1703240688
1703240689
[21]Barack Obama,“Remarks of President Barack Obama-Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq,”(speech,Camp Lejeune,Jacksonville,NC,February27,2009),The White House,https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-ndash-responsibly-ending-war-iraq.
1703240690
1703240691
[22]Emma Sky,The Unraveling
:High Hopes and Missed Opportunities in Iraq(New York
:Public Affairs,2015).
1703240692
1703240693
[23]There is no end to the literature that examines foreign policy decision-making.Some of the best books include Richard Neustadt and Ernest May,Thinking In Time
:The Uses of History for Decision-Makers(New York
:Free Press,1986);Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow,Essence of Decision
:Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis(Boston
:Addison Wesley,1999);Morton H.Halperin and Priscilla A.Clapp with Arnold Kanter,Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy,2nd ed.(Washington,DC
:Brookings Institution Press,2006);and Gordon Goldstein,Lessons in Disaster
:McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam(New York
:Times Books,2008).On the role and functioning of the National Security Council under different presidents,see Ivo H.Daalder and I.M.Destler,In the Shadow of the Oval Office
:Profiles of the National Security Advisors and the Presidents They Served—From JFK to George W.Bush(New York
:Simon and Schuster,2009).For insider accounts of the dynamics of the George H.W.Bush administration,see the memoirs of Bush and Scowcroft,A World Transformed;Baker,The Politics of Diplomacy;and Haass,War of Necessity,War of Choice.For the Clinton administration,see Madeleine Albright,Madame Secretary(New York
:Miramax,2003);and Bob Woodward,The Agenda
:Inside the Clinton White House(New York
:Simon and Schuster,1994).For the George W.Bush administration,see Bush,Decision Points;Condoleezza Rice,No Higher Honor(New York
:Random House,2011);and Robert M.Gates,Duty
:Memoirs of a Secretary at War(New York
:Knopf,2014).For the Obama administration,see Gates,Duty;Hillary Rodham Clinton,Hard Choices(New York
:Simon and Schuster,2014);Leon Panetta,Worthy Fights
:A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace(New York
:Penguin,2014);Vali Nasr,The Dispensable Nation
:American Foreign Policy in Retreat(New York
:Doubleday,2013);and David Samuels,“The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s ForeignPolicy Guru,”New York Times Magazine,May5,2016,http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelistwho-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html.
1703240694
1703240695
[24]Hillary Clinton,“America’s Pacific Century,”Foreign Policy,October11,2011,http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/10/11/americas_pacific century;Tom Donilon,_“America is Back in the Pacific and Will Uphold the Rules,”Financial Times,November27,2011,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4f3febac-1761-11e1-b00e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1lvbgzfyEc;President Barack Obama,The White House,“Remarks By President Obama to the Australian Parliament,”(speech,Canberra,Australia,November17,2011),http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/17/remarkspresident-obama-australian-parliament.
1703240696
1703240697
[25]“Trans-Pacific Partnership,”Office of the U.S.Trade Representative,https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/transpacific-partnership/tpp-full-text.
1703240698
1703240699
[26]See Zheng Bijian,China’s Peaceful Rise
:Speeches of Zheng Bijian,1997-2005(Washington,DC
:Brookings Institution Press,2005).Also see Thomas J.Christensen,The China Challenge
:Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power(New York
:Norton,2015).
1703240700
1703240701
[27]Sheila Smith,Intimate Rivals
:Japanese Domestic Politics and a Rising China(New York
:Columbia University Press,2015).
1703240702
1703240703
[28]Richard Katz,“Mutually Assured Production
:Why Trade Will Limit Conflict Between China and Japan,”Foreign Affairs92,no.4(July/August2013)https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2013-06-11/mutual-assured-production.
1703240704
1703240705
[29]United States and India Nuclear Cooperation,Pub.L.No.109-401,https://www.congress.gov/109/plaws/publ401/PLAW109publ401.pdf.
1703240706
1703240707
[30]See Daniel S.Markey,No Exit from Pakistan
:America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad(New York
:Cambridge University Press,2013).
1703240708
1703240709
[31]Haass,War of Necessity,War of Choice,194-200.Also see Ahmed Rashid,Descent Into Chaos
:The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan,Afghanistan,and Central Asia(New York
:Viking,2008).
1703240710
1703240711
[32]Barack Obama,“Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan,”(speech,Washington,DC,December1,2009),The White House,https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-addressnation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan.
1703240712
1703240713
[33]Barack Obama,“Statement by the President on Afghanistan,”(speech,Washington,DC,October15,2015),The White House,https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/10/15/statement-president-afghanistan.
1703240714
1703240715
[34]“Treaty on European Union,”February7,1992,European Union,http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/treaties/pdf/treaty on_european union/treaty on european union en.pdf.
1703240716
1703240717
[35]“Treaty of Lisbon,”December13,2007,European Union,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ
:C:2007:306:FULL&from=EN.
1703240718
1703240719
[36]“Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean,”February14,1967,UN Office of Disarmament Affairs,http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tlatelolco/text.
1703240720
1703240721
1703240722
1703240723
1703240725
失序时代：全球旧秩序的崩溃与新秩序的重塑 第七章 世界多极化的泡沫
1703240726
1703240727
我在哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院教书时，一个常见的主题是：政府部门90％的工作是实施。政策设计当然重要，达成原则性协议也值得付出努力，但最重要的是：实际上做到了什么。我在这里再次强调这一点，因为合法性和秩序受到过程与政策的影响。后冷战时代伊始，全世界似乎在联合国安理会领导下，就阻止萨达姆入侵和吞并科威特达成了广泛一致，但是这一成功在很大程度上取决于两个原因：获得广泛支持的传统主权概念；萨达姆的行径很野蛮。确实，如果其他4个常任理事国中的任何一个有不同意见，并准备使用其否决权挫败美国的计划，美国就不会在整个危机期间依赖安理会解决这个问题。换句话说，在华盛顿方面看来，联合国安理会的支持能够赋予合法性，最好能够获得，但不是必不可少的。
1703240728
1703240729
同样的问题出现在激发国际社会对塞尔维亚问题的应对中。美国和欧洲普遍认为塞尔维亚的行为毫无根据、不道德，但是当知道俄罗斯会使用否决权阻止联合国批准对塞尔维亚进行武装干预时，美国与英国、法国一起将这个问题提交到北约。这种“择地行诉”是一种实用的方法，能够为某个计划获得多边支持和一定程度的合法性，却也是那些不同意的国家所厌恶的。还有观点认为这是一种迂回方法，只是为了获得能够赋予合法性的组织的支持。
1703240730
1703240731
为发动2003年伊拉克战争，美国起初与联合国安理会合作，但最终放弃了这一路径，没有获得正式或非正式的国际支持就开战了。十几年后，俄罗斯干涉克里米亚时也没有求助于安理会。联合国确实就克里米亚问题召集了会议，但那是在事情发生之后，而不是授权给俄罗斯，允许它进行干涉。
1703240732
1703240733
这里可以得出如下结论。首先，没有一个国家——更不用说一个大国——会因为没有联合国的首肯，就准备放弃它认为有利于其国家利益的行动。巴尔干地区所发生的一切恰恰佐证了这一观点。公正地说，塞尔维亚政府的所作所为按照国际法或价值观来衡量属于非法范畴，美国和欧洲所寻求的行动方案具有内在合法性，但是俄罗斯拒绝同意，这意味着行动不会得到安理会的批准，不能获得传统权威赋予它的合法性，事情只能陷入困境。
1703240734
1703240735
其次，这表明如果没有对规范和规则的共识，就无法单独从程序角度来界定合法性。这其中明显有两种对立的立场：基于原则的合法性和基于程序的合法性。美国往往倾向于前者，而较弱的国家倾向于后者，因为它提供了一种限制大国行动的方法。
1703240736
1703240737
这里有一个相关问题：联合国安理会本身不应该拥有分配合法性的地位，因为它自身就存在合法性问题。安理会的问题在于它并不代表当今的世界。这并不奇怪，因为它反映了“二战”期间那些决策者的意愿，他们聚集到一起，想象勾画战后的世界前景——是他们希望的样子。有争议说安理会的欧洲代表过多，因为英国和法国都担任常任理事国。同时，又可以说欧洲的代表数量不足，因为那时德国还没统一，欧盟尚未成立。而日本（最初和德国一样，因为是“二战”的战败国而被排除在外）和印度（那时还是殖民地）都没有永久席位。虽然有过改革安理会的诸多努力，但一个个提案均被否决，最终都失败了。这个结果并不难解释，因为任何建议总是有利于一些常任理事国，或者不利于其他常任理事国。毫不奇怪的是，如果有常任理事国认为所提议的改变不利于自己，就会投否决票。于是，寻找变通方法越来越成为一种趋势。
[
上一页 ]
[ :1.703240688e+09 ]
[
下一页 ]