期刊简介
《国际关系》（International Relations）是国际关系领域的顶尖期刊之一，由SAGE出版社与大卫·戴维斯纪念研究所（David Davies Memorial Institute）联合出版编辑，其2020年的影响因子为2.135。
本期目录
1 结束冲突的组合：流行文化、全球政治和战争的结束
Assemblages of conflict termination: popular culture, global politics and the end of Wars
2 联合国教科文组织世界遗产名录：权力、国家利益和专业知识
UNESCO’s World Heritage List: power, national interest, and expertise
3 全球经济治理中改善现状与挑战现状的变革：以中国金融和贸易为例
Status-quo enhancing versus status-quo challenging change in global economic governance: the case of China in finance and trade
4 理论的时间视角：导致理论的不足
A theory’s time perspectives: contributing to a theory’s inadequacy
5 家庭与世界：马蒂·科斯肯涅米的法律想象力
Home and the world: the legal imagination of Martti Koskenniemi
本期摘要
结束冲突的组合：流行文化、全球政治和战争的结束
题目：Assemblages of conflict termination: popular culture, global politics and the end of wars
作者：Cahir O’Doherty，荷兰格罗宁根大学国际关系讲师，研究兴趣为流行文化的交叉点，特别是电影和当代美国战争。
摘要：战争如何结束的问题一直具有重要意义，尤其是在反恐战争持续进行的背景下。传统上，国际关系学界历来通过理性选择理论、逻辑建模和博弈论来探讨这一问题。这些方法越来越不适合描述现代战争，尤其无法把握反恐战争的复杂性和模糊性。这些战争中的含混不清往往与政治和公众希望在战争中取得决定性胜利的愿望相悖。本文以战争结束研究（War Termination Studies）中近期的重要工作为基础，将战争结束重新概念化为集合体。通过更多地关注围绕战争的政治言论所灌输的影响，并利用情感（affect）和涌现（emergence）的概念，本文提出了一种研究当代战争结束的新方法。大众文化日益被视为全球政治的重要场域，本文分析的案例研究利用大众文化，提出了这样一个论点，即牺牲作为一种特例从电影和总统辞令中出现，使*能够在实地条件不确定的情况下宣称战争胜利。通过情感上的电影接触（在此通过战争结束的组合概念化），观众更倾向于接受这种政治主张。
The question of how wars end is of continued importance, especially in the context of the ongoing War on Terror. This question has traditionally been approached within International Relations through rational choice theories, logical modelling and game theory. Such approaches have become increasingly ill-suited to capturing the complexity and ambiguity of contemporary warfare and the War on Terror in particular. These battlefield ambiguities are often at odds with political and public desires to see decisive victory in wars. This article builds on recent critical work within War Termination Studies in order to re-conceptualise the end of war as assemblages. By paying greater attention to the affects inculcated by political rhetoric surrounding war and utilising the concepts of affect and emergence, this article presents a novel approach to the study of contemporary war termination. Utilising popular culture, increasingly seen as a crucial site of global politics, the case study analysed here advances the argument that sacrifice emerges from cinema and presidential rhetoric as a trope that allows leaders to claim victory in war despite indecisive conditions of the ground. Through affective cinematic encounters, conceptualised here through the end of wars assemblages, audiences can become more accepting of such political claims.
联合国教科文组织世界遗产名录：权力、国家利益和专业知识
题目：UNESCO’s World Heritage List: power, national interest, and expertise
作者：Deborah Barros Leal Farias，新南威尔士大学悉尼分校高级讲师，研究兴趣是权力、分类和国家身份的交叉，特别关注发展中国家的利益和国际政府组织的作用。
摘要：《世界遗产公约》的成员几乎遍及全球，是全球遗产治理的核心。该公约隶属于联合国教科文组织，设定了确定哪些自然和/或文化遗址可以获得“世界遗产”的称号并被列入世界遗产名录的参数。20世纪70年代初以来，以专家为基础的遗产保护分类程序，已经成为一个公开的政治程序，以及对从世界遗产名录获得国内和国际权力感兴趣的国家竞争的温床。本文以这一实证案例为出发点，反思两个相互关联的关键问题：国际组织对专业知识和分类的政治化，以及遗产作为国家认同项目和“软实力”的投射。在此过程中，本文强调了自19世纪末以来全球体系的变化——例如殖民主义、冷战、“新兴”大国——是如何影响全球遗产政治的。本文主要通过基于建构主义的方法，立足于国际关系文献，为世界遗产研究这一跨学科领域增添了新的内容。
With almost universal membership, the World Heritage Convention is at the heart of the global governance of heritage. Nested within UNESCO, the Convention sets the parameters for determining which natural and/or cultural sites can receive the prestigious ‘World Heritage Property’ designation and be added to the World Heritage List. What started in the early 1970s as an expert-based classification procedure focused on heritage preservation has become an ostensive political process, and a hotbed of competing nations interested in the domestic and international power deriving from inscriptions in the World Heritage List. This paper takes this empirical case as a springboard to reflect upon two key interrelated issues: the politicization of expertise and classification by International Organizations, and heritage as a national identity project and projection of ‘soft power’. In doing so, it highlights how changes in the global system since the late 19th century – for example, colonialism, Cold War, ‘emerging’ powers – affected the global politics of heritage. The paper adds to the incredibly trans-disciplinary field of world heritage research by anchoring itself in International Relations literature, mostly through a Constructivist-based approach.
全球经济治理中改善现状与挑战现状的变革：以中国金融和贸易为例
题目：Status-quo enhancing versus status-quo challenging change in global economic governance: the case of China in finance and trade
作者：Michael Sampson，莱顿大学政治科学研究所国际关系助理教授，研究重点是国际政治经济学，特别是国际机构、国际贸易协定的战略和分配后果，以及崛起大国对全球经济治理的影响；Jue Wang，莱顿大学区域研究所助理教授，主要研究中国、其外部经济关系及其在区域和全球经济治理中的作用。
摘要：当一个国家对一个国际制度不满意时，它可以采取不同的策略来实现变革。通过对制度复杂性和制度选择领域的研究，人们对这些策略的理解越来越深入。但是，虽然人们了解制度结构如何影响不同变革建议的成功机会，但对变革建议的内容如何影响其成功却不甚了解。在本文中，作者将提议的制度变革分解为两个子类型：挑战现状型和改善现状型。改善现状的变革推动改革，促进现有制度目标的实现，因此有助于推动变革，否则现有制度的惰性会限制变革的进行。相反，挑战现状的变革则会破坏现有制度的既定目标。本文通过比较中国为确保全球金融和贸易体制变革所做的尝试，发现对中国而言，“改善现状”型变革比“挑战现状”型变革更成功，因为它们为建立富有成效的联盟创造了更多机会。
When a state is dissatisfied with an international institution it has different strategies available to it to secure change. These strategies are increasingly well understood due to research in the areas of regime complexity and institutional selection. But while there is an understanding of how the structure of a regime can influence the chances of success of different change proposals, there is less clarity on how the content of proposed changes impacts their success. In this article we decompose proposed institutional changes into two sub-types: Status-quo challenging and status-quo enhancing. Status-quo enhancing changes promote reforms that advance the objectives of the existing regime and so serve to drive change that would otherwise be limited by the inertia of existing institutions. Conversely, status-quo challenging changes undermine the stated goals of the existing regime. We develop these sub-types by comparing China’s attempts to secure changes in the global finance and trade regimes and find that for China status-quo enhancing changes have met with more success than status-quo challenging approaches because they have created more opportunities for productive coalition building.
理论的时间视角：导致理论的不足
题目：A theory’s time perspectives: contributing to a theory’s inadequacy
作者：Christopher James Wheeler，纽卡斯尔大学国际政治系前讲师，研究兴趣是国际政治中时间与和平的阐述，以及国际政治中的教学实践。
摘要：理论既可以对未来有所启示，也可以为判断未来提供依据。然而，无论哪种情况，理论都不足以获得对未来的洞察力，这是信息获取、信息质量或方法论方面的任何进步都无法克服的。本文认为，由于理论中蕴含的长期和短期时间视角，这种不足依然存在，而且无法完全克服。本文以摩根索的国际政治理论中的时间视角为例，说明并分析了理论中的长期和短期时间视角是如何限定理论中或理论衍生出的对未来的主张或判断的。随后，读者将深入了解如何将长期和短期时间视角概念化、识别和区分理论中时间视角的方法，以及当存在多种时间视角时，不同时间视角在理论中的发挥的作用。
Theories can either have something to say about the future or provide foundations for making judgments about the future. In either case, however, a theory remains inadequate for obtaining insights about the future which no amount of advancements in information access and quality or methodologies can overcome. This article suggests that inadequacy persists and cannot be completely overcome because of the long-term and short-term time perspectives embedded within a theory. Using illustrative examples of time perspectives from Morgenthau’s theory of international politics, this article illustrates and analyses how long-term and short-term time perspectives within a theory delimit claims or judgments about the future made within or derived from a theory. Subsequently, readers gain insights on how to conceptualise long-term and short-term time perspectives, methods for identifying and differentiating between time perspectives within a theory and the distinct work time perspectives perform within a theory when multiple time perspectives are present.
家庭与世界：马蒂·科斯肯涅米的法律想象力
题目：Home and the world: the legal imagination of Martti Koskenniemi
作者：David Armitage，哈佛大学历史学教授，研究兴趣为思想史和国际史。
摘要：芬兰律师兼史学家马尔蒂·科斯肯涅米（Martti Koskenniemi）的新著《到地球最远的地方：法律想象力和国际权力，1300—1870年》（2021年）是一项长达30年、致力于解构国际法专业的主流假设并将其历史化的项目都结晶。本文综合科斯肯涅米更大的重要项目都背景及19世纪末至今的国际法史学范围来评估此书。本文认为，科斯肯涅米的系谱学方法既有启发性，也有令人沮丧之处：令人沮丧之处在于其分散性和缺乏总体论证，但启发性在于其揭示了范围、博学和破坏传统目的论的野心，揭示了法律语言的约束力，揭露了500多年来欧洲“国内法”与国际法之间的对话。
The Finnish lawyer-historian Martti Koskenniemi’s new book, To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth: Legal Imagination and International Power, 1300–1870(2021), is the culmination of a 30-year-long project to deconstruct and historicise the reigning assumptions of the profession of international law. This article evaluates To the Uttermost Parts of the Earth in the context of Koskenniemi’s larger critical project as well as within the historiography of international law from the late 19th century to the present. It argues that Koskenniemi’s genealogical method is revealing and frustrating in equal measure: frustrating in its diffuseness and lack of overarching argument but revealing in its scope, in its erudition and in its ambitions to disrupt traditional teleologies, to reveal the constraining force of legal language and to expose European dialogues between ‘domestic’ and international law over more than 500 years.
编译 | 邹梓轩
校对 | 林怡娉
排版 | 张安琪
本文源于《国际关系》，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。
