打字猴:1.70291107e+09
1702911070
1702911071 [544]Pape, Bombing to Win, chaps.4,8.
1702911072
1702911073 [545]Andrei Kolesnikov,“Russian Ideology after Crimea,”Carnegie Moscow Center, September 2015;Alexander Lukin,“What the Kremlin Is Thinking:Putin’s Vision for Eurasia,”Foreign Affairs 93,no.4(July/August 2014):85—93.
1702911074
1702911075 [546]参见Gartzke,“The Capitalist Peace”;Edward D.Mansfield and Jon C.Pevehouse,“Trade Blocs, Trade Flows, and International Conflict,”Interna-tional Organization 54,no.4(Autumn 2000):775—808;John R.Oneal and Bruce M.Russett,“The Classical Liberals Were Right:Democracy, Interde-pendence, and Conflict,1950—1985,”International Studies Quarterly 41,no.2(June 1997):267—294。
1702911076
1702911077 [547]参见Barry Buzan,“Economic Structure and International Security:The Limits of the Liberal Case,”International Organization 38,no.4(Autumn 1984):597—624;Patrick J.McDonald,“The Purse Strings of Peace,”American Jour-nal of Political Science 51,no.3(July 2007):569—582;James D.Morrow,“How Could Trade Affect Conflict?,”Journal of Peace Research 36,no.4(July 1999):481—489.
1702911078
1702911079 [548]参见Barbieri and Levy,“Sleeping with the Enemy”;Katherine Bar-bieri, The Liberal Illusion:Does Trade Promote Peace?(Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,2002);Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics(New York:Cambridge University Press,1981);Kenneth N.Waltz,“The Myth of National Interdependence,”in The International Corporation, ed.Charles P.Kindelberger(Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1970),pp.205—223。
1702911080
1702911081 [549]这里的重点是研究自由主义对制度的看法。还有一个关于制度的单独的建构主义叙事,这不在本研究的范围内。参见John J.Mearsheimer,“The False Promise of International Institutions,”International Security 19,no.3(Win-ter 1994/1995):5—49。
1702911082
1702911083 [550]Charles Lipson,“Is the Future of Collective Security Like the Past?”in Collective Security beyond the Cold War, ed.George W.Downs(Ann Arbor:U-niversity of Michigan Press,1994),p.114.
1702911084
1702911085 [551]制度和机制没有区别这一事实反映在Stephen D.Krasner,“Structural Causes and Regime Consequences:Regimes as Intervening Variables,”in“Inter-national Regimes,”ed.Stephen D.Krasner, special issue, International Organi-zation 36,no.2(Spring 1982):185—205。
1702911086
1702911087 [552]Robert O.Keohane, After Hegemony:Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1984).
1702911088
1702911089 [553]例如,参见Helga Haftendorn, Robert O.Keohane, and Celeste A.Wallander, eds.,Imperfect Unions:Security Institutions over Time and Space(New York:Oxford University Press,1999);Celeste A.Wallander, Mortal Friends, Best Enemies:German-Russian Cooperation after the Cold War(Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1999);Seth Weinberger,“Institutional Signaling and the Origins of the Cold War,”Security Studies 12,no.4(Summer 2003):80—115。
1702911090
1702911091 [554]例如,参见Robert Axelrod and Robert O.Keohane,“Achieving Coop-eration under Anarchy:Strategies and Institutions,”World Politics 38,no.1(Oc-tober1985):226—254;Charles Lipson,“International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,”World Politics 37,no.1(October 1984):1—23;Lisa L.Martin,“Institutions and Cooperation:Sanctions during the Falkland Islands Conflict,”International Security 16,no.4(Spring 1992):143—178;Lisa L.Martin, Coercive Cooperation:Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions(Prin-ceton, NJ:Princeton University Press,1992);Kenneth A.Oye,“Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy:Hypotheses and Strategies,”World Politics 38,no.1(October 1985):1—24;Arthur A.Stein, Why Nations Cooperate:Circumstance and Choice in International Relations(Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press,1990)。
1702911092
1702911093 [555]参见Haftendorn, Keohane, and Wallander, Imperfect Unions;Krasner,“Structural Causes and Regime Consequences,”p.192;Robert Jervis,“Security Regimes,”in Krasner,“International Regimes,”special issue, International Or-ganization, pp.357—378;Wallander, Mortal Friends, Best Enemies, pp.5,20,22。
1702911094
1702911095 [556]Lipson,“International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,”pp.2,12.也可参见Axelrod and Keohane,“Achieving Cooperation under Anar-chy,”pp.232—233;Keohane, After Hegemony, pp.39—41。
1702911096
1702911097 [557]Lipson,“International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,”p.18.
1702911098
1702911099 [558]Keohane, After Hegemony, pp.6—7.
1702911100
1702911101 [559]G.John Ikenberry, After Victory:Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,2001).也可参见G.John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan:The Origins, Cri-sis, and Transformation of the American World Order(Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press,2012)。
1702911102
1702911103 [560]Ikenberry, After Victory, p.xiii;Keohane, After Hegemony, p.16.
1702911104
1702911105 [561]Haftendorn, Keohane, and Wallander, Imperfect Unions, p.1.他们在结论中提出了适度的主张:“这本书认为制度理论可以阐明安全问题”(第326页)。沃兰德(Wallander)专注于德俄关系,他在《不共戴天的朋友,最为交好的敌人》(Mortal Friends, Best Enemies)一书中总结:“权力和利益仍然是德国和俄罗斯安全计算的核心”第6页。
1702911106
1702911107 [562]合作的另一个主要障碍是相对收益的考虑,我在此没有提到,主要是因为篇幅限制。我对此问题的看法参见Mearsheimer,“The False Promise of International Institutions,”pp.9—26。
1702911108
1702911109 [563]我们谈论的是自我约束,几乎每个自由主义者都知道,自我约束在一个国家内部是行不通的,这也解释了为什么需要一个有强制力的国家。那么,为什么会有人期望它在国际层次上发挥作用呢?
1702911110
1702911111 [564]其他案例包括格林纳达(1983年)、巴拿马(1989年)和利比亚(2011年)。
1702911112
1702911113 [565]Jan-Werner Muller,“Rule-Breaking,”London Review of Books, August 27,2015;Sebastian Rosato,“Europe’s Troubles:Power Politics and the State of the European Project,”International Security 35,no.4(Spring 2011):72—77.
1702911114
1702911115 [566]以下这篇文献清楚地表达了这一点,参见Lipson,“International Coop-eration in Economic and Security Affairs,”especially pp.12—18。本段中后续的引用来自以上文献。也可参见Axelrod and Keohane,“Achieving Coopera-tion under Anarchy,”pp.232—233。
1702911116
1702911117 [567]约翰·罗尔斯和迈克尔·沃尔泽等学者都意识到自由主义理论中蕴含着十字军的冲动,并不遗余力地反对为了使世界变得更好而使用武力。参见Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars:A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations(New York:Basic Books,2007);John Rawls, The Law of Peoples:With“The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”(Cambridge, MA:Harvard Universi-ty Press,1999)。对沃尔泽观点的讨论指出,通过发动战争在世界范围内传播自由民主与正义战争理论是相矛盾的,正义战争理论涉及的是将进攻性战争排除在外,除非是在高度限制性的情况下,这些情况不包括促进民主。然而,在实践中,对于强大的自由民主国家而言,为了使世界变得更好而抵制使用武力的冲动是特别困难的。
1702911118
1702911119 [568]E.H.Carr, The Twenty Years’Crisis:An Introduction to the Study of In-ternational Relations,2nd ed.(London:Macmillan,1962);Robert Gilpin,“Nobody Loves a Political Realist,”Security Studies 5,no.3(Spring 1996):3—26;John J.Mearsheimer,“E.H.Carr vs.Idealism:The Battle Rages On,”In-ternational Relations 19,no.2(June 2005):139—152;Mearsheimer,“The Mo-res Isms the Better,”International Relations 19,no.3(September 2005):354—359.
[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70291107e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]