打字猴:1.7029106e+09
1702910600
1702910601 [334]例如,参见Seyla Benhabib,“Claiming Rights across Borders:Interna-tional Human Rights and Democratic Sovereignty,”American Political Science Review 103,no.4(November 2009):691—704。
1702910602
1702910603 [335]Rawls, The Law of Peoples, pp.5,93,113.
1702910604
1702910605 [336]John M.Owen, The Clash of Ideas in World Politics:Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change,1510—2010(Princeton, NJ:Princeton U-niversity Press,2010),p.4.
1702910606
1702910607 [337]参见Nicolas Guilhot, The Democracy Makers:Human Rights and the Politics of Global Order(New York:Columbia University Press,2005)。
1702910608
1702910609 [338]Charles R.Beitz,“International Liberalism and Distributive Justice:A Survey of Recent Thought,”World Politics 51,no.2(January 1999):270.也可参见Brian Barry,“Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective,”in Ethics, Eco-nomics, and the Law;Nomos XXIV, ed.J.Roland Pennock and John W.Chap-man(New York:New York University Press,1982),chap.11;Brian Barry,“International Society from a Cosmopolitan Perspective,”in International Socie-ty:Diverse Ethical Perspectives, ed.David R.Mapel and Terry Nardin(Prince-ton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1998),pp.144—163;Charles R.Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1999),part 3;Richard W.Miller, Globalizing Justice:The Ethics of Poverty and Power(New York:Oxford University Press,2010);Thomas W.Pogge, Realizing Rawls(Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1989),part 3。
1702910610
1702910611 [339]Doyle,“Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,”part 2,pp.338—343;Eric Mack,“The Uneasy Case for Global Redistribution,”in Problems of International Justice, ed.Steven Luper-Foy(Boulder, CO:West-view Press,1988),pp.55—66.大国有时愿意资助重要的盟国获得经济优势,因为有必要威慑或打击一个特别强大的对手。Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp.159,292,324—325.然而,这种现实主义的逻辑与促进全球正义无关。
1702910612
1702910613 [340]Samuel P.Huntington, Who Are We?The Challenges to America’s Na-tional Identity(New York:Simon&Schuster,2004),p.268.也可参见Samuel P.Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order(New York:Simon&Schuster,1996),chap.3。
1702910614
1702910615 [341]Stephen M.Walt, The Hell of Good Intentions:America’s Foreign Poli-cy Elite and the Decline of U.S.Primacy(New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux,2018),chap.3.也可参见Christopher Layne,“The US Foreign Policy Estab-lishment and Grand Strategy:How American Elites Obstruct Adjustment,”Inter-national Politics 54,no.3(May 2017):260—275;Kevin Narizny, The Political Economy of Grand Strategy(Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,2007)。
1702910616
1702910617 [342]现实主义有两种基本形式:人性和结构。此处提出的理论显然属于后一类,因为它强调国际体系的总体设计导致国家追求权力。另一方面,对于人性现实主义者而言,国家想要权力很大程度上是因为大多数人天生就有一种内在的权力意志,这实际上意味着国家是由个人领导的,他们致力于使本国支配其竞争对手。例如,汉斯·摩根索(Hans Morgenthau)认为个人有一种强烈的敌意,这是人类行为和国家行为背后的驱动力。Hans J.Morgenthau, Scien-tific Man vs.Power Politics(London:Latimer House,1947),pp.165—167.也可参见Hans J.Morgenthau, Politics among Nations,5th ed.(New York:Knopf,1973),pp.34—35.对于现实主义者而言,权力本身主要就是一个目的,而不是生存的手段,就像结构现实主义者那样。然而,人性现实主义者确实将生存逻辑融入他们的叙事中,这在很大程度上是因为国家在充满具有侵略性和潜在危险的邻国的世界中运行,它们别无选择,只能担心它们的生存,即使它们的最终目标是为了自身利益而获得权力。关于美国现实主义思想的演变,参见Nicolas Guilhot, After the Enlightenment:Political Realism and Inter-national Relations in the Mid-twentieth Century(New York:Cambridge University Press,2017);Brian C.Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy:A Discipli-nary History of International Relations(Albany, NY:State University of New York Press,1998)。
1702910618
1702910619 [343]下面关于现实主义的讨论大量借鉴了Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp.29—54,363—365。
1702910620
1702910621 [344]Sebastian Rosato,“The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers,”Inter-national Security 39,no.3(Winter 2014/2015):48—88.
1702910622
1702910623 [345]Joseph M.Parent and Sebastian Rosato,“Balancing in Neorealism,”In-ternational Security 40,no.2(Fall 2015):51—86.
1702910624
1702910625 [346]引自Evan Luard, Basic Texts in International Relations:The Evolution of Ideas about International Society(London:Macmillan,1992),p.166。
1702910626
1702910627 [347]没有一个国家能够成为全球霸主,主要是因为地理条件的限制。地球的绝对规模,再加上一些巨大海洋的存在,使得主导它的全部是不可能的。一个国家至多是希望成为一个地区霸主,这意味着主导世界中自己所在的地区。例如,美国自19世纪末以来一直是西半球的一个地区霸主。进一步阐述参见Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp.40—42。正如下面所讨论的,排除全球霸权的相同因素使世界国家变为不可能。
1702910628
1702910629 [348]Robert B.Strassler, ed.,The Landmark Thucydides:A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War(New York:Simon&Schuster,1998).
1702910630
1702910631 [349]Markus Fischer,“Feudal Europe,800—1300:Communal Discourse and Conflictual Practices,”International Organization 46,no.2(Spring 1992):427—466.
1702910632
1702910633 [350]Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature:Why Violence Has De-clined(NewYork:Viking,2011),p.55.
1702910634
1702910635 [351]Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed.C.B.Macpherson(Harmondsworth, UK:Penguin,1986),p.186.
1702910636
1702910637 [352]正如前一章所强调的,自由主义的一个主要弱点是它把生活在一个国家里的人视为原子论的个体,而实际上,他们本质上是社会存在的。然而,这种弱点不适用于国际层次,因为各国在任何意义上都不是社会实体。它们是以自我为核心的个体政治行为体。当然,这正是现实主义对待国家的方式,这有助于解释为什么在国际体系中按照自由主义指令行事的国家,最终以均势的逻辑行事。
1702910638
1702910639 [353]Charles L.Glaser, Rational Theory of International Politics:The Logic of Competition and Cooperation(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,2010),pp.38—39;Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, pp.31,363;Rosato,“The Inscrutable Intentions of Great Powers,”pp.52—53.
1702910640
1702910641 [354]John Locke, The Second Treatise of Government(Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill,1952),p.83.
1702910642
1702910643 [355]Stephen Holmes, Passions and Constraint:On the Theory of Liberal De-mocracy(Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1997),p.39.
1702910644
1702910645 [356]Deborah Boucoyannis,“The International Wanderings of a Liberal Idea, or Why Liberals Can Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Balance of Power,”Perspectives on Politics 5,no.4(December 2007):708;G.Lowes Dickinson, The European Anarchy(New York:Macmillan,1916).
1702910646
1702910647 [357]对于自由主义在国内和国际层次上的区别的不同看法,参见Charles R.Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1979);Hidemi Suganami, The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals(New York:Cambridge University Press,1989)。
1702910648
1702910649 [358]Monteiro, Theory of Unipolar Politics, chap.3.
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.7029106e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]