 期刊简介  《安全研究》(Security Studies)收录并出版具有创新性的学术稿件——无论是理论研究、实践经验分享还是两者兼而有之。安全研究包含广泛的议题，涵盖核扩散、核威慑、军民关系、战略文化、种族冲突、流行病与国家安全、民主政治、外交决策以及定性与多方法研究的发展。根据Journal Citation Reports显示，其2019年的影响因子为2.167。 本期目录 1. 石油和平？对石油的再思考——与国家间战争相联系 Pax Petrolica? Rethinking the Oil–Interstate War Linkage 2. 战略资产的逻辑：从石油到人工智能 The Logic of Strategic Assets: From Oil to AI 3. 为什么是1914？七月危机及其前兆的比较分析 Why 1914 but Not Before? A Comparative Study of the July Crisis and Its Precursors 4. 空军在越南战争中被“误用”了吗？“滚雷行动”中的信号再评估 Was Airpower “Misapplied” in the Vietnam War? Reassessing Signaling in Operation Rolling Thunder 5. 平衡身份：中苏分裂、本体安全与朝鲜对外政策 Balancing Identity: The Sino-Soviet Split, Ontological Security, and North Korean Foreign Policy 石油和平？对石油的再思考——与国家间战争相联系 题目：Pax Petrolica? Rethinking the Oil–Interstate War Linkage 作者：Hye Ryeon Jang，弗罗里达大学政治科学专业博士研究生；Benjamin Smith，佛罗里达大学政治科学专业副教授。 摘要：在过去的十年中，研究资源诅咒的学者普遍认为石油资源丰富的国家更有可能向邻国发起武装争端。本文指出石油作为影响国内与国际关系的变量，带来的是和平而不是冲突。文章研究团队的自有数据库和过去研究的分析更支持石油和平而不是石油侵略，两伊战争对全球范围内产生的激进的石油侵略效应负有特别的责任。最后，作者根据现有证据得出结论：石油和平更容易出现。 In the last decade resource curse scholars have argued widely that oil-rich countries are more likely to initiate armed disputes with their neighbors. In this essay, we argue that the evidence points toward oil peace, not conflict, as a function of both domestic and international factors. We draw on analyses of our own dataset and two from past studies to show that the data is more supportive of petro-peace than of petro-aggression. We also demonstrate that the Iran–Iraq War is singularly responsible for what was believed to have been a radical-petro-aggression effect globally. We conclude that, to the extent that evidence suggests a trend, it is more likely for a Pax Petrolica. 战略资产的逻辑：从石油到人工智能 题目：The Logic of Strategic Assets: From Oil to AI 作者：Jeffrey Ding，牛津大学政治与国际关系学院博士研究生；Allan Dafoe，牛津大学副教授。 摘要：何种资源与技术是战略性的？鉴于战略的设计能够获取宝贵的资源和更高的关注度，政策与理论的争论往往集中于这一问题。然而，这一概念的模糊性往往削弱对话。企业或军事组织将不会自发产生社会最优行为，基于此文章提出了决策者何时应该根据重要的竞争外部性将特定资产视为战略性的理论。文章提炼出外部性的三种形式，即累积逻辑、基础设施逻辑与依赖战略逻辑。虽然文章的框架难以解决关于战略资产的争论，但提供了具备理论基础的概念词汇，这使得讨论更富成效。为论证框架在研究战略技术方面的分析价值，文章考察了20世纪80年代末美日技术竞争以及当今关于人工智能的政策讨论。 What resources and technologies are strategic? Policy and theoretical debates often focus on this question, since the “strategic” designation yields valuable resources and elevated attention. The ambiguity of the very concept, however, frustrates these conversations. We offer a theory of when decision makers should designate assets as strategic based on the presence of important rivalrous externalities for which firms or military organizations will not produce socially optimal behavior on their own. We distill three forms of these externalities, which involve cumulative-, infrastructure-, and dependency-strategic logics. Although our framework cannot resolve debates about strategic assets, it provides a theoretically grounded conceptual vocabulary to make these debates more productive. To illustrate the analytic value of our framework for thinking about strategic technologies, we examine the US-Japan technology rivalry in the late 1980s and current policy discussions about artificial intelligence. 为什么是1914？七月危机及其前兆的比较分析 题目：Why 1914 but Not Before? A Comparative Study of the July Crisis and Its Precursors 作者：Jack S. Levy，罗格斯大学政治学专业教授；William Mulligan，都柏林大学国际关系史专业教授。 摘要：在国际和国内条件相似的情况下，为什么是1914年的七月危机（而非1905、1908-09、1911或1912-1913年的危机）升级成为了大国战争？基于潜在的缓慢变化的结构、社会与文化变量作出的解释不能回答这一问题。文章考察了1912-1913年的三次巴尔干危机以及七月危机，通过纳入巴尔干地区不断变化的权力分配和联盟之于大国安全体系的影响，完善了基于权力、联盟和声誉利益的现实主义解释。然而，为对“为何发生于1914年”这一问题提出更完整的答案，需要整合斐迪南大公被刺杀一事，这不仅是战争爆发的借口。斐迪南大公的遇刺消灭了维也纳最有权力、最高效的和平支持者，并从根本上改变了奥匈帝国决策进程的性质。文章认为与事实相反，如果斐迪南大公没有遇刺则危机可能以不同的方式收场。 Why did the July 1914 crisis—but not crises in 1905, 1908–9, 1911, and 1912–13—escalate to great-power war despite occurring under similar international and domestic conditions? Explanations based on underlying and slowly changing structural, social, or cultural variables cannot answer this question. Examining three Balkan crises of 1912–13 and the July Crisis, we refine realist explanations based on power, alliances, and reputational interests by incorporating the impact of changing power distributions and alliances in the Balkans on the great-power security system. A more complete answer to the why-1914-but-not-before question, however, requires the incorporation of Franz Ferdinand’s assassination, which went beyond a pretext for war. It eliminated the most powerful and effective proponent for peace in Vienna and fundamentally changed the nature of the decision-making process in Austria-Hungary. Counterfactually, we argue that a hypothetical crisis with Franz Ferdinand present would probably have ended differently. 空军在越南战争中被“误用”了吗？“滚雷行动”中的信号再评估 题目：Was Airpower “Misapplied” in the Vietnam War? Reassessing Signaling in Operation Rolling Thunder 作者：Ron Gurantz，美国空军大学战略系助理教授。 摘要：滚雷行动的失败被广泛归咎于使用武力发送“信号”的策略，这一主张削弱了一代军官与学者中的强制相关理论。文章指出，“滚雷行动”有哪些失败尚且不论，它确实成功地发出了威胁信号。最新研究成果表明，越南相信轰炸最终将造成大规模破坏。文章认为美国将威慑失败归因于北越的决心，并由于信号传递之外的原因继续采取行动。综上，滚雷行动可以理解为一种信号传导和反传导的行动。这些发现并未削弱强制理论的可信性，而是修正了这一理论。失败的威慑可以提供信息，强制行动可能会因缺乏可信性以外的原因延长。 Operation Rolling Thunder’s failure has been widely blamed on the strategy of using force to send “signals.” It discredited the associated theory of coercion among a generation of military officers and scholars. In this paper I show that, whatever its other failures, Operation Rolling Thunder did successfully signal a threat. I rely on the latest research to demonstrate that Hanoi believed the bombing would eventually inflict massive destruction. I also show that Washington accurately ascribed the failure of the threat to North Vietnam’s resolve and continued the operation for reasons other than signaling. These findings show that Operation Rolling Thunder can be productively understood as an exercise in both signaling and countersignaling. Rather than discrediting the theory of coercion, these findings modify it. They show that failed threats can be informative and that coercive campaigns can become prolonged for reasons other than a lack of credibility. 平衡身份：中苏分裂、本体安全与朝鲜对外政策 题目：Balancing Identity: The Sino-Soviet Split, Ontological Security, and North Korean Foreign Policy 作者：Derek Bolton，巴斯大学国际关系专业讲师。 摘要：关于本体安全即存在的安全的研究解释了国家叙事如何描述个人拥有本体安全的群体，以及支持这些叙事的相应自身利益如何影响外交政策。这些作品的隐藏含义是维持国家叙事的愿望如何影响制衡与追随。本文使用雷蒙·阿隆的古典现实主义理论，发展出制衡的本体安全理论。具体而言，文章使用阿隆的“世俗宗教”概念，将当前意识形态方法的分析重点转向了民族主义的“世俗宗教”。文章认为关于制衡和追随的决定是根据国家叙事和对于权力分配感知的兼容性作出的。朝鲜对于中苏破裂的反应案例论证了相较于传统权力制衡构想而言，本体安全视角下制衡的效用。 Scholarship on ontological security (OS), the security of being, reveals how national narratives delineate communities within which individuals have OS and how the corresponding self-interest in upholding these narratives influences foreign policy. A hereto-unexplored implication of these works is how the desire to maintain national narratives influences decisions on balancing and bandwagoning. The article uses Raymond Aron’s classical realism to develop an OS theory of balancing, drawing upon what it argues are his “early OS intuitions.” Specifically, using Aron’s concept of “secular religion,” the article shifts the analytical focus of current ideological approaches of balancing toward the “secular religion” of nationalism. It argues decisions on balancing and bandwagoning are made with reference to perceived (in)compatibility between national narratives and the distribution of power. The case of North Korean responses to the Sino-Soviet split demonstrates the utility of an OS perspective on balancing compared to traditional balance of power formulations. 编译 | 池佳曈 责编 | 唐一鸣 赵旌宏 排版 | 云琪布日 邱意雯 |
|
|
