1702910550
1702910551
[309]在西方传播自由权利的困难是最近两本关于人权历史的著作的中心主题:Hunt, Inventing Human Rights;Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia:Human Rights in History(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,2010)。两位作者都明确指出,不可剥夺权利的概念在18世纪后半叶随着美国的《独立宣言》(1776年)和法国的《人权与公民权宣言》(1789年)而首次受到广泛关注。但在接下来的大约150年里,西方对个人权利的关注并不多。亨特认为它在1948年再次成为一个重要的话题,而莫恩则认为这一点直到1977年才发生。也可参见Markus Fischer,“The Liberal Peace:Ethical, Historical, and Philo-sophical Aspects”(BCSIA Discussion Paper 2000—07,Kennedy School of Gov-ernment, Harvard University, April 2000),pp.20—22。值得注意的是,偶然性是亨特和莫恩叙事的核心。例如,亨特写道:“然而,即使是自然性、平等性和普世性也是不够的。人权只有在获得政治内容时才有意义。它们不是自然状态下人类的权利;它们是社会中人类的权利”(第21页)。换言之,她反对自然权利。对于莫恩而言,人权是“其他意识形态中唯一有吸引力的意识形态”(第5页)。
1702910552
1702910553
[310]英国向其殖民帝国(特别是印度)输出其意识形态的麻烦,表明传播自由主义有多困难。参见Karuna Mantena, Alibis of Empire:Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,2010);Mehta, Liberalism and Empire。
1702910554
1702910555
[311]Rossiter, Constitutional Dictatorship, p.228.对林肯的行动的更详细的讨论,参见该书第223—239页。
1702910556
1702910557
[312]Aristide R.Zolberg, A Nation by Design:Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,2006),p.192.
1702910558
1702910559
[313]这三本书的标题反映了对欧洲移民的歧视:Karen Brodkin, How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America(New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press,1998);Noel Ignatiev, How the Irish Became White(New York:Routledge,2008);David R.Roediger, Working to-ward Whiteness:How America’s Immigrants Became White(New York:Basic Books,2005)。
1702910560
1702910561
[314]David M.Kennedy, Over Here:The First World War and American Society(New York:Oxford University Press,1982),chap.1;Frederick C.Lue-bke, Bonds of Loyalty:German Americans and World War I(DeKalb:Northern Illinois University Press,1974);Carl Wittke, German-Americans and the World War(Columbus:Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society,1936).
1702910562
1702910563
[315]Armitage, The Declaration of Independence, p.18;Gerald N.Rosen-berg,“Much Ado about Nothing?The Emptiness of Rights’Claims in the Twen-ty-First Century United States,”in“Revisiting Rights,”ed.Austin Sarat, special issue, Studies in Law, Politics, and Society(Bingley, UK:Emerald Group,2009),pp.1—41.
1702910564
1702910565
[316]Rosenberg,“Much Ado about Nothing?,”pp.20,23—28.也见George Klosko,“Rawls’s‘Political’Philosophy and American Democracy,”A-merican Political Science Review 87,no.2(June 1993):348—359;George Klos-ko, Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus(New York:Oxford University Press,2004),p.vii;Shaun P.Young,“Rawlsian Reasonableness:A Problemat-ic Presumption?,”Canadian Journal of Political Science 39,no.1(March 2006):159—180。
1702910566
1702910567
[317]这三个引用都出自Rosenberg,“Much Ado about Nothing?,”p.33。
1702910568
1702910569
[318]James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed.Isaac Kramnick(New York:Penguin,1987),pp.122—128.
1702910570
1702910571
[319]Lisa Blaydes and James Lo,“One Man, One Vote, One Time?A Model of Democratizationin the Middle East,”Journal of Theoretical Politics 24,no.1(January 2012):110—146;Paul Pillar,“One Person, One Vote, One Time,”National Interest Blog, October 3,2017,http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/one-person-one-vote-one-time-22583.
1702910572
1702910573
[320]有令人担忧的证据表明,美国公众中的各种分歧正开始出现。Alan Abramowitz, The Great Alignment:Race, Party Transformation and the Rise of Donald Trump(New Haven, CT:Yale University Press,2018).并不令人惊讶,我们有充分的理由担心今天美国存在走向独裁的诱惑。参见Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die(New York:Crown,2018)。
1702910574
1702910575
[321]Emile Durkheim, The Division of Laborin Society(New York:Free Press,1964).
1702910576
1702910577
[322]Michael J.Glennon, National Security and Double Government(New York:Oxford University Press,2016).也可参见Michael Lofgren, The Fall of the Constitutionand the Rise of a Shadow Government(New York:Penguin,2016)。
1702910578
1702910579
[323]有关自由民主促进繁荣的主张,参见Michael C.Desch, Power and Military Effectiveness:The Fallacy of Democratic Triumphalism(Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,2008),pp.52—53;Yi Feng,“Democracy, Political Stability, and Economic Growth,”British Journal of Political Science 27,no.3(July 1997):391—418;David A.Lake,“Powerful Pacifists:Democratic States and War,”American Political Science Review 86,no.1(March 1992):24—37。
1702910580
1702910581
[324]大多数外交政策分析家和学者认为,自冷战结束以来,国际体系一直是单极的,美国是唯一的极。其他国家可以分为主要国家或小国,而不是大国。参见Nuno P.Monteiro, Theory of Unipolar Politics(New York:Cambridge U-niversity Press,2014)。比较而言,我认为世界将会是多极的,因为中国和俄罗斯也是大国。John J.Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, upda-ted ed.(New York:Norton,2014).然而,毫无疑问,美国比其他两个大国强大得多。事实上,它是这三个国家中唯一的超级大国。因此,我对全球均势的看法和那些认为国际体系是单极的看法几乎没有什么差别。考虑到这一事实,再加上流行词汇的发展,我使用单极这一术语来描述1989年以来的体系结构,而不是不平衡的多极。尽管如此,我认为,一个在多极中远强于其对手的大国也会自由地追求自由主义霸权,主要是因为较弱的大国几乎没有能力来挑战其边界之外的主导国家。
1702910582
1702910583
[325]Michael W.Doyle,“Liberalism and World Politics,”American Political Science Review 80,no.4(December 1986):1161.
1702910584
1702910585
[326]一些学者认为,是民主的特殊特征解释了为什么自由民主国家之间不打仗,而不是自由主义的特征。换言之,这些替代性解释并没有强调不可剥夺的权利的重要性,而这却是对所谓的这种现象的自由主义解释。在第七章中,我评价了一些民主的特殊属性,这些属性被认为可以防止自由民主国家之间的战争。
1702910586
1702910587
[327]0:America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order,”Perspectives on Politics 7,no.1(March 2009):75。
1702910588
1702910589
[328]Michael W.Doyle,“Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,”part 2,Philosophy and Public Affairs 12,no.4(Fall 1983):324.也可参见Doyle,“Liberalism and World Politics,”pp.1156—1163。
1702910590
1702910591
[329]引自Kenneth N.Waltz, Man, the State and War:A Theoretical Analysis(New York:Columbia University Press,1965),p.111。与此相关的是,多伊尔写道:“自由主义战争只是为了大众的、自由的目的。”Doyle,“Liberalism and World Politics,”p.1160.约翰·欧文(John M.Owen)写道:“所有人都对和平感兴趣,并且希望战争只是作为实现和平的工具。”John M.Owen,“How Lib-eralism Produces Democratic Peace,”International Security 19,no.2(Fall 1994):89.
1702910592
1702910593
[330]0,”p.72.
1702910594
1702910595
[331]John Rawls, The Law of Peoples:With“The Idea of Public Reason Revis-ited”(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1999),p.35.
1702910596
1702910597
[332]Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p.24.
1702910598
1702910599
[333]Bertrand Russell, Portraits from Memory and Other Essays(New York:Simon&Schuster,1956),p.45.
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.70291055e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]