【新刊速递】《安全研究》(SS)，Vol. 33, No. 4, 2024 | 国政学人

作者：Austin Strange，香港大学国际关系副教授。

摘要：Canonical international relations research treats international orders as systemic, long-term projects of hegemons. However, orders can also provide valuable domestic political capital for leaders. Hegemonic leaders have stronger incentives to invest in hegemony when doing so potentially enhances their political legitimacy. Using a new dataset of over 8,000 Ming and Qing dynasty tribute exchanges between 1368 and 1895, I assess whether emperor legitimacy needs help explain China’s engagement in tribute diplomacy, a central institution of Chinese hegemony. The findings show that new emperors, particularly those following “irregular” entry into power, invested heavily in tribute to pursue legitimacy among internal and external audiences. This behavior was most common with “high-value” counterparts. An illustrative case documents how the Yongle Emperor deployed tribute to legitimize his right to rule. The findings demonstrate the importance of domestic politics and leader legitimacy for understanding the nature and persistence of hegemonic order in early modern Asia.

作者：Mark Shirk，鹰山咨询公司高级顾问；Simon Frankel Pratt，墨尔本大学社会与政治科学学院政治学系讲师。

摘要：疾病是海盗行为产生和最终衰落的重要组成部分，对更广泛的帝国征服和开采过程具有重要意义。通过将军事任务承包给私掠船和其他第三方，17 世纪的大西洋帝国避免了疾病对其军队造成的重大损失。这些“免疫外包”的做法将疾病风险转移到当地代理人身上，这些代理人已经获得了对疟疾和黄热病（那个时代的主要病原体）的免疫力。本文对环境与政治之间的关系采取以生态为中心的观点，将其视为人类和非人类过程的复杂纠葛。通过反事实分析，本文表明疾病与政治之间的相互关系产生了新的联盟和利益，使免疫外包这一行为无法维持。疾病也导致英格兰决定从开采经济转向种植园经济，因为它导致持续的海军行动成本非常高昂。因此，免疫外包做法的终结也有助于解释为什么不再需要私掠船，随后成为“海盗”。本文对帝国主义和国家形成的讨论、对地缘政治重构的类似过程的研究，以及对生态、风险与国家建设等二十一世纪安全挑战的概念化尝试，都具有更大的意义。

Disease was an important part of the creation and eventual decline of piracy in ways significant to the broader process of imperial conquest and extraction. By contracting military tasks to privateers and other third parties, seventeenth-century Atlantic empires avoided significant losses to their forces from disease. These practices of “immunity outsourcing” transferred the risk of disease to local agents, who had acquired immunity to malaria and yellow fever, the dominant pathogens of the era. We adopt an eco-centric view of the relationship between the environment and politics, approached as complex entanglements of human and nonhuman processes. Through counterfactual analysis, we show that the interrelation between disease and politics generated new alliances and interests, making immunity outsourcing untenable. Disease also contributed to the decision by England to shift from an extraction economy to a plantation-based economy, as it made sustained naval operations very costly. Thus, the end of immunity outsourcing practices also helps explain why privateers were no longer needed and subsequently became “pirates.” This paper has larger implications for discussions of imperialism and state formation, research into similar processes of geopolitical reconfiguration, and attempts to conceptualize twenty-firstt-century security challenges concerning ecology, risk, and state-building.

作者：Peter Marcus Kristensen，哥本哈根大学政治学系副教授；Ole Wæver，哥本哈根大学政治学系教授。

摘要：国际关系长期以来一直重申着一个神话般的描述，即该学科如何从 1930 年代一群天真绥靖的理想主义者与一群坚定的科学现实主义者之间的“第一次大辩论”中诞生。此后，彻底的修正主义历史工作挑战了神话叙事，并对学科历史进行了两次重大修订：首先，两次世界大战之间的国际关系没有被理想主义所主导；其次，第一次大辩论从未发生过。本文认为，现实主义-理想主义的辩论确实发生过，但采取了不同的形式，并且包含了与神话叙述中不同的成员。本文将辩论概念化为分形立场，而不是两个或多个自我认同的学者阵营之间的冲突。本文探讨了现实主义-理想主义如何在 1930 年代国际研究会议的口头辩论中被用于确认立场。本文的后修正主义故事对这门学科具有惊人的意义，尤其是对现实主义者的自我理解，因为本文发现亲法西斯学者是现实主义的核心倡导者。第一场大辩论是一个决定性的、形成性的时刻，它使国际关系具有持久的影响，包括压制其他起源故事的排他性影响。

International Relations (IR) long reproduced a mythical account of how the discipline was born out of a “first great debate” in the 1930s between a dominant group of naïve appeasing idealists versus a group of firm scientific realists. Thorough revisionist historical work has since challenged the mythical narrative and introduced two major revisions to disciplinary history: Interwar IR was not dominated by idealism and the first great debate never happened. We contend that a realism-idealism debate did take place but took different forms and included a different cast than in the mythical account. We conceptualize debates as fractal position-taking, rather than clashes between two or more self-identified camps of scholars. We explore how realism-idealism was used for position-taking in the oral debates at the International Studies Conference during the 1930s. Our post-revisionist story has surprising implications for the discipline, especially for the self-understanding of realists, since we find pro-fascist scholars as central advocates for realism. The first great debate was a decisive, formative moment that structured IR with enduring effects, including exclusionary ones that suppressed alternative origin stories.

作者：Erica D. Lonergan，哥伦比亚大学国际与公共事务学院助理教授；Michael Poznansky，美国海军战争学院战略与运筹学系副教授。

摘要：网络空间是 21 世纪的主要战场。然而，大战略家在解决网络战略方面进展缓慢。本文研究了美国四大重要战略（克制、深度参与、自由国际主义和保守主导）对网络战略核心主题的影响。网络空间的几大独特特征，包括其非暴力影响、普遍的保密性和全球治理的挑战，会产生有悖常理的含义。例如，通常对常规军事力量持怀疑态度的克制倡导者应该更自在地使用网络力量，从而与保守主导产生令人惊讶的趋同。相反，自由主义国际主义者重视武力使用的合法化，这使得他们甚至比“克制”战略的支持者更加谨慎。本文还简要探讨了两个较新的大战略——进步主义和保守民粹主义——以展示本研究的框架如何适用于新出现的辩论。本文的方法还可以帮助分析大战略如何扩展到其他新兴技术，例如人工智能。

Cyberspace is a primary battleground of the twenty-first century. Yet, grand strategists have been slow to address cyber strategy. We examine the implications of four prominent American grand strategies—restraint, deep engagement, liberal internationalism, and conservative primacy—for core topics in cyber strategy. Several unique features of cyberspace, including its nonviolent effects, pervasive secrecy, and the challenges of global governance, generate counterintuitive implications. For example, advocates of restraint, usually skeptical of conventional military force, should be more comfortable wielding cyber power, generating surprising convergences with conservative primacy. Conversely, liberal internationalists place importance on legitimating the use of force, rendering them more cautious than even proponents of the "restraint" strategy. We also briefly explore two newer grand strategies—progressivism and conservative populism—in order to show how our framework applies to emerging debates. Our approach can also help analyze how grand strategies extend to other emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

审核 | 赖永祯