过程、制度与规范本土化——预防性外交在东盟安全合作中的扩散
|
摘要
冷战结束后,作为联合国倡导的一种国际安全规范,预防性外交在两个东盟安全合作机制中都实现了本土化,但规范内化的结果却呈现明显差异。规范本土化之后,为何同样的规范在不同的制度进程中内化效果不同?通过反思"规范制度化推动规范内化"的传统论断,借鉴本土化理论和过程建构主义,可以揭示出不同制度进程影响内化效果的原因和机制。外部规范与本土规范之间持续的论争是规范内化的干预变量,本土化之后的内化效果则取决于规范争论对内化干预的程度。规范制度化强调刚性规范确立,但容易激化与本土规范的冲突,内化受到制约并归于失败;而相对松散、适度含糊、非正式的规范过程则更有助于回避规范争论,推动软性制度实践,最大限度地弱化争论带来的阻力,促进规范调整与制度革新在地方层面的进化式发展。研究印证了过程建构主义的基本论断,推动了规范本土化机制的深入探讨,也提示在运用预防性外交实现亚太地区和平时有必要保持适度的规范含糊、非正式性和灵活性。
After the end of the Cold War,as an international security norm advocated by the United Nations, preventive diplomacy( PD) has been localized in the two ASEAN security cooperation mechanisms,but the outcomes of internalization show obvious differences. Why do the same norms have different internalization effects in different institutional processes after localization? How are norms internalized? To answer these questions, the author reviews the assertions of neo-liberal institutionalism andnormative socialization theory that "norm institutionalization leads to internalization",draws lessons from localization theory and process constructivism, reveals the reasons for the failure of institutionalized normative internalization and the analytical mechanism of different institutional processes affecting internalization after localization. This paper points out that the persistent contestation between external norms and local norms is the intervening variable of norm internalization. The internalization effect after norm localization depends on the degree of norm contestation's intervention to internalization.Normative institutionalization emphasizes the importance and priority of establishing clear,autonomous and widely accepted rigid norms, which may easily intensify conflicts with existing local norms and result in failure of internalization restricted by normative contestation while relatively loose,moderately ambiguous and informal normative process are more conductive to avoiding normative contestation,promoting practice of soft institutionalism,minimizing the resistance brought by contestation,and leading to normative adjustment and institutional innovation at the local level. The author takes norm localization processes of PD in ARF and ASEAN as empirical cases to verify the hypothesis. The emphasis on the loose normative process in this paper confirms the aesthetics of process constructivism,promotes the in-depth discussion of the mechanism of normative localization,and enlightens us that it is necessary to maintain moderate normative ambiguity,informality and flexibility in the application of PD to achieve sustainable peace in the Asia-Pacific region.
After the end of the Cold War,as an international security norm advocated by the United Nations, preventive diplomacy( PD) has been localized in the two ASEAN security cooperation mechanisms,but the outcomes of internalization show obvious differences. Why do the same norms have different internalization effects in different institutional processes after localization? How are norms internalized? To answer these questions, the author reviews the assertions of neo-liberal institutionalism andnormative socialization theory that "norm institutionalization leads to internalization",draws lessons from localization theory and process constructivism, reveals the reasons for the failure of institutionalized normative internalization and the analytical mechanism of different institutional processes affecting internalization after localization. This paper points out that the persistent contestation between external norms and local norms is the intervening variable of norm internalization. The internalization effect after norm localization depends on the degree of norm contestation's intervention to internalization.Normative institutionalization emphasizes the importance and priority of establishing clear,autonomous and widely accepted rigid norms, which may easily intensify conflicts with existing local norms and result in failure of internalization restricted by normative contestation while relatively loose,moderately ambiguous and informal normative process are more conductive to avoiding normative contestation,promoting practice of soft institutionalism,minimizing the resistance brought by contestation,and leading to normative adjustment and institutional innovation at the local level. The author takes norm localization processes of PD in ARF and ASEAN as empirical cases to verify the hypothesis. The emphasis on the loose normative process in this paper confirms the aesthetics of process constructivism,promotes the in-depth discussion of the mechanism of normative localization,and enlightens us that it is necessary to maintain moderate normative ambiguity,informality and flexibility in the application of PD to achieve sustainable peace in the Asia-Pacific region.
引文
(1)本文“规范”概念遵循公认的定义,即规范是“对某个给定认同所应该采取的适当行为的集体期望”。参见罗纳德·杰普森、亚历山大·温特、彼得·卡赞斯坦:《规范、认同和国家安全文化》,载彼得·卡赞斯坦主编,宋伟、刘铁娃译:《国家安全的文化:世界政治中的规范与认同》,北京:北京大学出版社2009年版,第56页。
(2)自预防性外交概念提出以来,联合国已经出台了多份重要文件阐述其内涵和运用。美国和平研究所等全球知名智库在推广预防性外交的概念和实践上也发挥了主要的规范倡议作用。区域组织是预防性外交全球扩散的主要平台,与联合国的机制性联系为区域组织发展预防性外交提供了合法性基础。参见Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, New York: United Nations, June 1992; Kofi A. Annan, Prevention of Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, New York: United Nations, June 2001; Ban Ki Moon, Preventive Diplomacy: Delivering Results: Report of the Secretary-General, New York, United Nations, August 2011; International Peace Institute, Preventive Diplomacy: Regions in Focus, December 2011。
(3)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” International Organization, Vol.58, No.2, 2004, pp.258-259.
(4)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol.52, No.4, 1998, p.892; Kees Van Kersbergen and Bertjan Verbeek, “The Politics of International Norms: Subsidiarity and the Imperfect Competence Regime of the European Union,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol.13, No.2, 2007, p.221.
(5)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.245.
(6)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.241; Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2009, p.21.
(7)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” pp.893-900.
(8)Martha Finnemore, “Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism,” International Organization, Vol.50, No.2, 1996, pp.325-347.
(9)Felix Anderl, “The Myth of the Local: How International Organizations Localize Norms Rhetorically,” The Review of International Organizations, Vol.11, No.2, 2016, p.198.
(10)Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder: Westview, 1989, pp.4-5; Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” International Organization, Vol.51, No.1, 1997, pp.33-35.
(11)Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” pp.33-35.
(12)G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization, Vol.44, No.3, 1990, p.284; Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin and Geoffrey Garrett, “Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism,” International Organization, Vol.60, No.4, 2006, pp.781-810.
(13)Kenneth W. Abbott, et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Vol.54, No.3, 2000, p.401.
(14)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” pp.893-900.
(15)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” Contemporary Politics, Vol.21, No.4, 2015, p.367.
(16)Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” p.34.
(17)Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, p.4.
(18)Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.62.
(19)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.241, p.265.试想如果不存在与外部规范相抵且稳健的本土规范,外部规范的扩散将更易出现“规范替代(displacement)”,而不是本土化。参见中村洋子和山本光关于规范扩散的三阶段模型:Ayako Nakamura and Hiraku Yamamoto, “Protecting Human Rights in a ‘Post-Unilateral’ International Society: The Localization of Global Norms and the Limits and Prospects of Global Governance,” Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Vol.15, No.2, 2009, p.157。
(20)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” pp.258-259.
(21)Ken Conca and Jacqueline Ignatova, “Transnational Environmental Activism on Water and Plants: Norm De-Institutionalization and Norm Contestation,” https://ssrn.com/abstract=1585346,访问时间:2018年11月1日; Bart Kerremans, “Do Institutions Make a Difference? Non-Institutionalism, Neo-Institutionalism, and the Logic of Common Decision-Making in the European Union,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Adinistration, Vol.9, No.2, 1996, pp.217-240。
(22)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.367.
(23)魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第39—58页。
(24)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,上海:上海人民出版社2012年版,第48—49页。
(25)参见秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,第43—59页;魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第47—48页。
(26)秦亚青、魏玲:《结构、进程与权力的社会化》,载《世界经济与政治》,2007年第3期,第7—15页;魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第47页。
(27)朱杰进:《非正式性与G20机制未来发展》,载《现代国际关系》,2011年第2期,第42—44页。
(28)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” pp.369-370.
(29)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.370.
(30)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” Asian Security, Vol.7, No.1, 2011, pp.44-60.
(31)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.371.
(32)Jürgen Rüland, “The Limits of Democratizing Interest Representation: ASEAN's Regional Corporatism and Normative Challenges,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol.20, No.1, 2014, pp.239-240; Dirk Tomsa, “Regional Party Networks and the Limits of Democratic Norm Diffusion in Southeast Asia,” International Political Science Review, Vol.38, No.1, 2017, pp.130-131.
(33)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” pp.369-370.
(34)Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, pp.11-13.
(35)Desmond Ball, “Introduction: Towards Better Understanding of Preventive Diplomacy,” in Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, Canberra: Australia National University, 1999, p.1.
(36)Amitav Acharya, “Preventive Diplomacy: A Concept Paper,” A Paper Prepared for the Workshop on Confidence-Building Measures in the Asia Pacific Region, Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, Singapore, October 30-31, 1996, p.1; Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, 1999.
(37)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” pp.44-60.
(38)Chairman's Statement at the First Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Bangkok, July 25, 1994, http://aseanregionalforum.asean.org,访问时间:2018年10月16日。
(39)现实主义分析认为东盟(新加坡大力推动)建立东盟地区论坛的初衷是实力平衡,因此在机制成立之初围绕预防性外交的规范争论并没有成为焦点。参见Ralf Emmers, Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF, London: Routledge, 2003, pp.30-32, pp.110-127。建构主义分析认为,东盟创建东盟地区论坛的一个重要动力是规范,引入预防性外交这一联合国倡导的规范,将更容易在东盟地区论坛建立之初得到各方认可,从而为东盟赢得更大的合法性。参见Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” pp.239-275。
(40)CSIS Indonesia, “ASEAN-ISIS,” https://www.csis.or.id/institutional_partnerships/asean_isis.html,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(41)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, p.117.
(42)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.53.
(43)“The ASEAN Regional Forum: A Concept Paper(1995),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,北京:世界知识出版社2014年版,第54页。
(44)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” Issues & Insights (Pacific Forum), Vol.18, CR4, May 2018, p.v.
(45)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” pp.54-55; Ralf Emmers, Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF, pp.110-127, p.161.
(46)Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, 1999.
(47)“ARF Concept and Principles of Preventive Diplomacy(2001),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第66页。
(48)“ARF Preventive Diplomacy Work Plan (2011),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第175—177页。
(49)“Enhanced Role of the ARF Chair (2001),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第69页。
(50)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.56.
(51)“Terms of Reference of the Friends of the ARF Chair (2007),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第80页。
(52)“Development in ARF Cooperation on Disaster Relief,”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第178—179页。
(53)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.53.
(54)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” pp.v-vi.
(55)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.58.
(56)Amanda Huan and Ralf Emmers, “What Explains the Success of Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” Global Change, Peace & Security, Vol.29, No.1, 2017, p.81.
(57)吴琳:《预防性外交的规范扩散与东盟改造》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》,2017年第6期,第98—99页。
(58)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, p.134.
(59)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” p.v.
(60)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, pp.139-140.
(61)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” p.v.
(62)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” June 2009, p.2, https://asean.org,访问时间:2018年5月27日。
(63)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” p.8.
(64)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” pp.9-12.
(65)阿米塔·阿查亚著,王正毅、冯怀信译:《建构安全共同体:东盟与地区秩序》,上海:上海人民出版社2001年版,第185页。
(66)吴琳:《预防性外交的规范扩散与东盟改造》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》,2017年第6期,第105—107页;Busadee Santipitaks, “Development of ASEAN Preventive Diplomacy Cooperation and the ASEAN Way,” Paper Presented by the Deputy Director-General of Department of ASEAN Affairs of MFA of Thailand at “The ARF Preventive Diplomacy Training Course,” Beijing, China, October 14, 2014。
(67)张慧中等:《东盟尝试提升内部协调能力》,载《人民日报》,2011年2月14日。
(68)东盟官方网站https://asean.org/以及联合国国际减灾战略官方网站https://www.unisdr.org/,访问时间:2018年11月23日。
(69)AHA Centre, “About the AHA Centre,” https://ahacentre.org/about-us/,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(70)AHA Centre, “ASEAN-ERAT,” https://ahacentre.org/files/ASEAN-ERAT-FAQ.pdf,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(71)AHA Centre, “AHA Centre Functions,” http://ahacentre.org/history/,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(72)Malyn Tumonong, “Five Years of AHA Centre: Experiences, Challenges and Future Outlook of Disaster Management in the ASEAN,” Paper Presented by the Senior Disaster Monitoring & Analysis Officer, AHA Centre at “United Nations/India Workshop on the Use of Earth Observation Data in Disaster Management and Risk Reduction: Sharing the Asian Experience,” Hyderabad, India, March 8-10, 2016.
(73)“ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint 2025,” Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, March 2016, pp.2-22, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ASEAN-APSC-Blueprint-2025.pdf,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(74)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(75)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(76)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(77)António Guterres, “Remarks at the Special Session on ‘Cooperation for Peace: Tackling the Root Causes of Global Crises’,” https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-01-19/secretary-generals-cooperation-peace-remarks,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(78)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(79)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint (2010-2015),” Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, June 2009, p.10, https://www.asean.org,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(80)ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR Symposium on Peace and Reconciliation Processes and Initiatives,” April 7-8, 2014, https://asean-aipr.org/symposium-on-peace-and-reconciliation-processes-and-initiatives-april-2014/,访问时间:2018年10月6日;ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR-UN Workshop: ASEAN Perspectives on Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution in the Region,” Jakarta, Indonesia, December 5-7, 2018, https://asean-aipr.org/asean-ipr-un-workshop-asean-perspectives-in-conflict-management-and-conflict-resolution-in-the-region/,访问时间:2018年12月19日。
(81)https://asean-aipr.org,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(82)ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR Symposium on Peace and Reconciliation Processes and Initiatives,” April 7-8, 2014, https://asean-aipr.org/symposium-on-peace-and-reconciliation-processes-and-initiatives-april-2014/,访问时间:2018年10月6日
(2)自预防性外交概念提出以来,联合国已经出台了多份重要文件阐述其内涵和运用。美国和平研究所等全球知名智库在推广预防性外交的概念和实践上也发挥了主要的规范倡议作用。区域组织是预防性外交全球扩散的主要平台,与联合国的机制性联系为区域组织发展预防性外交提供了合法性基础。参见Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, New York: United Nations, June 1992; Kofi A. Annan, Prevention of Armed Conflict: Report of the Secretary-General, New York: United Nations, June 2001; Ban Ki Moon, Preventive Diplomacy: Delivering Results: Report of the Secretary-General, New York, United Nations, August 2011; International Peace Institute, Preventive Diplomacy: Regions in Focus, December 2011。
(3)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” International Organization, Vol.58, No.2, 2004, pp.258-259.
(4)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization, Vol.52, No.4, 1998, p.892; Kees Van Kersbergen and Bertjan Verbeek, “The Politics of International Norms: Subsidiarity and the Imperfect Competence Regime of the European Union,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol.13, No.2, 2007, p.221.
(5)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.245.
(6)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.241; Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2009, p.21.
(7)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” pp.893-900.
(8)Martha Finnemore, “Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism,” International Organization, Vol.50, No.2, 1996, pp.325-347.
(9)Felix Anderl, “The Myth of the Local: How International Organizations Localize Norms Rhetorically,” The Review of International Organizations, Vol.11, No.2, 2016, p.198.
(10)Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder: Westview, 1989, pp.4-5; Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” International Organization, Vol.51, No.1, 1997, pp.33-35.
(11)Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” pp.33-35.
(12)G. John Ikenberry and Charles A. Kupchan, “Socialization and Hegemonic Power,” International Organization, Vol.44, No.3, 1990, p.284; Beth A. Simmons, Frank Dobbin and Geoffrey Garrett, “Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism,” International Organization, Vol.60, No.4, 2006, pp.781-810.
(13)Kenneth W. Abbott, et al., “The Concept of Legalization,” International Organization, Vol.54, No.3, 2000, p.401.
(14)Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” pp.893-900.
(15)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” Contemporary Politics, Vol.21, No.4, 2015, p.367.
(16)Jeffrey W. Legro, “Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the ‘Failure’ of Internationalism,” p.34.
(17)Robert O. Keohane, International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, p.4.
(18)Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms, and Decisions, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.62.
(19)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” p.241, p.265.试想如果不存在与外部规范相抵且稳健的本土规范,外部规范的扩散将更易出现“规范替代(displacement)”,而不是本土化。参见中村洋子和山本光关于规范扩散的三阶段模型:Ayako Nakamura and Hiraku Yamamoto, “Protecting Human Rights in a ‘Post-Unilateral’ International Society: The Localization of Global Norms and the Limits and Prospects of Global Governance,” Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Vol.15, No.2, 2009, p.157。
(20)Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” pp.258-259.
(21)Ken Conca and Jacqueline Ignatova, “Transnational Environmental Activism on Water and Plants: Norm De-Institutionalization and Norm Contestation,” https://ssrn.com/abstract=1585346,访问时间:2018年11月1日; Bart Kerremans, “Do Institutions Make a Difference? Non-Institutionalism, Neo-Institutionalism, and the Logic of Common Decision-Making in the European Union,” Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Adinistration, Vol.9, No.2, 1996, pp.217-240。
(22)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.367.
(23)魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第39—58页。
(24)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,上海:上海人民出版社2012年版,第48—49页。
(25)参见秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,第43—59页;魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第47—48页。
(26)秦亚青、魏玲:《结构、进程与权力的社会化》,载《世界经济与政治》,2007年第3期,第7—15页;魏玲:《关系、网络与合作实践:清谈如何产生效力》,载《世界经济与政治》,2016年第10期,第47页。
(27)朱杰进:《非正式性与G20机制未来发展》,载《现代国际关系》,2011年第2期,第42—44页。
(28)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” pp.369-370.
(29)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.370.
(30)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” Asian Security, Vol.7, No.1, 2011, pp.44-60.
(31)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” p.371.
(32)Jürgen Rüland, “The Limits of Democratizing Interest Representation: ASEAN's Regional Corporatism and Normative Challenges,” European Journal of International Relations, Vol.20, No.1, 2014, pp.239-240; Dirk Tomsa, “Regional Party Networks and the Limits of Democratic Norm Diffusion in Southeast Asia,” International Political Science Review, Vol.38, No.1, 2017, pp.130-131.
(33)Wesley W. Widmaier and Luke Glanville, “The Benefits of Norm Ambiguity: Constructing the Responsibility to Protect Across Rwanda, Iraq and Libya,” pp.369-370.
(34)Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping, pp.11-13.
(35)Desmond Ball, “Introduction: Towards Better Understanding of Preventive Diplomacy,” in Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, Canberra: Australia National University, 1999, p.1.
(36)Amitav Acharya, “Preventive Diplomacy: A Concept Paper,” A Paper Prepared for the Workshop on Confidence-Building Measures in the Asia Pacific Region, Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, Singapore, October 30-31, 1996, p.1; Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, 1999.
(37)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” pp.44-60.
(38)Chairman's Statement at the First Meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), Bangkok, July 25, 1994, http://aseanregionalforum.asean.org,访问时间:2018年10月16日。
(39)现实主义分析认为东盟(新加坡大力推动)建立东盟地区论坛的初衷是实力平衡,因此在机制成立之初围绕预防性外交的规范争论并没有成为焦点。参见Ralf Emmers, Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF, London: Routledge, 2003, pp.30-32, pp.110-127。建构主义分析认为,东盟创建东盟地区论坛的一个重要动力是规范,引入预防性外交这一联合国倡导的规范,将更容易在东盟地区论坛建立之初得到各方认可,从而为东盟赢得更大的合法性。参见Amitav Acharya, “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” pp.239-275。
(40)CSIS Indonesia, “ASEAN-ISIS,” https://www.csis.or.id/institutional_partnerships/asean_isis.html,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(41)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, p.117.
(42)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.53.
(43)“The ASEAN Regional Forum: A Concept Paper(1995),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,北京:世界知识出版社2014年版,第54页。
(44)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” Issues & Insights (Pacific Forum), Vol.18, CR4, May 2018, p.v.
(45)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” pp.54-55; Ralf Emmers, Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF, pp.110-127, p.161.
(46)Desmond Ball and Amitav Acharya, eds., The Next Stage: Preventive Diplomacy and Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific Region, 1999.
(47)“ARF Concept and Principles of Preventive Diplomacy(2001),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第66页。
(48)“ARF Preventive Diplomacy Work Plan (2011),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第175—177页。
(49)“Enhanced Role of the ARF Chair (2001),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第69页。
(50)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.56.
(51)“Terms of Reference of the Friends of the ARF Chair (2007),”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第80页。
(52)“Development in ARF Cooperation on Disaster Relief,”载《东盟地区论坛成立二十周年纪念册》,第178—179页。
(53)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.53.
(54)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” pp.v-vi.
(55)Ralf Emmers and See Seng Tan, “The ASEAN Regional Forum and Preventive Diplomacy: Built to Fail?” p.58.
(56)Amanda Huan and Ralf Emmers, “What Explains the Success of Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” Global Change, Peace & Security, Vol.29, No.1, 2017, p.81.
(57)吴琳:《预防性外交的规范扩散与东盟改造》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》,2017年第6期,第98—99页。
(58)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, p.134.
(59)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” p.v.
(60)Amitav Acharya, Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism, pp.139-140.
(61)Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl Baker, “Re-Examining Preventive Diplomacy in Southeast Asia,” p.v.
(62)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” June 2009, p.2, https://asean.org,访问时间:2018年5月27日。
(63)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” p.8.
(64)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint,” pp.9-12.
(65)阿米塔·阿查亚著,王正毅、冯怀信译:《建构安全共同体:东盟与地区秩序》,上海:上海人民出版社2001年版,第185页。
(66)吴琳:《预防性外交的规范扩散与东盟改造》,载《世界经济与政治论坛》,2017年第6期,第105—107页;Busadee Santipitaks, “Development of ASEAN Preventive Diplomacy Cooperation and the ASEAN Way,” Paper Presented by the Deputy Director-General of Department of ASEAN Affairs of MFA of Thailand at “The ARF Preventive Diplomacy Training Course,” Beijing, China, October 14, 2014。
(67)张慧中等:《东盟尝试提升内部协调能力》,载《人民日报》,2011年2月14日。
(68)东盟官方网站https://asean.org/以及联合国国际减灾战略官方网站https://www.unisdr.org/,访问时间:2018年11月23日。
(69)AHA Centre, “About the AHA Centre,” https://ahacentre.org/about-us/,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(70)AHA Centre, “ASEAN-ERAT,” https://ahacentre.org/files/ASEAN-ERAT-FAQ.pdf,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(71)AHA Centre, “AHA Centre Functions,” http://ahacentre.org/history/,访问时间:2018年10月7日。
(72)Malyn Tumonong, “Five Years of AHA Centre: Experiences, Challenges and Future Outlook of Disaster Management in the ASEAN,” Paper Presented by the Senior Disaster Monitoring & Analysis Officer, AHA Centre at “United Nations/India Workshop on the Use of Earth Observation Data in Disaster Management and Risk Reduction: Sharing the Asian Experience,” Hyderabad, India, March 8-10, 2016.
(73)“ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint 2025,” Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, March 2016, pp.2-22, https://www.asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ASEAN-APSC-Blueprint-2025.pdf,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(74)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(75)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(76)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(77)António Guterres, “Remarks at the Special Session on ‘Cooperation for Peace: Tackling the Root Causes of Global Crises’,” https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-01-19/secretary-generals-cooperation-peace-remarks,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(78)ASEAN, “ASEAN Declaration on Culture of Prevention for a Peaceful, Inclusive, Resilient, Healthy and Harmonious Society,” https://asean.org/storage/2017/11/9.-ADOPTION_12-NOV-ASCC-Endorsed-Culture-of-Prevention-Declaration_CLEAN.pdf,访问时间:2018年12月3日。
(79)ASEAN, “ASEAN Political-Security Community Blueprint (2010-2015),” Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat, June 2009, p.10, https://www.asean.org,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(80)ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR Symposium on Peace and Reconciliation Processes and Initiatives,” April 7-8, 2014, https://asean-aipr.org/symposium-on-peace-and-reconciliation-processes-and-initiatives-april-2014/,访问时间:2018年10月6日;ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR-UN Workshop: ASEAN Perspectives on Conflict Management and Conflict Resolution in the Region,” Jakarta, Indonesia, December 5-7, 2018, https://asean-aipr.org/asean-ipr-un-workshop-asean-perspectives-in-conflict-management-and-conflict-resolution-in-the-region/,访问时间:2018年12月19日。
(81)https://asean-aipr.org,访问时间:2018年10月6日。
(82)ASEAN-IPR, “ASEAN-IPR Symposium on Peace and Reconciliation Processes and Initiatives,” April 7-8, 2014, https://asean-aipr.org/symposium-on-peace-and-reconciliation-processes-and-initiatives-april-2014/,访问时间:2018年10月6日
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |