打字猴:1.7029107e+09
1702910700
1702910701 [384]Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities:Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism(London:Verso,1983),pp.1—3.安德森转向民族主义来解释共产主义国家之间的冲突。
1702910702
1702910703 [385]参见Luis Cabrera, Global Governance, Global Government:Institu-tional Visions for an Evolving World System(Albany:State University of New York Press,2011),chap.2;Daniel Deudney, Bounding Power:Republican Se-curity Theory from the Polis to the Global Village(Princeton, NJ:Princeton Uni-versity Press,2007);Alexander Wendt,“Why a World State Is Inevitable,”Eu-ropean Journal of International Relations 9,no.4(December 2003):491—542。在过去,人们对美国在不同的地方建立起一个世界国家的可能性有着相当大的兴趣。事实上,现实主义者如汉斯·摩根索和莱因霍尔德·尼布尔认为核武器的发展使得世界国家变得必要。关于美国人思考世界国家的背景,参见Luis Cabrera,“World Government:Renewed Debate, Persistent Challenges,”European Journal of International Relations 16,no.3(2010):511—530;Camp-bell Craig,“The Resurgent Ideaof World Government,”Ethics&International Affairs 22,no.2(Summer 2008):133—142;Thomas G.Weiss,“What Hap-pened to the Idea of World Government?”International Studies Quarterly 53,no.2(June 2009):253—271。
1702910704
1702910705 [386]参见Dickinson, The European Anarchy,这是这本书的中心主题。重要的是要注意,单极国际体系与世界国家有着根本的不同。在单极体系中,体系是无政府状态的,因为它由多个国家组成,尽管一个国家比其他国家强大得多。这些国家中的每一个都是主权实体。对于一个世界国家,根据定义,意味着地球上只有一个主权国家,因此这个体系是等级制的。
1702910706
1702910707 [387]Rawls, The Law of Peoples, p.36.也可参见Ian Shapiro, Politics against Domination(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,2016),chap.5。
1702910708
1702910709 [388]国会研究局于2017年10月发布了一份报告,其中列出了1798年至2017年期间“美国于国外在军事冲突或潜在冲突以及出于非正常和平目的的情况下使用其武装部队的案例”。Barbara Salazar Torreon,“Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,1798—2017,”Congressional Research Serv-ice Report, R42738,Washington, DC, October 12,2017.这表明,美国在后冷战时期(1990—2017年)为这些目的进行军事部署的频率比1798年至1989年期间高出6倍多。
1702910710
1702910711 [389]Alex J.Bellamy, Responsibility to Protect(Malden, MA:Polity Press,2009);Alex J.Bellamy and Tim Dunne, eds.,The Oxford Handbook of the Re-sponsibility to Protect(New York:Oxford University Press,2016);Gareth Ev-ans, The Responsibility to Protect:Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All(Washington, DC:Brookings Institution,2009);Roland Paris,“The‘Respon-sibility to Protect’and the Structural Problems of Preventive Humanitarian Inter-vention,”International Peacekeeping 21,no.5(October 2014):569—603;Ramesh Thakur and William Maley, eds.,Theorizing the Responsibility to Pro-tect(New York:Cambridge University Press,2015).
1702910712
1702910713 [390]这段中的两个引用出自Christopher Layne,“Kant or Cant:The Myth of the Democratic Peace,”International Security 19,no.2(Fall 1994):46。
1702910714
1702910715 [391]John Rawls, The Law of Peoples:With“The Idea of Public Reason Revis-ited”(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1999),pp.93,113.
1702910716
1702910717 [392]Rawls, The Law of Peoples, pp.89—93.
1702910718
1702910719 [393]John M.Owen,“How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,”Interna-tional Security 19,no.2(Fall 1994):88—89.
1702910720
1702910721 [394]小布什总统在2003年3月入侵伊拉克前不久表示:“反恐战争中最大的危险是非法政权携带大规模杀伤性武器。”George W.Bush, speech at the A-merican Enterprise Institute(AEI)Annual Dinner, Washington, DC, February 28,2003.关于小布什主义,参见The National Security Strategy of the United States(Washington, DC:White House, September 17,2002)。
1702910722
1702910723 [395]Bush, speech at the AEI Annual Dinner.关于小布什主义,参见The Na-tional Security Strategy of the United States;George W.Bush, address to the West Point Graduating Class, June 1,2002;Robert Jervis,“Understanding the Bush Doctrine,”Political Science Quarterly 118,no.3(Fall 2003):365—388;Jonathan Monten,“The Roots of the Bush Doctrine:Power, Nationalism, and Democracy Promotion in U.S.Strategy,”International Security 29,no.4(Spring 2005):112—156。
1702910724
1702910725 [396]小布什在美国企业研究所年度午餐会上的演讲。
1702910726
1702910727 [397]Henry A.Kissinger, A World Restored:Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace,1812—22(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1957),p.2.
1702910728
1702910729 [398]W.H.Lawrence,“Churchill Urges Patience in Coping with Red Dan-gers,”New York Times, June 27,1954.
1702910730
1702910731 [399]卡尔·施密特指出:“没收‘人性’一词,调用并垄断它,可能会产生一些难以估量的效果,例如否定敌人的人性,宣布敌人丧失人性;因此,在人性上战争可以被推向最极端。”Schmitt, The Concept of the Political, trans.George Schwab(New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press,1976),p.54.尽管政治哲学家迈克尔·沃尔泽与之斗争,但他清楚地承认在正义和非正义的战争中的这种趋势,因为他的目的是限制战争,而不是推动十字军东征。Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars:A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations(New York:Basic Books,2007),chap.7.
1702910732
1702910733 [400]这段中的引用出自Marc Trachtenberg,“The Question of Realism:A Historian’s View,”Security Studies 13,no.1(Autumn 2003):168—169。
1702910734
1702910735 [401]Robert Jackson, Sovereignty:Evolution of an Idea(Malden, MA:Polity Press,2007).
1702910736
1702910737 [402]Stephen D.Krasner, Sovereignty:Organized Hypocrisy(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1999).
1702910738
1702910739 [403]参见John J.Mearsheimer,“The False Promise of International Institu-tions,”International Security 19,no.3(Winter 1994/95):5—49。
1702910740
1702910741 [404]关于三十年战争,参见Geoffrey Parker, ed.,The Thirty Years’War,2nd ed.(New York:Routledge,1998);C.V.Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War(London:Jonathan Cape,1938);Peter H.Wilson, The Thirty Years War:Europe’s Tragedy(Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,2011)。关于《威斯特伐利亚和约》对开启主权时代的重要性,参见Leo Gross,“The Peace of Westphalia,1648—1948,”American Journal of International Law 42,no.1(January 1948):20—41。然而,一些学者挑战了格罗斯的诠释,参见Andreas Osiander,“Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth,”In-ternational Organization 55,no.2(April 2001):251—287;Derek Croxton,“The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and the Origins of Sovereignty,”International History Review 21,no.3(September 1999):569—591。我同意丹尼尔·菲尔波特(Daniel Philpott)的评价:“威斯特伐利亚标志着现代体系的巩固,而不是无中生有地创造了现代体系。这并不是一个瞬间的蜕变,因为3个世纪以来,主权国家的要素确实在积累。”Daniel Philpott,“The Religious Roots of Modern International Relations,”World Politics 52,no.2(January 2000):209.
1702910742
1702910743 [405]Wilson, The Thirty Years War, p.787.
1702910744
1702910745 [406]Marc Trachtenberg,“Intervention in Historical Perspective,”in Emerging Norms of Justified Intervention, ed.Laura W.Reed and Carl Kaysen(Cambridge, MA:American Academy of Arts and Sciences,1993),pp.15—36.
1702910746
1702910747 [407]关于主权和非殖民化规范如何促进欧洲帝国的终结的讨论,参见Neta C.Crawford,“Decolonization as an International Norm:The Evolution of Prac-tices, Arguments, and Beliefs,”in Reed and Kaysen, Emerging Norms of Justi-fied Intervention, pp.37—61。然而,克劳福德强调,皇权和当地人民不断变化的利益和能力也有助于决定最终的结果。
1702910748
1702910749 [408]关于布莱尔1999年的演讲,参见https://www.globalpolicy.org/com-ponent/content/article/154/26026.html。
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.7029107e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]