【新刊速递】《太平洋评论》（PR）, Vol. 37, No. 6, 2024 | 国政学人

题目：Understanding region formation through proximity, interests, and identity: debunking the Indo-Pacific as a viable regional demarcation

作者简介：Michal Kolmaš，布拉格大都会大学副教授；Guangyu Qiao-Franco，拉德堡德大学助理教授；Aleš Karmazin，布拉格大都会大学助理教授。

摘要：印太地区通过东南亚连接印度洋和太平洋，在学术讨论和全球政治中的重要性日益凸显。这一概念的地缘政治背景显而易见，因为它将中国周边的几个大国联系在一起。然而，这一概念能否成为超越地缘政治的可行地区环境的基石？进一步说，为什么有些地区实现了制度化，而其他地区却无法做到这一点？借鉴社会建构主义和区域建设理论，本研究认为三个主体间共同的先决条件——邻近性、利益和身份——在地区整合中发挥着至关重要的作用。研究认为，这一框架是一个尺度，满足这些条件会对地区形成和制度化产生积极影响。将印太地区与亚太地区和东南亚地区进行比较，后两者拥有这些要素，但印太地区严重缺乏共同的邻近性和身份观念，利益要素仍存在争议。本研究的结论是，这一局限性严重阻碍了印太地区成为一个可行的、主体间共享的区域框架。

The Indo-Pacific region, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans through Southeast Asia, is becoming increasingly significant in academic discourse and global politics. The geopolitical background of the idea is evident as it connects several major powers around China. However, can the concept serve as a cornerstone for a viable regional setting beyond geopolitics? And in extension, why do some regions institutionalize while others are unable to do the same? Drawing on social constructivism and region-building theories, we argue that three intersubjectively shared preconditions—proximity, interests, and identity—play a crucial role in regional consolidation. We posit that this framework operates as a scale, wherein meeting these conditions positively influences region formation and institutionalization. Comparing the Indo-Pacific to the Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asia, we contend that while the latter two possessed these components, the Indo-Pacific severely lacks shared ideas of proximity and identity, and the component of interests remains contested. We conclude that this limitation significantly hampers the possibility of the Indo-Pacific emerging as a viable and intersubjectively shared regional framework.

题目：Foreign policy consequences of democratic backsliding: the case of the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015

作者简介：Byunghwan Son，美国乔治梅森大学全球事务项目副教授。

摘要：最近的研究记录了民主倒退对各个治理领域产生的深远影响。然而，尽管近年来世界各地的倒退政府采取了非传统的外交政策立场，但外交政策仍是这一趋势中的例外。为了填补这一空白，本文以2015年《慰安妇协议》的制定为中心，研究了韩国在最近民主倒退时期的对日政策。案例研究表明，朴槿惠政府（2012—2017 年）奉行的政策立场无视社会和制度约束。本文认为，这一案例展示了民主倒退如何破坏外交政策的稳定。

Recent studies have documented the profound effects that democratic backsliding generates on various realms of governance. However, foreign policies remain an exception in this trend despite the notable emergence of non-traditional foreign policy positions backsliding governments around the world took in recent years. To address this gap, this paper examines South Korea’s policy toward Japan during its recent period of democratic backsliding, focusing on the making of the Comfort Women Agreement in 2015. The case study reveals that the Park Geun-hye government (2012-2017) pursued a policy position that defied social and institutional constraints. The paper suggests that this case represents how democratic backsliding can destabilize foreign policies.

题目：Map evidence for the Philippines’ territorial claim in the South China Sea: a historical, cartographical and legal analysis

作者简介：王看，广东外语外贸大学国际关系学院讲师，南方海洋科学与工程广东省实验室（珠海）兼职研究员。

摘要：根据国际法律和实践，地图本身并不构成取得领土主权的独立权源，在领土争端中无独立的证明价值。对缺乏准确性或可靠信息来源的地图、非官方地图以及一方公布的意在强化本国主张的官方地图，国际司法或仲裁机构往往持极为谨慎的态度。菲律宾外交部下属的海事与海洋事务研究所（IMOA）和部分菲律宾政治精英展出的西班牙殖民当局绘制的黄岩岛地图和海图，虽然具有官方或半官方性质，但均未标明相关区域的政治边界，且存在明显的不准确性。西班牙基于测量活动绘制海图的目的是为了保障航行安全，并非宣示主权，很难据此推断出黄岩岛主权属于西班牙。菲律宾展示的其他国家制图者绘制的地图本身存在准确性存疑、囊括了菲律宾群岛在内的广大区域和未标明相关区域的政治边界等诸多问题，无法证明菲律宾对黄岩岛拥有领土主权。类似的，菲律宾展示的其他试图也均不足以证明所谓“卡拉延岛群”属于菲律宾。

Based on international law and practices, a map by itself does not constitute an independent territorial title and has no independent probative value in territorial disputes. Regarding maps with inaccurate or unreliable sources of information, unofficial maps and official maps produced by one party aiming to enhance its position, international judicial and arbitration institutions tend to hold a very little credibility. The Institute of Maritime and Ocean Affairs (IMOA), an agency of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, and some Philippine political elites selected many of the maps for the 2014 exhibition. Although some maps or charts of Scarborough Shoal drawn by the Spanish colonists on display are official or semiofficial in nature, they do not mark the political boundaries of the relevant areas and are obviously inaccurate. The purpose of Spain’s charting in each expedition to Scarborough Shoal was to provide guidance on navigational safety, not to assert sovereignty. It is difficult to arrive at definite conclusions about sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal from these maps and charts. The maps or charts displayed and drawn by cartographers from other countries, have many problems, such as insufficient accuracy, covering vast area more than the Philippine Islands and the lack of marking political boundaries and thus cannot prove that the Philippines has territorial sovereignty over Scarborough Shoal. Similarly, none of the maps and charts on display are sufficient to prove that the “Kalayaan Islands” belong to the Philippines.

题目：Why Russia has botched diplomacy with Japan: comparisons of 2013–23 and the late 1980s

作者简介：Gilbert Rozman，普林斯顿大学社会学教授。

摘要：从勃列日涅夫时代到现在的主流观点认为，由于1956年以来存在的领土争端，莫斯科与日本的关系未能取得突破。日本宣布投降后，曾要求苏联归还侵占日本的四个岛屿，但莫斯科坚持不归还任何岛屿，或者暗示归还两个岛屿。这里提出了不同的论点：在外交起步的两个时期，罪魁祸首是莫斯科对日本的错误看法。20世纪80年代末和2013—2023年的俄罗斯作品拒绝互补性、历史平行性和权力平衡等论点，认为日本没有什么价值。无论戈尔巴乔夫的“新思维”和普京的“转向东方”如何，和解的思想基础从未实现。这预示着对日本历史、日美同盟和日本“不尊重”的其他负面看法。未能准确评估东京，包括其追击莫斯科的诸多原因，证明了扭曲的国家认同导致的对地缘政治和地缘经济的扭曲理解。俄罗斯在每个时期对日本的误判都为之后日本对西方的更大敌意铺平了道路。

The prevailing narrative from the Brezhnev era to the present holds that Moscow’s relations with Tokyo failed to achieve a breakthrough due to a territorial dispute lingering from 1956. Japan had demanded the return of all four islands seized by the Soviet Union after Japan had announced its surrender, but Moscow had insisted on no islands or hinted at two. A different argument is made here: The primary culprit in the two periods when diplomacy took off was Moscow’s skewed thinking about Japan. Rejecting arguments for complementarity, historical parallelism, and balance of power, Russian writings in the late 1980s and 2013–2023 saw little value in Japan. Regardless of Gorbachev’s ‘New Thinking’ and Putin’s ‘Turn to the East’, the intellectual groundwork for rapprochement never materialized. This was a harbinger of other negativity about Japanese history, the Japan-U.S. alliance, and Japan’s ‘disrespect’. Failure to assess Tokyo accurately, including its many reasons for pursuing Moscow, testifies to a warped understanding of geopolitics as well as geo-economics owing to a distorted national identity. Misjudging Japan in each period paved the way to greater hostility to the West that followed.

编译 | 汪平平

审校 | 张潇文

排版 | 韩雄柏