【新刊速递】《欧洲国际关系杂志》(EJIR), Vol. 30, No. 3, 2024 | 国政学人

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

作者简介：Torsten Michel，布里斯托大学国际关系高级讲师。主要研究兴趣在于国际关系（元）理论和大规模暴力的政治与伦理，尤其关注冲突期间和冲突后信任的作用，以及非人化的概念及其在大规模暴行中的性质和功能。

摘要：从20世纪70年代的早期研究开始，非人化逐渐成为理解大规模暴行发生的基本动力和条件的一个重要特征。长期以来，一种广为接受的主导观点认为，道德地位的丧失是非人化过程中的关键构成要素，认为受害者被排除在义务的道德范围之外，打破了道德壁垒，从而使得某些迫害形式突破了人类群体中既有的暴力规范。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道德地位等同于非人化这一不容置疑的观点。总体而言，本文主张对非人化的规范性使用和分析性使用进行更细致的区分，需要对其经验性表象和相关性进行更详细的反思，并对其概念基础进行更为批判的探讨。这样做不仅能够推动非人化研究超越当前的状态，还能使我们能够更深入地评估其在大规模暴力事件中的用途、意义及其重要性。

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.

题目：Global injustice and the production of ontological insecurity

作者简介：Adam B. Lerner，马萨诸塞大学洛厄尔分校政治学副教授。

摘要：本文提出，重新关注占主导地位的国际惯例如何产生本体层面上的不安全，有助于将本体安全研究（OSS）更好地面向世界政治中的不公正，特别是当它在多个层面上影响结构边缘化的政治行为者时。本研究将伊里斯-马里恩·扬（Iris Marion Young）的研究成果，特别是她关于正义是消除统治和压迫的理论引入本体安全研究，从而提出了这一论点。本文借鉴杨的“压迫的五面性”理论，认为国际体系中普遍存在的多重非正义应被理解为国际体系中本体不安全的主要来源，它们不仅直接削弱身份的稳定性，还阻碍了处于劣势的行为体追求本体安全的实践。在国际层面，这些过程超越单一分析层次，以不同的方式影响着个人、社会群体甚至国家。将扬的理论纳入本体安全研究，不仅有助于在政治理论和国际关系这两个往往分离的子学科之间建立重要联系，还能为学者提供更深入的理论框架，探讨国际体系非正义如何频繁导致本体不安全。文章最后提出，本体安全研究应进行规范性转向，思考全球正义是否应被视为多个共存行为体寻求本体安全的前提条件。

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.

题目：Transformative indicators? Gender expertise and technocratic peace

作者简介：Laura McLeod，英国曼彻斯特大学国际政治学高级讲师。她的研究包括性别、女权主义、安全以及冲突后的和平建设。

摘要：在过去十年中，使用指标来追踪国际和平建设和维和项目、政策与实践的实施情况日益普遍。许多学者批评这些指标具有技术官僚化、标准化及殖民化的效应。然而，本文从不同的角度进行探讨：指标能带来变革吗？当代对指标的批评通常将其视为孤立、去情境化的官僚工具，忽视了开发、使用和颠覆指标的人类主体的复杂性。本文将指标定义为一种强有力的性别化知识生产技术，既可被制度行为体开发、使用，也可被他们颠覆。本文通过对制度行为体的访谈以及联合国秘书长报告的分析，探究了26个指标之一的发展过程，该指标用于衡量联合国“妇女、和平与安全”（WPS）议程的实施情况。所研究的指标追踪了联合国维和与特别政治任务中聘用高级性别专家的数量。2010年至2020年间，围绕这一指标的进展、技能和地点的报告揭示了联合国中提倡变革的女性主义者所采取的策略和抓住的机会，推动了WPS议程的深入实施。尽管指标有固化新自由主义规范的风险，但忽视其开发、使用或颠覆方面的潜力无疑是一种自负，限制了实现实质性变革的机会。

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.

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

作者简介：Richard Caplan，牛津大学政治与国际关系系国际关系教授。John Gledhill，牛津大学国际发展系全球治理副教授。Maline Meiske，牛津大学政治与国际关系系博士后研究员。

摘要：联合国（UN）维和行动（PKOs）的研究通常很少关注东道国发展的一个重要方面——对外事务。本文聚焦于冷战后时期的联合国维和行动，旨在探讨联合国维和行动如何影响东道国的对外事务。我们通过对联合国维和行动关键文件的定量内容分析，确定了联合国关注的东道国对外事务的具体方面。接着，本文提出一个概念框架，划分出维和行动对东道国对外事务特别具影响力的三个领域：关系构建、制度与外交能力建设以及政策制定。我们识别了维和行动影响东道国对外事务的三条路径：授权角色、自主行动以及意外后果。结合文件分析和原创访谈数据，本文以东帝汶和利比里亚这两个近年来接纳过大规模联合国维和任务的两个国家为例，阐释了该概念框架的实际应用。

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.

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

作者简介：Shahar Hameiri，昆士兰大学政治学与国际关系学院的国际政治学教授，澳大利亚研究理事会未来研究员，他的主要研究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治经济学与国际关系教授。他的研究重点是政治经济、安全、治理、主权和干预，尤其是在东亚。

摘要：随着地缘政治竞争加剧，西方国家试图与中国的“一带一路”倡议（BRI）竞争。然而，全球基础设施的资金动员依然不足，表明西方国家难以挑战中国在此领域的主导地位。为什么会这样？通过对中国和美国的比较政治经济分析，本文认为，单靠地缘战略思维的国家管理者无法创造真正的竞争力。国家的优势和劣势根植于结构性政治经济动态。当国家管理者的计划符合或反映强大社会力量及其所掌控的资本和生产力的利益时，往往会产生强有力的影响。这在中国尤其明显，其倡议主要是为解决工业过剩和资本过度积累问题提供空间和时间上的调节工具。相反，当地缘政治抱负与势力集团的利益和物质现实脱节时，效果往往乏善可陈。这一点适用于美国，其特点是基础设施老化、工业空心化以及占主导地位的金融部门对基础设施基本不感兴趣。尽管美国国家管理者已转向加大对国内基础设施的投入，但在国际上，西方继续采用的新自由主义做法仍然依赖于动员私人资本参与基础设施投资这一已经失败的做法。

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.

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

作者简介：Inken von Borzyskowski，牛津大学国际关系学教授。她的研究侧重于国际关系的国内政治，重点是国际组织及其对国内冲突和选举的影响。Felicity Vabulas，佩珀代因大学国际研究副教授。她的研究重点是国际组织的政治经济学和外国游说。

摘要：

近来的研究关注到各国对国际组织（IOs）的反弹，包括成员国退出是否会影响国际组织的存续。因此，我们提出问题：成员国退出何时会导致国际组织的消亡？我们对退出与国际组织消亡之间存在普遍关联持怀疑态度，因为通常单个成员国并非国际组织生存的关键。此外，退出往往是由于个别成员国的偏好与其他成员产生分歧，这些留存成员可能在退出后联合在一起，从而确保甚至延长国际组织的存续。即使是多个国家的退出，也未必导致国际组织的消亡，因为一个较小的成员团体可能更易克服集体行动的挑战。然而，重要成员的退出可能会因资源、市场影响力和指导的缺失而影响组织的存续。我们利用生存模型，对1909至2014/2020年期间532个国际组织的退出数据进行测试，并通过案例分析说明其动态。结果支持我们的观点：退出总体上并不导致国际组织的消亡，但创始成员的退出可能加速其消亡。有趣的是，经济实力较强的国家的退出似乎有助于国际组织的存续（通常通过改革和/或重新加入实现）。这些发现有助于更好地理解国际组织的生命周期，以及国际合作的韧性和脆弱性。

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