priorities is not clear. This is particularly the case when a country that systematically breaches human rights also poses a serious security threat and there are incentives to improve relations with the regime in power. To assess whether and how the public values human rights vis-à-vis national security in foreign affairs, this paper utilises survey questions that capture the public’s relative preferences between the two in South Korean public opinion regarding relations with North Korea. It provides evidence that when a democratic government attempts to improve relations with a regime committing grave human rights violations, public opinion in the democracy deprioritises human rights in favour of reducing military tension. The findings shed light on the trade-off that exists in attempts to improve relations with a regime that is both a security threat and a systematic violator of human rights.
编译 | 崔馨月
审校 | 赖永祯
排版 | 崔笑蓉
本文源于《剑桥国际事务评论》(CRIA) Vol.37,No.5,2024，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。
