精品伊人久久大香线蕉,开心久久婷婷综合中文字幕,杏田冲梨,人妻无码aⅴ不卡中文字幕

題目：Moral status – human status? Interrogating the connection between morality and dehumanisation during mass violence

作者簡介：Torsten Michel，布里斯托大學國際關系高級講師。主要研究興趣在于國際關系（元）理論和大規模暴力的政治與倫理，尤其關注沖突期間和沖突后信任的作用，以及非人化的概念及其在大規模暴行中的性質和功能。

摘要：從20世紀70年代的早期研究開始，非人化逐漸成為理解大規模暴行發生的基本動力和條件的一個重要特征。長期以來，一種廣為接受的主導觀點認為，道德地位的喪失是非人化過程中的關鍵構成要素，認為受害者被排除在義務的道德范圍之外，打破了道德壁壘，從而使得某些迫害形式突破了人類群體中既有的暴力規范。本文以大屠殺這一典型案例為參照，批判性地質疑了迄今為止將喪失道德地位等同于非人化這一不容置疑的觀點。總體而言，本文主張對非人化的規范性使用和分析性使用進行更細致的區分，需要對其經驗性表象和相關性進行更詳細的反思，并對其概念基礎進行更為批判的探討。這樣做不僅能夠推動非人化研究超越當前的狀態，還能使我們能夠更深入地評估其在大規模暴力事件中的用途、意義及其重要性。

Beginning with early studies in the 1970s, dehumanisation has become a key feature in attempts to grasp the fundamental dynamics and conditions under which mass atrocities emerge. One of the most long-standing, prominent and widely accepted conceptions sees the loss of moral status as a key constitutive component of processes of dehumanisation, suggesting that the victims’ exclusion from the moral universe of obligation breaks down moral barriers, enabling forms of persecution outside the established practices of violence among human communities. With reference to the paradigmatic case of the Holocaust, this article critically interrogates this so far unquestioned equation of a loss of moral standing with dehumanisation. Overall, it argues for a much more nuanced differentiation between normative and analytical uses of dehumanisation, the need for more detailed reflections on its empirical appearances and relevance, and a more critical engagement with its conceptual grounding. Doing so will lead dehumanisation research beyond its current state and would allow for a more intricate assessment of its uses, meanings and relevance in cases of mass violence.

題目：Global injustice and the production of ontological insecurity

作者簡介：Adam B. Lerner，馬薩諸塞大學洛厄爾分校政治學副教授。

摘要：本文提出，重新關注占主導地位的國際慣例如何產生本體層面上的不安全，有助于將本體安全研究（OSS）更好地面向世界政治中的不公正，特別是當它在多個層面上影響結構邊緣化的政治行為者時。本研究將伊里斯-馬里恩·揚（Iris Marion Young）的研究成果，特別是她關于正義是消除統治和壓迫的理論引入本體安全研究，從而提出了這一論點。本文借鑒楊的“壓迫的五面性”理論，認為國際體系中普遍存在的多重非正義應被理解為國際體系中本體不安全的主要來源，它們不僅直接削弱身份的穩定性，還阻礙了處于劣勢的行為體追求本體安全的實踐。在國際層面，這些過程超越單一分析層次，以不同的方式影響著個人、社會群體甚至國家。將揚的理論納入本體安全研究，不僅有助于在政治理論和國際關系這兩個往往分離的子學科之間建立重要聯系，還能為學者提供更深入的理論框架，探討國際體系非正義如何頻繁導致本體不安全。文章最后提出，本體安全研究應進行規范性轉向，思考全球正義是否應被視為多個共存行為體尋求本體安全的前提條件。

This article argues that a renewed focus on how dominant international practices produce ontological insecurity can help better orient ontological security studies (OSS) to injustice in world politics, particularly as it affects structurally marginalized political actors at multiple levels. It makes this case by bringing the work of Iris Marion Young to bear on OSS, particularly her theory of justice as the elimination of domination and oppression. Drawing on Young’s “Five Faces of Oppression,” this paper argues that multiple injustices endemic to the international system should be understood as key producers of ontological insecurity in the international system, both in their direct ability to destabilize identities and in their undermining of disadvantaged actors’ ontological security-seeking practices. On international scales, these processes transcend levels of analysis, affecting individuals, social groups, and even states in differing ways. Incorporating Young’s work into OSS not only helps build a vital bridge between the oft estranged sub-disciplines of political theory and IR, but also can provide scholars a means of better theorizing how ontological insecurity is so often a product of the international system’s injustices. The paper thus concludes by proposing a normative turn within OSS, asking whether global justice should be understood as a precondition for ontological security-seeking among multiple co-existing actors.

題目：Transformative indicators? Gender expertise and technocratic peace

作者簡介：Laura McLeod，英國曼徹斯特大學國際政治學高級講師。她的研究包括性別、女權主義、安全以及沖突后的和平建設。

摘要：在過去十年中，使用指標來追蹤國際和平建設和維和項目、政策與實踐的實施情況日益普遍。許多學者批評這些指標具有技術官僚化、標準化及殖民化的效應。然而，本文從不同的角度進行探討：指標能帶來變革嗎？當代對指標的批評通常將其視為孤立、去情境化的官僚工具，忽視了開發、使用和顛覆指標的人類主體的復雜性。本文將指標定義為一種強有力的性別化知識生產技術，既可被制度行為體開發、使用，也可被他們顛覆。本文通過對制度行為體的訪談以及聯合國秘書長報告的分析，探究了26個指標之一的發展過程，該指標用于衡量聯合國“婦女、和平與安全”（WPS）議程的實施情況。所研究的指標追蹤了聯合國維和與特別政治任務中聘用高級性別專家的數量。2010年至2020年間，圍繞這一指標的進展、技能和地點的報告揭示了聯合國中提倡變革的女性主義者所采取的策略和抓住的機會，推動了WPS議程的深入實施。盡管指標有固化新自由主義規范的風險，但忽視其開發、使用或顛覆方面的潛力無疑是一種自負，限制了實現實質性變革的機會。

In the last decade, the use of indicators to track implementation of international peacebuilding and peacekeeping programmes, policies and practices has proliferated. Indicators are criticised by many scholars for their technocratic, standardised and colonialising effects. This article follows a different line of inquiry. Can indicators be transformative? Contemporary critiques place indicators as bureaucratic artefacts in a vacuum, detached and decontextualised from the nuances of human agency developing, utilising and subverting them. I conceptualise indicators as powerful gendered technologies of knowledge creation developed, used and subverted by institutional actors. Using interviews with institutional actors and United Nations (UN) Secretary-General Reports, I trace institutional stories of one indicator (out of 26) developed to capture implementation of the UN Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. The indicator investigated tracks the number of senior gender experts employed within UN Peacekeeping and Special Political Missions. Stories of progress, skill, and location in the reporting of this indicator between 2010 and 2020 highlight strategies deployed and opportunities taken by feminist-change advocates within the UN to prompt a deeper implementation of the WPS agenda. While indicators hold the danger of reinforcing neoliberal norms, the failure to conceptualise the potential for developing, utilising and/or subverting the indicators smacks of hubris, limiting opportunities for meaningful transformation.

題目：Exploring the impact of United Nations peacekeeping operations on the external affairs of host states

作者簡介：Richard Caplan，牛津大學政治與國際關系系國際關系教授。John Gledhill，牛津大學國際發展系全球治理副教授。Maline Meiske，牛津大學政治與國際關系系博士后研究員。

摘要：聯合國（UN）維和行動（PKOs）的研究通常很少關注東道國發展的一個重要方面——對外事務。本文聚焦于冷戰后時期的聯合國維和行動，旨在探討聯合國維和行動如何影響東道國的對外事務。我們通過對聯合國維和行動關鍵文件的定量內容分析，確定了聯合國關注的東道國對外事務的具體方面。接著，本文提出一個概念框架，劃分出維和行動對東道國對外事務特別具影響力的三個領域：關系構建、制度與外交能力建設以及政策制定。我們識別了維和行動影響東道國對外事務的三條路徑：授權角色、自主行動以及意外后果。結合文件分析和原創訪談數據，本文以東帝汶和利比里亞這兩個近年來接納過大規模聯合國維和任務的兩個國家為例，闡釋了該概念框架的實際應用。

Studies of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations (PKOs) typically give scant attention to an important aspect of host states’ development: their external affairs. This article identifies ways in which UN PKOs can shape the external affairs of host states, focusing on UN peacekeeping in the post-Cold War period. We present the findings of a quantitative content analysis of key UN peacekeeping documents to establish which aspects of host state external affairs have been of concern to the UN. We then provide a conceptual framework that maps three areas of external affairs in which PKOs are particularly influential: relationship-building; institution- and diplomatic capacity-building; and the shaping of policy in domains of external affairs. We identify three pathways through which PKOs shape the external affairs of host states: mandated roles, improvised actions, and unintended consequences. Drawing on documentary analysis and original interview data, we illustrate our conceptual framework through an exploration of the impact of peacekeeping on the external affairs of two countries that have hosted large-scale UN-led peacekeeping missions in recent decades: Timor-Leste (East Timor) and Liberia.

題目：Why the West’s alternative to China’s international infrastructure financing is failing

作者簡介：Shahar Hameiri，昆士蘭大學政治學與國際關系學院的國際政治學教授，澳大利亞研究理事會未來研究員，他的主要研究東亞和太平洋地區的安全與發展問題。Lee Jones，倫敦瑪麗女王大學政治經濟學與國際關系教授。他的研究重點是政治經濟、安全、治理、主權和干預，尤其是在東亞。

摘要：隨著地緣政治競爭加劇，西方國家試圖與中國的“一帶一路”倡議（BRI）競爭。然而，全球基礎設施的資金動員依然不足，表明西方國家難以挑戰中國在此領域的主導地位。為什么會這樣？通過對中國和美國的比較政治經濟分析，本文認為，單靠地緣戰略思維的國家管理者無法創造真正的競爭力。國家的優勢和劣勢根植于結構性政治經濟動態。當國家管理者的計劃符合或反映強大社會力量及其所掌控的資本和生產力的利益時，往往會產生強有力的影響。這在中國尤其明顯，其倡議主要是為解決工業過剩和資本過度積累問題提供空間和時間上的調節工具。相反，當地緣政治抱負與勢力集團的利益和物質現實脫節時，效果往往乏善可陳。這一點適用于美國，其特點是基礎設施老化、工業空心化以及占主導地位的金融部門對基礎設施基本不感興趣。盡管美國國家管理者已轉向加大對國內基礎設施的投入，但在國際上，西方繼續采用的新自由主義做法仍然依賴于動員私人資本參與基礎設施投資這一已經失敗的做法。

As geopolitical rivalry intensifies, Western states have moved to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, the mobilisation of funds for global infrastructure remains paltry, suggesting that Western states cannot contest Chinese dominance here. Why? Through comparative political economy analysis of China and the United States, we argue that serious competition cannot be willed into being by state managers thinking geostrategically. States’ strengths and weaknesses are rooted in structural political economy dynamics. Where state managers’ plans jibe with, or express, the interests of powerful social forces and the capital and productive forces they command, a powerful impact results. This is true of China, whose BRI is principally a spatio-temporal fix for industrial overcapacity and over-accumulated capital. Conversely, where geopolitical ambitions are divorced from powerful groups’ interests and material realities, results are lacklustre. This applies to the United States, characterised by infrastructural decay, industrial hollowing-out and a dominant financial sector largely disinterested in infrastructure. Although US state managers are turning towards increased state spending on domestic infrastructure, internationally, the West’s continued neoliberal approach still relies on the already-failed approach of mobilising private capital into infrastructure investment.

題目：When do member state withdrawals lead to the death of international organizations?

作者簡介：Inken von Borzyskowski，牛津大學國際關系學教授。她的研究側重于國際關系的國內政治，重點是國際組織及其對國內沖突和選舉的影響。Felicity Vabulas，佩珀代因大學國際研究副教授。她的研究重點是國際組織的政治經濟學和外國游說。

摘要：

近來的研究關注到各國對國際組織（IOs）的反彈，包括成員國退出是否會影響國際組織的存續。因此，我們提出問題：成員國退出何時會導致國際組織的消亡？我們對退出與國際組織消亡之間存在普遍關聯持懷疑態度，因為通常單個成員國并非國際組織生存的關鍵。此外，退出往往是由于個別成員國的偏好與其他成員產生分歧，這些留存成員可能在退出后聯合在一起，從而確保甚至延長國際組織的存續。即使是多個國家的退出，也未必導致國際組織的消亡，因為一個較小的成員團體可能更易克服集體行動的挑戰。然而，重要成員的退出可能會因資源、市場影響力和指導的缺失而影響組織的存續。我們利用生存模型，對1909至2014/2020年期間532個國際組織的退出數據進行測試，并通過案例分析說明其動態。結果支持我們的觀點：退出總體上并不導致國際組織的消亡，但創始成員的退出可能加速其消亡。有趣的是，經濟實力較強的國家的退出似乎有助于國際組織的存續（通常通過改革和/或重新加入實現）。這些發現有助于更好地理解國際組織的生命周期，以及國際合作的韌性和脆弱性。

Recent research has drawn attention to states’ backlash against international organizations (IOs), including whether member state withdrawals affect the longevity of IOs. We therefore ask when do member state withdrawals lead to the death of IOs? We are skeptical of a general link between withdrawal and IO death because on average, any one member is not critical for the survival of an IO. Also, withdrawal is often driven by one member state’s preferences diverging from remaining members; these remaining states may band together after withdrawal, ensuring or even enhancing the longevity of the IO. Even withdrawal by several states may not contribute to IO death because a smaller group of remaining members may better overcome collective action challenges. Nonetheless, exit by an important member may affect IO survival by removing resources, market power, and guidance. We test these arguments using survival models on an original dataset of withdrawals across 532 IOs from 1909 to 2014/2020 and illustrate the dynamics with case vignettes. The results support our arguments: withdrawals in general do not lead to IO death but the withdrawal of founding members can speed IO death. Interestingly, withdrawal by economically powerful states seems to facilitate IO survival (often through reform and/or re-entry). These findings contribute to a better understanding of the lifecycle of IOs as well as to the resilience and vulnerabilities of international cooperation.

編譯 | 束任翔

審校 | 張瀟文

排版 | 楊語靈