期刊简介
《欧洲国际关系杂志》（European Journal of International Relations）广泛地代表了已在欧洲发展的国际关系领域。自1995年创刊以来，该杂志已成为国际关系学界一个重要而独立的声音。它以其欧洲起源为基础，经过二十多年的发展，已成为国际关系界最佳成果的缩影，包括前沿的理论辩论、当代和过去的学术热点以及理论丰富的实证分析。
本期目录
1
危机中的资本化：欧洲联盟非洲信托基金
Capitalizing on a crisis: the European Union Trust Fund for Africa
2
生态危机时代的不确定性：一种奈特式视角下面对未来世界的方法
Uncertainty in times of ecological crisis: a Knightian tale of how to face future states of the world
3
地缘政治冲突中的私营基础设施：以星链与乌克兰战争为例
Private infrastructure in geopolitical conflicts: the case of Starlink and the war in Ukraine
4
局部转换：全球经济治理“非神圣三位一体”如何适应国家资本主义
A partial conversion: how the ‘unholy trinity’ of global economic governance adapts to state capitalism
5
发声、退出……套利：现代跨国公司的政治逻辑
Voice, exit . . . arbitrage: the politics of the modern multinational firm
6
让敌手更安全：技术合作与核安全及安保技术的转让
Keep your enemies safer: technical cooperation and transferring nuclear safety and security technologies
7
技术官僚主义、民粹主义与国际组织的（去）合法化
Technocracy, populism, and the (de)legitimation of international organizations
8
非正式性如何维持多边主义：非正式集团在欧盟外交政策谈判中的作用
How informality keeps multilateralism going: the role of informal groupings in EU foreign policy negotiations
9
“国际安全援助部队砍伐了100棵大型果树”：土地、基础设施与军事暴力
‘100 large fruit trees cut down by ISAF’: land, infrastructure and military violence
10
超越权威：通过实践治理移民与庇护问题
Beyond authority: governing migration and asylum through practice on the ground
内容摘要
危机中的资本化：欧洲联盟非洲信托基金
题目：Capitalizing on a crisis: the European Union Trust Fund for Africa
作者：Darshan Vigneswaran，阿姆斯特丹大学政治学系副教授，其研究位于国际关系与政治地理的交叉领域。Nora Söderberg，欧洲大学学院政治与社会科学系博士候选人。Natalie Welfens，赫尔梯学院博士后研究员，研究主要关注分类实践及由此产生的不平等现象，特别是在欧洲和中东地区难民身份认定过程中的包容与排斥问题。Saskia Bonjour，阿姆斯特丹大学政治学系副教授，研究聚焦荷兰和欧洲的移民与公民身份政治，特别关注家庭移民、公民融入、性别与移民以及欧洲化等议题。
摘要：外交政策与跨国项目如何变得不易受到批评？本文通过探讨公共资金对移民与发展项目的正当化过程，旨在更深入地理解政策合法化的机制。尽管关于此类项目成效的质疑广泛存在，近年来各国政府在移民与发展领域的支出却持续增加。本文聚焦于欧洲联盟非洲紧急信托基金（EUTF）。尽管EUTF未能在解决2015–2016年地中海移民“危机”的“根本原因”上取得显著成效，但其依然被欧盟机构评估为一次成功的干预。我们借鉴布迪厄的“资本转换”概念，提出EUTF之所以被合法化为一项有价值的政策干预，是因为欧洲官员与监测评估专家通过将一种权力资源转化为另一种形式的资源，完成了“资本转换”工作。基于文件分析与25次关键知情人访谈，本文梳理了EUTF官员如何实现资本转换：首先，通过动员政治资源，为非洲地区的移民相关项目争取经济资本；其次，将部分经济资本转化为更为持久的象征资本，从而为长期的移民与发展项目提供正当性。简言之，资金被转化为合法性。本文认为，这种“转换工作”帮助我们更好地理解移民与发展融资的持续增长及其支撑机制。这一过程不仅涉及资金分配，还包括持续的努力，将这些支出正当化为内在具有政策价值的干预措施。
How do foreign policies and transnational projects become resistant to critique? This article seeks to better understand the legitimation of policies by studying the work involved in justifying public funding of migration and development initiatives. Government expenditures on migration and development have been increasing in recent years, despite widely shared concerns regarding the merits of such initiatives. In this article, we focus our attention on the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa (EUTF). The EUTF has been assessed by EU agencies as a successful intervention, while never hiding its inability to achieve demonstrable progress toward its goals of addressing the “root causes” of the 2015–2016 migration “crisis” in the Mediterranean. We argue that this fund was legitimized as a valuable policy intervention through the efforts of European officials and Monitoring and Evaluation experts to, borrowing from Bourdieu, “convert capital”: translate one form of power resource into another form. Based on document analysis and 25 key informant interviews, we trace how EUTF officials successfully converted capital by, first, mobilizing political resources to generate economic capital for migration-related projects in Africa; and second, transforming some of this economic capital into more lasting symbolic capital which justifies long-term migration and development initiatives. In short, money becomes legitimacy. We argue that this “conversion work” helps us to better understand the continued growth and upholding of migration and development financing which consists not only of raw funds but also involves continuous efforts to legitimize these expenditures as inherently valuable policy interventions.
生态危机时代的不确定性：一种奈特式视角下面对未来世界的方法
题目：Uncertainty in times of ecological crisis: a Knightian tale of how to face future states of the world
作者：Sylvain Maechler，洛桑大学政治学博士，法兰克福歌德大学和渥太华大学访问学者，其研究位于全球环境治理和国际政治经济学的交叉领域，重点关注当代资本主义如何应对全球生态危机，特别是通过自然的经济与金融估值以及其他衡量、核算和市场化工具Jean-Christophe Graz，洛桑大学政治学研究所的国际关系教授，全球化历史与政治研究中心的联合创始人，以及洛桑大学社会与政治科学学院的研究、伦理学与博士研究生院副院长，研究聚焦于全球政治经济中的监管问题和平台资本主义的兴起。
摘要：在危机时期，我们如何面对不确定性？国际关系领域的讨论往往难以厘清将危机中的不确定性转化为决策与行动的具体过程。借鉴弗兰克·H·奈特的分析，本文提出，国际行为体在危机时期所采取的决策与行动，根本上依赖于信息的获取、解读与评估过程，以此形成可靠的知识，从而塑造未来世界的状态。我们通过全球生态危机的政治实践，阐释了国际行为体如何在危机时期将不确定性转化为决策与行动，并分析了三种截然不同的方法：联合国机构、财务会计准则制定者以及中央银行。
How do we face uncertainty in times of crisis? Debates in International Relations often struggle to disentangle the processes involved in turning the uncertainty of a crisis into decisions and actions. Drawing on the analysis of Frank H. Knight, we argue that decisions and actions taken by international actors in times of crisis are underpinned by the way that information is accessed, interpreted, and evaluated in order to claim reliable knowledge for shaping future states of the world. We illustrate our argument with the global politics of the ecological crisis and three contrasting methods used by international actors to convert the time of the crisis into decisions and actions: United Nations agencies, financial accounting standard-setters and central banks.
地缘政治冲突中的私营基础设施：以星链与乌克兰战争为例
题目：Private infrastructure in geopolitical conflicts: the case of Starlink and the war in Ukraine
作者：Joscha Abels，图宾根大学政治学研究所博士后研究员和讲师，主要研究方向是国际政治经济学和欧洲一体化，具体研究兴趣包括地缘经济学、基础设施政策、国际机构以及经济和货币联盟的政治经济学。
摘要：私营基础设施在地缘政治冲突的演变中发挥着关键作用。尽管学术界普遍支持这一观点，但企业更多被视为国家行动的助推者或阻碍者，而非独立的行为主体。本文构建了一个理论框架，探讨国家与跨国公司在全球激烈竞争背景下的关系，并结合政治经济学视角，分析跨国基础设施的私有产权如何重新塑造这一关系。本文指出，私营企业开发和运营基础设施的主要目的是追求利润，但这一逐利逻辑可能会受到政治结果偏好的修正和影响。文章以美国公司SpaceX运营的全球最大卫星星座“星链”（Starlink）为案例，分析其在俄罗斯入侵乌克兰后的角色。研究重现了SpaceX最初决定在乌克兰启用星链的背景，以及后续通过战略调整限制乌克兰收复被占领区域能力的过程。研究结果表明，企业决策受到逐利动机和政治动机的双重驱动，这对于理解当代国家与企业关系具有重要意义。SpaceX将乌克兰战争视为从美国获取资金和合同的契机，同时试图安抚其依赖的其他国家，尤其是中国。此外，研究进一步表明，当其他对冲手段失效时，国家会寻求减少对私营基础设施的依赖。例如，中国和欧盟选择建设自主的卫星星座，而美国则通过其经济影响力确保SpaceX的持续合作。
Privately owned infrastructures play a central role in the unfolding of geopolitical conflicts. While academic contributions generally support this argument, businesses are mostly treated as enablers or spoilers of state action rather than actors in their own right. This article develops a theoretical framework around the relationship of state and transnational corporations in times of intense global competition, combining it with a political–economic perspective on how private ownership of transnational infrastructures shifts this relationship. It argues that private businesses develop and operate infrastructures for profit-seeking purposes, but that this logic can be amended by preferences for political outcomes. The article undertakes an analysis of the role of Starlink, the world’s largest satellite constellation owned by US-based company SpaceX, in the events following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It reconstructs SpaceX’s initial decision to enable Starlink in Ukraine and its ensuing strategic readjustment that limited Ukraine’s abilities to retake Russian-occupied areas. The findings support the relevance of both profit-seeking and political motives for explaining businesses’ decision-making, with substantial implications for contemporary state–business relations. SpaceX viewed the war in Ukraine as an opportunity to secure capital and contracts, largely from the United States; at the same time, it sought to appease other states on which it depends, most centrally China. The findings furthermore demonstrate that states will seek to reestablish independence from private infrastructure where other forms of hedging fail. While China and the European Union opted to build their own satellite constellations, the United States relied on its economic pull to ensure SpaceX’s cooperation.
局部转换：全球经济治理“非神圣三位一体”如何适应国家资本主义
题目：A partial conversion: how the ‘unholy trinity’ of global economic governance adapts to state capitalism
作者：Ilias Alami，剑桥大学发展研究中心政治与国际研究系的发展政治经济学助理教授。Jack Taggart，贝尔法斯特女王大学国际政治经济学讲师。
摘要：在国家作为资本的推动者、监管者和所有者发挥更大作用的世界中，新自由主义全球经济治理在多大程度上正在发生转型？这些转型是否预示着一种潜在的范式转变？为回答这些问题，本文聚焦于全球金融治理以及贸易和投资体系，并分析了国际货币基金组织（IMF）、世界银行（World Bank）和世界贸易组织（WTO）这三大全球治理核心机构——即“非神圣三位一体”——发布的最新政策文件。我们的分析揭示了这些组织内部及相互之间对国家干预主义日益增长的接受程度。尽管这种适应具有重要意义，但我们认为，这仅构成一种有限的转型。我们观察到，这些机构试图将新兴的国家干预实践及国有实体纳入现有治理框架，以对其进行规范、约束和控制。本文进一步指出，这并不代表西方主导的全球经济治理体系正在向后新自由主义多元化转型，而是一种防御性的“变异新自由主义”，旨在将去政治化和商业导向的国家所有制纳入其核心体系之中。
To what extent is neoliberal global economic governance transforming in a world where states play greater roles as promoters, supervisors and owners of capital? Do these transformations signal a potential paradigm shift? To answer these questions, we focus on global financial governance and the trade and investment regime. We analyse recent policy documents from the IMF, World Bank and WTO – the ‘Unholy Trinity’ of neoliberal global governance. Our analysis reveals a growing acceptance of state interventionism within and across these organizations. Although this accommodation is significant, we argue that it constitutes a limited transformation. We observe attempts to incorporate emerging state interventionist practices and state-owned entities into established governance arrangements in order to discipline, curtail and control them. We argue that this does not signify a shift towards post-neoliberal plurality within Western-dominated global economic governance, but rather a defensive, ‘mutating neoliberalism’ which seeks to incorporate depoliticized and commercially oriented state ownership into its mainframe.
发声、退出……套利：现代跨国公司的政治逻辑
题目：Voice, exit . . . arbitrage: the politics of the modern multinational firm
作者：Ronen Palan，伦敦城市大学国际政治经济学教授。
摘要：跨国公司（MNCs）通常被视为单一组织，由母公司控制分布在其他国家的分支机构。然而，这种视角只是对去中心化企业集团的简化描述，而实际的跨国公司是由多个司法管辖区内彼此独立的法律实体，通过股权联系聚合而成的集群结构。本文指出，尽管这种简化版本符合经济学家关注的组织层面，但它无法揭示跨国公司与制度及政治环境之间相互作用的主要机制。本文认为，这种简化的视角阻碍了政治学者提出关于跨国公司及其股东权力的关键问题。具体而言，尽管政治学者和国际政治经济学者讨论了这些公司如何利用其雄厚的财力表达对不利监管变化的立场（发声）、甚至在必要时实施退出威胁，但他们忽视了跨国企业集团更偏好的第三种方式：通过在第三国设立子公司，套利不同国家间的规则。
Multinational corporations (MNCs) are often seen as singular organizations, with a parent company controlling branches in other countries. But this is an abridged version of decentred corporate groups structured as clusters of separate legal entities in several jurisdictions held together by equity ties. The article argues that while the abridged version of the MNC matches those aspects of those organizations that are of interest to economists, it fails to capture the principal mechanism of interaction between business and the institutional and political environment. I argue that the abridged version is a barrier preventing political scientists from asking salient questions about the power of MNCs and their shareholders. Specifically, while political scientists and international political economists discuss the way these companies use their considerable financial resources to voice their views on unwanted regulatory changes, to threaten exit or if all else fails, to carry through with the threat, they ignore a third approach favoured by corporate groups, setting up subsidiaries in third countries to arbitrage rules.
让敌手更安全：技术合作与核安全及安保技术的转让
题目：Keep your enemies safer: technical cooperation and transferring nuclear safety and security technologies
作者：Jeffrey Ding，乔治华盛顿大学政治学助理教授。
摘要： 即使在冷战期间，美国与苏联也在核安全与安保领域展开合作。由于任何地方发生的核事故或未授权的核引爆都会威胁全球和平，经验丰富的国家向其他国家转让核安全与安保技术方法似乎是理所当然的。然而，历史记录显示出复杂性。那么，原因何在？现有的解释主要集中在技术转让国所面临的政治成本和核扩散风险上，而本文认为，特定的技术特征会影响援助的可行性。对于更复杂的核安全与安保技术而言，稳固的技术合作对于建立必要的信任至关重要，这样科学家们才能在不泄露敏感信息的前提下传授隐性知识。本文通过高层访谈和档案证据，提出了这一理论，并通过四个案例进行验证：美国向苏联分享基本核安全与安保技术（1961–1963）；美国拒绝向中国（1990–1999）和巴基斯坦（1998–2003）提供复杂核安全与安保技术；以及美国向俄罗斯分享复杂核安全与安保技术（1994–2007）。研究结果表明，分析核技术援助不仅要关注背后的动机，还需考察其具体实施过程及相关技术特征。这对于理解国家如何通过合作来管理新兴技术带来的全球风险具有重要启示。
Even during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union cooperated on nuclear safety and security. Since accidental or unauthorized nuclear detonations anywhere threaten peace everywhere, it seems straightforward that states more experienced in developing nuclear safety and security technologies would transfer such methods to other states. Yet, the historical record is mixed. Why? While existing explanations focus on the political costs and proliferation risks faced by the transferring state, this article argues that specific technological features condition the feasibility of assistance. For more complex nuclear safety and security technologies, robust technical cooperation is crucial to build the necessary trust for scientists to transfer tacit knowledge without divulging sensitive information. Leveraging elite interviews and archival evidence, my theory is supported by four case studies: US sharing of basic nuclear safety and security technologies with the Soviet Union (1961–1963); US withholding of complex nuclear safety and security technologies from China (1990–1999) and Pakistan (1998–2003); and US sharing of complex nuclear safety and security technologies with Russia (1994–2007). My findings suggest the need to examine not only the motivations behind nuclear assistance but also the process by which it occurs and the features of the technologies involved, with implications for how states cooperate to manage the global risks of emerging technologies.
技术官僚主义、民粹主义与国际组织的（去）合法化
题目：Technocracy, populism, and the (de)legitimation of international organizations
作者：Reinout van der Veer，拉德堡大学政治学系的国际关系助理教授，研究兴趣集中在国际组织的运作和合法性，如欧盟和联合国，其研究涉及具有执行授权的国际机构的政治化和响应性、决策中的专家角色以及公众对国际组织的看法。Gustav Meibauer，拉德堡大学政治学系的国际关系助理教授，研究兴趣包括外交政策分析、政治传播和国际关系理论，其研究聚焦于国家行为的混乱性，以及领导人如何思考和讨论外交政策选择。
摘要：我们对自由国际秩序争议的理解依赖于一种直观的二元论。技术官僚规范支撑着国际组织（IOs）的合法性，因为国际组织体现了一种基于专业知识和非多数主义的功能性、去政治化问题解决模式。而民粹主义规范则挑战国际组织的权威，认为国际组织对“真正的人民”的民意形成了约束。本文利用一项前所未有的精细化数据库，对各国政府针对国际组织的（去）合法化行为进行实证研究，检验这一二元论是否适用于参与国际组织（去）合法化的行为体。研究发现，具有技术官僚或民粹主义倾向的政府在（去）合法化过程中的模式远比二元论所描述的更为动态且多样。特别是，研究揭示了复杂的（去）合法化模式，表明对国际组织权威的挑战与维护更多是出于策略性逻辑而非意识形态逻辑。本文的发现对国际自由秩序、技术官僚主义与民粹主义相关文献具有重要启示意义。
Our understanding of the contestation of liberal international order relies on an intuitive dualism. Technocratic norms underpin the legitimation of international organizations (IOs) because IOs embody a functional and depoliticized mode of problem-solving based on expertise and non-majoritarianism. Populist norms challenge IO authority as IOs create constraints on the popular will of the “true people.” We empirically examine whether this duality extends to the actors engaging in IO (de)legitimation by leveraging a novel and unprecedentedly fine-grained database on IO (de)legitimation by national governments. We find that (de)legitimation patterns of governments with technocratic or populist tendencies are far more dynamic and diverse than a dualistic account suggests. In particular, we find complex patterns of (de)legitimation that suggest challenges to and defenses of IO authority are driven more by a strategic, as opposed to an ideological, logic. We outline implications for the literatures on the international liberal order, technocracy, and populism.
非正式性如何维持多边主义：非正式集团在欧盟外交政策谈判中的作用
题目：How informality keeps multilateralism going: the role of informal groupings in EU foreign policy negotiations
作者：Marianna Lovato，布鲁塞尔治理学院安全、外交与战略中心博士后研究员，研究兴趣主要集中在国际组织中的非正式治理/非正式性、欧洲对外和安全政策以及跨大西洋关系。
摘要： 国家间的非正式集团——无论是作为独立实体还是作为正式国际组织（IOs）的一部分——在维持多边主义和全球治理中正发挥着越来越重要的作用。那么，这些非正式集团的“非正式性”究竟为何使其成为国际合作中至关重要且日益流行的机制？为回答这一问题，本文聚焦非正式集团在欧盟（EU）外交政策谈判中的作用。在欧盟内部，非正式集团为协调、信息共享、学习和共识构建提供了关键平台。因此，这些集团对于正式决策过程的顺利运作至关重要，成为多边外交成功的必要基石。本文通过对两种不同的非正式集团（一个位于欧盟之外，一个位于欧盟内部）的案例进行研究，提出并验证了上述论点。研究方法包括文件分析及对国家外交官的高层访谈。首先，本文分析了七国集团（G7）联络小组在2014年制定对俄制裁中的作用；其次，评估了PESCO四国集团（PESCO 4）在推动建立“永久结构性合作”（PESCO）机制中的作用。这两个案例均显示，非正式集团为协调、信息共享、学习和共识构建提供了重要平台，从而推动并维持了27个成员国间的多边谈判。本文通过深入探讨非正式集团在正式国际组织中的作用，揭示了非正式性与小多边主义以及正式多边机构之间的动态关系，为理解非正式机制如何支撑全球治理提供了重要洞见。
Informal groupings of states – either as stand-alone entities or as part of formal international organizations (IOs) – are playing an increasingly important role in sustaining multilateralism and global governance. But what is it about the informal nature of these groupings that makes them such a critical and increasingly popular fixture of international cooperation? To answer this question, the paper focuses on the role of informal groupings in European Union (EU) foreign policy negotiations. Within the EU, informal groupings provide a key venue for coordination, information-sharing, learning and consensus-building. As a result, these groupings are critical for the functioning of the formal decision-making process, providing necessary building blocks for the success of multilateral diplomacy. The proposed argument is explored in the case of two distinct instances of informal groupings, one extra- and one intra-EU grouping, by means of document analysis and elite interviews with national diplomats. First, the paper examines the role of the G7 contact group in the formulation of the Russian sanctions back in 2014. Second, it assesses the role of the PESCO 4 in driving the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO). In both instances, informal groupings provided important venues for coordination, as well as information-sharing, learning and consensus-building, which, in turn, enable and sustain multilateral negotiations among 27 member states. Critically engaging with the role of informal groupings in formal IOs, the paper sheds light on the dynamic relationship between informality and minilateralism, on the one hand, and formal multilateral institutions, on the other.
“国际安全援助部队砍伐了100棵大型果树”：土地、基础设施与军事暴力
题目：‘100 large fruit trees cut down by ISAF’: land, infrastructure and military violence
作者：Joanna Tidy，谢菲联大学政治与国际关系系讲师，其研究主要涉及战争、军事力量和军事暴力，主要从批判性和女性主义国际关系及政治经济学的角度进行，同时也与社会学、历史和地理等其他学科相互关联。
摘要：本文探讨了土地使用与基础设施中的军事暴力现象。通过对英国陆军皇家工程兵团在19世纪60年代加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省以及2001年后入侵阿富汗赫尔曼德省的案例分析，本文揭示了英国殖民和自由主义军事项目如何通过军事基础设施活动服务于资本主义发展的目标。文章分析了皇家工程兵团在不列颠哥伦比亚省建立移民殖民地与推动殖民资本主义的活动，以及他们在赫尔曼德省推广自由主义社会、政治和经济规范的角色，厘清了军事暴力为何、如何以及以何种效果体现为诸如砍伐树木、颁发私人土地产权、将表层土用于道路填充，或禁止当地农民在公路附近种植高杆作物等行动。本文的核心观点是，我们应当将此类军事活动概念化并理解为一种暴力。这一分析深化了学术界对暴力的认识，特别是在殖民性、自由主义战争、定居殖民主义以及土地、领土与基础设施等相关研究领域的探讨。除了对军事暴力的直接剖析外，本文的讨论对于理解基础设施、土地与暴力之间的关系及其相互影响具有更广泛的理论意义。
This article examines the military violence of land use and infrastructure. The analysis discusses the case of the British Army’s Royal Corps of Engineers in 1860s British Columbia and in Helmand, Afghanistan following the post-2001 invasion. It charts how across British colonial and liberal military projects, military infrastructure activities have mobilised towards the goal of capitalist development. Drawing analytic lines between the Royal Engineers’ activities establishing the settler colony and colonial capitalism in British Columbia and their role in imposing liberal social, political and economic norms in Helmand, the article puts forward an account of why, how and with what effect military violence can include things such as the felling of trees, the issuing of private land title, the use of topsoil for road fill or prohibiting local farmers from growing tall crops near a roadway. The central argument of this article is that we should conceptualise and understand military activities such as these as violence. This analysis develops understandings of violence within scholarship addressing coloniality, liberal war, settler colonialism; and land, territory and infrastructure. Beyond the immediate analysis of specifically military violence, this discussion has broader implications for understanding the nexus of infrastructure, land and violence.
超越权威：通过实践治理移民与庇护问题
题目：Beyond authority: governing migration and asylum through practice on the ground
作者：Nele Kortendiek，法兰克福歌德大学博士后研究员，欧洲大学学院马克思·韦伯研究员，其研究主要集中在三个领域：全球治理中的争议与变革、国际组织的政策制定与执行，以及移民和庇护政治。
摘要：国际组织（IOs）如何治理跨国挑战？大多数理论认为，国际组织通过行使权威来进行治理。然而，这些聚焦权威的理论往往忽视了事实治理的情形。特别是在新兴的、有争议的和危机频发的议题领域，权威往往尚未确立或已被动摇，但国际组织在这些领域依然发挥治理作用。例如移民与庇护政策领域，其特点是制度与政策上的缺口。然而，在2015至2016年欧洲边境危机期间，国际组织仍然治理了大规模的混合人口流动。通过组织现场的集体行动，国际组织不仅直接对流动人口（即国际政治的最终受众）产生了规范性影响，而且将混合移民界定为一个全球性政策议题。本文借鉴实践理论，结合对希腊欧洲外部边界的实地调研，着重分析国际组织在低制度门槛下运作的治理模式。我提出了一种最低限度的治理概念，将关注点从权威来源转向治理效果，以解释此类治理形式。这一重新概念化使我们能够研究国际组织在超越既有权威的情况下，如何在具体的地理场所中进行治理。
How do international organizations (IOs) govern transnational challenges? Most theories maintain that IOs exercise authority to govern. What these authority-focused accounts tend to overlook, however, are instances of de facto governance. Especially in emerging, contested, and crisis-ridden issue areas, authority has often not been established or become unsettled. Yet, IOs govern here, too. Take the example of migration and asylum: This policy field is characterized by institutional and policy gaps. During the crisis at Europe’s border in 2015–2016, IOs governed mixed movements nonetheless. Through organizing collective action on the ground, they not only created direct regulative impacts on the lives of people on the move (the final addressees of international politics) but also defined what mixed migration means as a global policy concern. I draw on practice theory and fieldwork at the European external border in Greece to draw attention to governing modes that operate at a very low institutional threshold. I propose a minimal conception of governance that shifts attention from authority sources to governing effects to account for such governance forms. This re-conceptualization makes the study of how IOs govern outside their established authority, in concrete geographical places, possible.
译者：束任翔，国政学人编译员，中国社会科学院大学国际政治专业，研究兴趣为欧洲地区。
审校 | 张潇文