东南亚区域安全治理研究:理论探讨与案例分析
|
摘要
冷战结束以后,东南亚地区既是国际安全研究的热点,也是区域研究的重要个案,"东盟方式"受到学界关注。"后殖民主义"和冷战研究的相关理论不足以解释东南亚的安全治理。鉴于此,文章把安全治理纳入区域治理研究的视野中,提出区域治理的概念和理论,结合区域建制、区域大国和区域连结之间的变量关系,来分析区域协调和区域管理机制在东南亚的运作。柬越战争和东帝汶危机是东南亚安全治理中的重要事件,文章通过这两个案例分析了东南亚区域安全结构的演化并验证了相关理论,对影响东南亚区域安全治理的变量提供了有现实意义的学理分析。文章认为,东南亚区域安全治理的成功既是大国协调的结果,也是东盟建制化和安全化的结果,区域连结是东南亚区域安全治理的重要指标和评估依据。
Since the end of the Cold War,Southeast Asia has become one of hotspots for international security studies,as well as an important case for regional studies,as a result,the"ASEAN way"has attracted more scholars' attention,however,both theories from perspectives of PostColonialism and the Cold War can't explain security governance in Southeast Asia.As such,this article put security studies and regional studies together from a perspective of governance,and propose of regional governance's concept and theory which are related to the following variables:regional institutionalization,regional powers,and regional connectivity and their relations,and this article also argue the mechanisms of regional concert and regional governance in Southeast Asia.The Cambodian-Vietnamese War and the East Timor Crisis are two important events of security governance in Southeast Asia,by which this article traces back to the evolution of Southeast Asia's security history and validates theories mentioned above,providing a practical case analysis of different variables that affect the security governance in Southeast Asia.This article holds that the success of regional security governance in Southeast Asia is not only the result of regional concert of major powers, but also the result of ASEAN institutionalization and securitization and regional connectivity could provide key indexes monitoring regional security governance in Southeast Asia.
Since the end of the Cold War,Southeast Asia has become one of hotspots for international security studies,as well as an important case for regional studies,as a result,the"ASEAN way"has attracted more scholars' attention,however,both theories from perspectives of PostColonialism and the Cold War can't explain security governance in Southeast Asia.As such,this article put security studies and regional studies together from a perspective of governance,and propose of regional governance's concept and theory which are related to the following variables:regional institutionalization,regional powers,and regional connectivity and their relations,and this article also argue the mechanisms of regional concert and regional governance in Southeast Asia.The Cambodian-Vietnamese War and the East Timor Crisis are two important events of security governance in Southeast Asia,by which this article traces back to the evolution of Southeast Asia's security history and validates theories mentioned above,providing a practical case analysis of different variables that affect the security governance in Southeast Asia.This article holds that the success of regional security governance in Southeast Asia is not only the result of regional concert of major powers, but also the result of ASEAN institutionalization and securitization and regional connectivity could provide key indexes monitoring regional security governance in Southeast Asia.
引文
(1)Thazha Varkey Paul,International Relations Theory and Regional Transformation,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012,pp.3-21.
(2)参见国际安全研究开源大数据:《国际安全态势感知指数(1995~2015年)》,载《国际安全研究》2016年第6期,第151~158页。
(3)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Structure of International Security,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003,p.135.
(4)参见Alan Collins,Building a People-oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way,New York:Routledge,2013;王光厚:《浅析东盟的“人的安全”理念》,载《东南亚研究》2011年第4期,第4~9页;George Kahin,“The Making of Southeast Asian Studies:Cornell’s Experience”,Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars,Vol.1,No.29,1997,pp.38-42。
(5)布赞认为,“安全化”是把某项公共问题作为“存在性威胁”,需要通过不同以往的公共治理体制介入,将其置于超越政治程序正常限度而将其“政治化”的过程。参见巴里·布赞、奥利·维夫:《新安全论》,朱宁译,浙江人民出版社2003年版,第32~35页。东南亚区域安全治理的重要特点在于,将一些非传统安全问题置于安全议程中,从而使非传统安全议题“安全化”,借此推动传统安全问题的解决,从而实现综合和集体安全的治理。
(1)George Kahin,“The Making of Southeast Asian Studies:Cornell’s Experience”,pp.38-42.
(2)具体参见Chin Kin Wah and Leo Suryadinata,eds.,Michael Leifer:Selected Works on Southeast Asia,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2005;Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,London and New York:Routledge Curzon,2003。
(3)具体参见Michael Leifer,The ASEAN Regional Forum:Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996;Liow Joseph and Michael Leifer,Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Southeast Asia,London:Taylor&Francis,2014;Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,2003。
(4)Michael Leifer,ed.,The Balance of Power in East Asia,New York:St.Martin’s Press,1986,p.119.
(5)Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,p.52.
(1)现实主义的相关观点参见Alan Collins,Security and Southeast Asia:Domestic,Regional,and Global Issues,London:Lynne Rienner Publishers,2003,pp.127-152;Renato Cruz De Castro,Managing Strategic Unipolarity:The ASEAN States’Responses to the Post-Cold War Regional“Environment”,in Derek Da Cunha,ed.,Southeast Asian Perspectives on Security,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2003,pp.60-80;张蕴岭:《如何认识东盟》,载《当代亚太》2006年第7期,第3~4页;曹云华:《东盟再认识》,载《东南亚研究》2007年第4期,第12~17页。
(2)Christopher Roberts,ASEAN Regionalism:Cooperation,Values and Institutionalisation,Milton Park:Routledge,2012,pp.2-4.
(3)Helen Nesadurai,Globalization,Domestic Politics and Regionalism:The ASEAN Free Trade Area,London and New York:Routledge,2003;Jens Wunderlich,Regionalism Globalisation and International Order Europe and Southeast Asia,Farnham:Ashgate Publishing,Ltd.,2008;Alice Ba,(Re)negotiating East and Southeast Asia:Region,Regionalism,and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,2009.
(4)Sisowath Chanto,“The ASEAN Regional Forum-The Emergence of‘Soft Security’:Improving the Functionality of the ASEAN Security Regime”,Dialogue and Cooperation,2003,p.43.
(5)张云:《“国际社会”理论下的区域治理模式研究:东南亚的视角》,载《当代亚太》2013年第2期,第50~70页。
(1)Khoo Nicholas,“Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community:A Review Essay”,International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,Vol.1,No.4,2004,pp.35-46;Khoo Nicholas,“Constructing Southeast Asian Security:The Pitfalls of Imagining a Security Community and the Temptations of Orthodoxy”,Cambridge Review of International Affairs,Vol.1,No.17,2004,pp.137-153;Khoo Nicholas,“The ASEAN Security Community:A Misplaced Consensus”,Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs,Vol.2,No.2,2015,pp.180-199.
(2)Tournier-Sol Karine and Chris Gifford,eds.,The UK Challenge to Europeanization:The Persistence of British Euroscepticism,Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2016.
(3)Nicholas Onuf,World of Our Making:Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations,Abingdon:Routledge,2012.
(4)Amitav Acharya,The End of American World Order,Cambridge:Polity Books,2014,p.53.
(5)Amitav Acharya,Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order,London:Routledge,2001,pp.26-30.
(6)Ibid.,p.57.
(7)Nikolas Busse,“Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security”,The Pacific Review,Vol.1,No.12,1999,pp.39-60.
(1)Khoo Nicholas,“Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community:A Review Essay”,pp.35-46.
(2)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Structure of International Security,p.164.
(3)Khong Yuen Foong,“ASEAN and the Southeast Asian Security Complex”,in David Lake and Patrick Morgan,eds.,Regional Orders:Building Security in a New World,Philadelphia:Pennsylvania State University,1997,pp.318-339;Mely Caballero-Anthony,ed.,Regional Security in Southeast Asia:Beyond the ASEAN Way,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2005.
(4)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,上海人民出版社2012年版,第143页。
(5)秦亚青、魏玲:《结构、进程与权力的社会化---中国与东亚地区合作》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第3期,第10页。
(6)Tang Shiping,The Social Evolution of International Politics,New York:Oxford University Press,2013,p.16.
(1)Tang Shiping,The Social Evolution of International Politics,p.17.
(2)Robert Keohane,ed.,Neorealism and Its Critics,New York:Columbia University Press,1986,p.163.
(3)关于国际关系研究的“实用主义”转向,参见鲁德拉·希尔、彼得·卡赞斯坦:《超越范式:世界政治研究中的分析折中主义》,秦亚青、季玲译,上海人民出版社2013年版,第38~43页。
(1)具体参见Koopmans Ruud and Paul Statham,“Challenging the Liberal Nation-State?Postnationalism,Multiculturalism and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany”,American Journal of Sociology,Vol.105,No.3,1999,pp.652-696;Kenichi Ohmae,The End of the Nation-State:The Rise of Regional Economies,New York:Simon and Schuster Inc.,1995;Guéhenno,Jean-Marie,The End of the Nation-state,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1995;Georgantzas Nicholas,Evangelos Katsafanas and Dominik Solowiej,“Giddens’Globalization:Exploring Dynamic Implications”,paper presented to 27th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society,Albuquerque,New Mexico,2009。
(2)Robert Keohane,“Governance in a Partially Globalized World”,American Political Science Review,Mar.2001,pp.1-13.
(3)Ian Goldin,Divided Nations:Why Global Governance is Failing,and What We can Do about It,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013,p.88.
(4)郑冬子、郑惠子:《区域的观念---时空秩序与伦理》,中国科学出版社2010年版,第212页。
(1)Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Sandholtz,“European Integration and Supranational Governance”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.3,1997,p.297.
(2)Michael B9cher,“The Concept of Regional Governance in Different National Funding Programmes”,paper presented at the International Workshop“Regional Governance for Sustainable Development”,Hagen:Fern Universitt,Oct.2005.
(1)regional institutionalization是指“区域制度安排”(regional international arrangements,RIAs),国内学者通常翻译为“区域机制化”“区域建制化”等。笔者认为,经过多年的区域建制化实践,部分地区已经形成了相对稳定的区域性组织机构(有ILP资格和稳定的工作人员及工作场所),在中文语境中,使用“区域建制”能够更加准确地表达区域制度化达到的程度。
(2)具体参见Anssi Paasi,“The Institutionalization of Regions:A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Emergence of Regions and the Constitution of Regional Identity”,Fennia,Vol.1,No.164,1986,pp.105-146;Yoram Z.Haftel and Alexander Thompson,“The Independence of International Organizations:Concept and Applications”,Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.2,No.50,2006,pp.253-275。
(3)关于区域大国和大国,布赞有过界定和分析,本文所说的区域大国,是指对区域有决定性影响的国家,如中国之于东亚,美国之于北美,区域大国不一定都在域内,如美国之于东亚,区域大国相是相对稳定的,但也是变动的,一是自身实力的变化,而是大国属性的变化,前者如中国,后者如二战后的德国。参见巴里·布赞:《美国和诸大国:21世纪的世界政治》,刘永涛译,上海人民出版社2007年版。
(1)高程:《区域合作模式形成的历史根源和政治逻辑》,载《世界经济与政治》2010年第10期,第39页。
(2)Nolte Detlef,“How to Compare Regional Powers:Analytical Concepts and Research Topics”,Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,2010,pp.881-901.
(3)从国际关系研究的理论渊源来看,本文的“区域连结”概念源于基欧汉与约瑟夫·奈的“相互依赖”(interdependence)理论。基欧汉和奈认为:“相互依赖倾向于限制政治家操纵非对称相互依赖的能力”,“当复合相互依赖普遍存在时,一国政府不在本地区内或在某些问题上对他国政府动用武力”,这种“区域连结性”有利于维护区域安全。具体参见罗伯特·基欧汉、约瑟夫·奈:《权力与相互依赖》,门洪华译,北京大学出版社2002年版,第20、25~26页。
(4)S.Pushpanathan,“ASEAN Connectivity and the ASEAN Economic Community”,paper presented at the 24th Asia-Pacific Roundtable,Kuala Lumpur,Jun.2010,http://www.asean.org/news/item/asean-connectivity-and-the-asean-economic-community-by-s-pushpanathan-deputy-secretarygeneral-of-asean-for-asean-economic-community-2.
(5)http://www.saarcstat.org/sites/default/files/publications/tfreports/regional%20connectivity%20in%20south%20asia.pdf.
(1)United Nation,“Regional Connectivity for Shared Prosperity”,2014,http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/RCSP_Introduction.pdf.
(2)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Sructure of International Security,pp.45-51.
(3)庞中英:《地区安全治理的未来:走向亚洲协调》,载《国际安全研究》2016年第5期,第3~22页。
(4)巴里·布赞:《美国与诸大国:21世纪的世界政治》,上海世纪出版集团2007年版,第74页。
(1)Elke Krahmann,“Conceptualizing Security Governance”,Cooperation and Conflict,Vol.1,No.38,2003,p.21.
(1)作为政治实体的“东南亚”这一概念是在第二次世界大战期间偶然出现的。1943年8月的魁北克会议上,英美盟军总参谋部决定建立一个涵盖缅甸、马来半岛、苏门答腊和泰国的“东南亚战区”(SEAC),后来战区的范围扩大到荷属东印度群岛和印支半岛,这种军事上的权宜之计为后来东南亚区域主义的发展提供了富有想象力的框架,成为东南亚以区域为单位进行治理的来源。参见尼古拉斯·塔林等:《剑桥东南亚史Ⅱ》,贺圣达等译,云南人民出版社2003年版,第464页。
(2)Amitav Acharya,“Studying the Bandung Conference from a Global IR Perspective”,Australian Journal of International Affairs,Vol.4,No.70,2016,pp.342-357.
(3)Elke Krahmann,“Conceptualizing Security Governance”,p.11.
(4)“东盟方式”是一种以关系治理为优先的区域协调机制,关系治理植根于东南亚的文化传统中,宽容、隐忍的佛教文化、注重和谐秩序的儒家文化、强调家庭与伦理的马来土著文化、相对中东较为温和的伊斯兰文化在东南亚的多元存在,形成了一种“重关系、轻利益、尚和谐”的社会交往传统,这种交往方式多体现在“10+3”的协调机制中。
(5)星野昭吉、张小林:《全球化与区域化视角下构建东亚共同体的思考》,载《世界经济与政治》2011年第4期,第98~102页。
(1)相关研究显示,区域和平的建制化是区域“防御性现实主义世界”的演化过程,区域建制化有社会演化的规律。具体参见Tang Shiping:The Social Evolution of International Politics,pp.110-149;Brigitte Weiffen,“Democracy,Regional Security Institutions,and Rivalry Mitigation:Evidence from Europe,South America,and Asia”,Security Studies,Vol.3,No.20,2011,pp.378-415。
(2)Alex Bellamy,Security Communities and their Neighbors:Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2004,p.106.
(1)东盟机构及其主要职能参见http://asean.org/asean/asean-secretariat/。
(2)Tang Shiping:The Social Evolution of International Politics,p.17.
(3)Alice Ba,(Re)negotiating East and Southeast Asia:Region,Regionalism,and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,p.103.
(1)黄昌朝、胡令远:《东盟区域安全公共产品研究》,载《求索》2013年第7期,第176~179页。
(1)本文认为,较之“区域一体化”,“区域连结”更能确切地表达区域治理的状况,特别是在文化异质性(cultural heterogeneity)较强的东南亚地区。关于区域一体化与区域安全的关系,并没有相关研究能够直接论证区域一体化能够促进区域和平,区域连结是否可以推动区域安全也存在争议,但大量研究表明,区域一体化与区域和平存在一种内在的正向关系,区域连结的加强有利于区域和平与安全,对此本文不做详细论证。相关文献参见Polachek Solomon,“Conflict and Trade”,Journal of Conflict Resolution,Peace Science Society(International),Vol.24,1980,pp.55-78;Polachek Solomon,“Conflict and Trade:An Economics Approach to Political Interactions”,in Walter Isard&Charles Anderton,eds.,Economics of Arms Reduction and the Peace Process,Amsterdam:North Holland Press,1992,pp.89-120;Biswa Bhattacharyay,“Institutions for Asian Connectivity”,Journal of International Commerce,Economics and Policy,Vol.2,No.1,2010,pp.309-335;Lolette Kritzinger-van Niekerk,“Regional Integration Concepts,Advantages,Disadvantages,and Lessons of Experience”,World Bank,http://siteresources.worldbankorg/EXTAFRREGINICOO/Resources/Kritzinger.pdf(2005)。
(2)尼古拉斯·塔林等:《剑桥东南亚史Ⅱ》,第588页。
(3)张云:《“国际社会”理论下的区域治理模式研究:东南亚的视角》,第69页。
(1)相关数据参见https://www.ceicdata.com/en/blog/intra-asean-trade。
(2)“帕雷托法则”中的“二八分析法”认为:在任何一组研究对象中,约20%是重要的少数,其余80%尽管是多数,但却受20%的左右。具体到东南亚的内部贸易状况,也就是20%的内部贸易额会对其他80%的贸易额产生决定性影响。关于“帕雷托法则”的社会效应,参见Howard Chang,“A Liberal Theory of Social Welfare:Fairness,Utility,and the Pareto Principle”,The Yale Law Journal,Vol.2,No.110,2000,pp.173-235。
(3)S.Pushpanathan,“ASEAN Connectivity and the ASEAN Economic Community”.
(4)The ASEAN Secretariat,“Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025”,Aug.2016,http://asean.org/storage/2016/09/Master-Plan-on-ASEAN-Connectivity-20251.pdf.
(1)Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen,The Evolution of International Security Studies,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2009,p.59.
(2)根据相关统计,1979年夏秋,近60万柬埔寨人涌到柬泰边境。从1975年至1991年,仅抵达中国香港的越南难民或船民就达20.6万人之多。参见Karl D.Jackson and Wiwat Mungkandi,eds.,United States-Thailand Relations,Berkeley:University of California,p.34;李若建:《香港的越南难民与船民》,载《东南亚研究》1997年第1期,第57~60页。
(3)Secretariat,ASEAN,“Zone of Peace,Freedom and Neutrality Declaration”,Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia,1971,http://asean.org/?static_post=table-of-contents-asean-documentsseries-1967-1988.
(1)董拜南:《戈尔巴乔夫上任以来的中苏关系》,载《苏联问题参考资料》1989年第1期,第8~11页。
(2)刘恩照:《联合国在柬埔寨的和平行动》,载《国际问题研究》1993年第3期,第51页。
(1)ASEAN,“Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia”,Feb.24,1976,http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/.
(2)张云:《国际政治中“弱者”的逻辑---东盟与亚太地区大国关系》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第37页。
(3)曹云华:《东南亚的区域合作》,华南理工大学出版社1995年版,第8页。
(1)关于东盟从干预到制约的研究,参见Jones Lee,“ASEAN Intervention in Cambodia:From Cold War to Conditionality”,The Pacific Review,Vol.4,No.20,2007,pp.523-550。
(2)在关于柬埔寨问题的《巴黎协议》的签署和履行过程中,国际政治发生了重大变化:持续半个世纪的冷战结束,东欧发生剧变,苏联解体,社会主义阵营瓦解,意识形态对峙的国际环境不复存在。具体参见Yoneji Kuroyanagi,“The Asian Cold War and ASEAN:From ZOPFAN to ASEAN Way”,Plant&Soil,Vol.1-2,No.290,2007,pp.245-257。
(1)Amitav Acharya,Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order,p.151.
(2)关于“非对称理论”(asymmetry theory)及相关研究,参见Brantly Womack,“China and Southeast Asia:Asymmetry,Leadership and Normalcy”,Pacific Affairs,Vol.76,No.3,2003,pp.529-548;Brantly Womack,China and Vietnam:The Politics of Asymmetry,New York:Cambridge University Press,2006。
(3)Alan Collins,The Security Dilemmas of Southeast Asia,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,Springer,2000,p.98.
(4)参见Michael Leifer,The ASEAN Regional Forum:Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security。
(5)关于苏越结盟,参见俞亚克:《苏越结盟以来东盟各国对苏联的看法和立场》,载《世界经济与政治》1988年第8期,第44~48页。
(1)Geoffrey Gunn,East Timor and the United Nations:The Case for Intervention,Lawrenceville,NJ:Red Sea Press,1997.
(1)1975年12月12日,联合国大会和安理会分别通过决议,要求印度尼西亚撤军,呼吁各国尊重东帝汶的领土完整和人民的自决权力。1976年12月1日,联合国大会通过第3153号决议,不承认印度尼西亚与东帝汶合并。
(2)冷战期间,联合国屡次通过东帝汶问题的决议,但美国视印度尼西亚为“友好的反共”政权,在联合国历次谴责印度尼西亚的决议中,美国都投弃权票,而且在1975年印支三国革命胜利后,西方国家更把印度尼西亚视为抵挡共产主义前进的最有力堡垒,都不愿因东帝汶而影响到与印度尼西亚的关系。由于西方国家采取默认既成事实的态度,导致东帝汶问题一直没有取得实质性进展。关于美国与印度尼西亚的关系,参见Paul F.Gardner:Shared Hopes,Separate Fears:Fifty Years of US-Indonesian Relations,Boulder,Colo.:Westview Press,1997。
(3)Elizabeth Stanley,Torture,Truth and Justice:The Case of Timor-Leste,Abingdon:Routledge,2008,p.3.
(1)王小龙:《亚太经合组织与地区政治安全问题》,载《当代亚太》2003年第4期,第51页。
(2)参见https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement。1960年,联合国大会将“东帝汶及附属地”列入适用《联合国宪章》第十一章规定的非自治领土名单。第十一章:“关于非自治领土之宣言”要求管理这类领土的国家促进各领土居民的福祉,特别是“发展自治”,对各领土人民之“政治愿望,予以适当之注意”。1975年之前,葡萄牙政府坚称东帝汶为其海外省,不承担《宪章》第十一章规定的义务。但1975年新政府上台后,推行非殖民地化,接受了第十一章的规定。
(3)宋效峰:《印尼-澳大利亚关系中的东帝汶因素》,载《南洋问题研究》2006年第2期,第28~31页。
(4)Alan Dupont,“ASEAN’s Response to the East Timor Crisis”,Australian Journal of International Affairs,Vol.2,No.54,2000,pp.163-170.
(1)Maria Ortuoste,“Timor-Leste and ASEAN:Shaping Region and State in Southeast Asia”,Asian Journal of Political Science,Vol.1,No.19,2011,pp.1-24.
(2)具体参见http://static.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/TLS/OVER。
(3)东帝汶与东盟国家间相关经贸数据参见http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=TL。
(1)JoséManuel Ramos Horta,“Why Timor-Leste should Join ASEAN Now”,http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/16/why-timor-leste-should-join-asean-now/.
(2)Selver Sahin,“Timor-Leste’s Foreign Policy:Securing State Identity in the PostIndependence Period”,Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs,Vol.2,No.33,2014,p.21.
(3)http://asean.org/sg-minh-receives-the-pm-of-timor-leste-at-the-asean-secretariat/.
(1)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,第143页。
(2)参见国际安全研究开源大数据:《国际安全态势感知指数(1995~2015年)》,载《国际安全研究》2016年第6期,第151~158页。
(3)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Structure of International Security,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003,p.135.
(4)参见Alan Collins,Building a People-oriented Security Community the ASEAN Way,New York:Routledge,2013;王光厚:《浅析东盟的“人的安全”理念》,载《东南亚研究》2011年第4期,第4~9页;George Kahin,“The Making of Southeast Asian Studies:Cornell’s Experience”,Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars,Vol.1,No.29,1997,pp.38-42。
(5)布赞认为,“安全化”是把某项公共问题作为“存在性威胁”,需要通过不同以往的公共治理体制介入,将其置于超越政治程序正常限度而将其“政治化”的过程。参见巴里·布赞、奥利·维夫:《新安全论》,朱宁译,浙江人民出版社2003年版,第32~35页。东南亚区域安全治理的重要特点在于,将一些非传统安全问题置于安全议程中,从而使非传统安全议题“安全化”,借此推动传统安全问题的解决,从而实现综合和集体安全的治理。
(1)George Kahin,“The Making of Southeast Asian Studies:Cornell’s Experience”,pp.38-42.
(2)具体参见Chin Kin Wah and Leo Suryadinata,eds.,Michael Leifer:Selected Works on Southeast Asia,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2005;Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,London and New York:Routledge Curzon,2003。
(3)具体参见Michael Leifer,The ASEAN Regional Forum:Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1996;Liow Joseph and Michael Leifer,Dictionary of the Modern Politics of Southeast Asia,London:Taylor&Francis,2014;Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,2003。
(4)Michael Leifer,ed.,The Balance of Power in East Asia,New York:St.Martin’s Press,1986,p.119.
(5)Ralf Emmers,Cooperative Security and the Balance of Power in ASEAN and the ARF,p.52.
(1)现实主义的相关观点参见Alan Collins,Security and Southeast Asia:Domestic,Regional,and Global Issues,London:Lynne Rienner Publishers,2003,pp.127-152;Renato Cruz De Castro,Managing Strategic Unipolarity:The ASEAN States’Responses to the Post-Cold War Regional“Environment”,in Derek Da Cunha,ed.,Southeast Asian Perspectives on Security,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2003,pp.60-80;张蕴岭:《如何认识东盟》,载《当代亚太》2006年第7期,第3~4页;曹云华:《东盟再认识》,载《东南亚研究》2007年第4期,第12~17页。
(2)Christopher Roberts,ASEAN Regionalism:Cooperation,Values and Institutionalisation,Milton Park:Routledge,2012,pp.2-4.
(3)Helen Nesadurai,Globalization,Domestic Politics and Regionalism:The ASEAN Free Trade Area,London and New York:Routledge,2003;Jens Wunderlich,Regionalism Globalisation and International Order Europe and Southeast Asia,Farnham:Ashgate Publishing,Ltd.,2008;Alice Ba,(Re)negotiating East and Southeast Asia:Region,Regionalism,and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,Stanford,California:Stanford University Press,2009.
(4)Sisowath Chanto,“The ASEAN Regional Forum-The Emergence of‘Soft Security’:Improving the Functionality of the ASEAN Security Regime”,Dialogue and Cooperation,2003,p.43.
(5)张云:《“国际社会”理论下的区域治理模式研究:东南亚的视角》,载《当代亚太》2013年第2期,第50~70页。
(1)Khoo Nicholas,“Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community:A Review Essay”,International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,Vol.1,No.4,2004,pp.35-46;Khoo Nicholas,“Constructing Southeast Asian Security:The Pitfalls of Imagining a Security Community and the Temptations of Orthodoxy”,Cambridge Review of International Affairs,Vol.1,No.17,2004,pp.137-153;Khoo Nicholas,“The ASEAN Security Community:A Misplaced Consensus”,Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs,Vol.2,No.2,2015,pp.180-199.
(2)Tournier-Sol Karine and Chris Gifford,eds.,The UK Challenge to Europeanization:The Persistence of British Euroscepticism,Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan,2016.
(3)Nicholas Onuf,World of Our Making:Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations,Abingdon:Routledge,2012.
(4)Amitav Acharya,The End of American World Order,Cambridge:Polity Books,2014,p.53.
(5)Amitav Acharya,Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order,London:Routledge,2001,pp.26-30.
(6)Ibid.,p.57.
(7)Nikolas Busse,“Constructivism and Southeast Asian Security”,The Pacific Review,Vol.1,No.12,1999,pp.39-60.
(1)Khoo Nicholas,“Deconstructing the ASEAN Security Community:A Review Essay”,pp.35-46.
(2)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Structure of International Security,p.164.
(3)Khong Yuen Foong,“ASEAN and the Southeast Asian Security Complex”,in David Lake and Patrick Morgan,eds.,Regional Orders:Building Security in a New World,Philadelphia:Pennsylvania State University,1997,pp.318-339;Mely Caballero-Anthony,ed.,Regional Security in Southeast Asia:Beyond the ASEAN Way,Singapore:Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,2005.
(4)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,上海人民出版社2012年版,第143页。
(5)秦亚青、魏玲:《结构、进程与权力的社会化---中国与东亚地区合作》,载《世界经济与政治》2007年第3期,第10页。
(6)Tang Shiping,The Social Evolution of International Politics,New York:Oxford University Press,2013,p.16.
(1)Tang Shiping,The Social Evolution of International Politics,p.17.
(2)Robert Keohane,ed.,Neorealism and Its Critics,New York:Columbia University Press,1986,p.163.
(3)关于国际关系研究的“实用主义”转向,参见鲁德拉·希尔、彼得·卡赞斯坦:《超越范式:世界政治研究中的分析折中主义》,秦亚青、季玲译,上海人民出版社2013年版,第38~43页。
(1)具体参见Koopmans Ruud and Paul Statham,“Challenging the Liberal Nation-State?Postnationalism,Multiculturalism and the Collective Claims Making of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Britain and Germany”,American Journal of Sociology,Vol.105,No.3,1999,pp.652-696;Kenichi Ohmae,The End of the Nation-State:The Rise of Regional Economies,New York:Simon and Schuster Inc.,1995;Guéhenno,Jean-Marie,The End of the Nation-state,Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press,1995;Georgantzas Nicholas,Evangelos Katsafanas and Dominik Solowiej,“Giddens’Globalization:Exploring Dynamic Implications”,paper presented to 27th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society,Albuquerque,New Mexico,2009。
(2)Robert Keohane,“Governance in a Partially Globalized World”,American Political Science Review,Mar.2001,pp.1-13.
(3)Ian Goldin,Divided Nations:Why Global Governance is Failing,and What We can Do about It,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2013,p.88.
(4)郑冬子、郑惠子:《区域的观念---时空秩序与伦理》,中国科学出版社2010年版,第212页。
(1)Alec Stone Sweet and Wayne Sandholtz,“European Integration and Supranational Governance”,Journal of European Public Policy,Vol.4,No.3,1997,p.297.
(2)Michael B9cher,“The Concept of Regional Governance in Different National Funding Programmes”,paper presented at the International Workshop“Regional Governance for Sustainable Development”,Hagen:Fern Universitt,Oct.2005.
(1)regional institutionalization是指“区域制度安排”(regional international arrangements,RIAs),国内学者通常翻译为“区域机制化”“区域建制化”等。笔者认为,经过多年的区域建制化实践,部分地区已经形成了相对稳定的区域性组织机构(有ILP资格和稳定的工作人员及工作场所),在中文语境中,使用“区域建制”能够更加准确地表达区域制度化达到的程度。
(2)具体参见Anssi Paasi,“The Institutionalization of Regions:A Theoretical Framework for Understanding the Emergence of Regions and the Constitution of Regional Identity”,Fennia,Vol.1,No.164,1986,pp.105-146;Yoram Z.Haftel and Alexander Thompson,“The Independence of International Organizations:Concept and Applications”,Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.2,No.50,2006,pp.253-275。
(3)关于区域大国和大国,布赞有过界定和分析,本文所说的区域大国,是指对区域有决定性影响的国家,如中国之于东亚,美国之于北美,区域大国不一定都在域内,如美国之于东亚,区域大国相是相对稳定的,但也是变动的,一是自身实力的变化,而是大国属性的变化,前者如中国,后者如二战后的德国。参见巴里·布赞:《美国和诸大国:21世纪的世界政治》,刘永涛译,上海人民出版社2007年版。
(1)高程:《区域合作模式形成的历史根源和政治逻辑》,载《世界经济与政治》2010年第10期,第39页。
(2)Nolte Detlef,“How to Compare Regional Powers:Analytical Concepts and Research Topics”,Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,2010,pp.881-901.
(3)从国际关系研究的理论渊源来看,本文的“区域连结”概念源于基欧汉与约瑟夫·奈的“相互依赖”(interdependence)理论。基欧汉和奈认为:“相互依赖倾向于限制政治家操纵非对称相互依赖的能力”,“当复合相互依赖普遍存在时,一国政府不在本地区内或在某些问题上对他国政府动用武力”,这种“区域连结性”有利于维护区域安全。具体参见罗伯特·基欧汉、约瑟夫·奈:《权力与相互依赖》,门洪华译,北京大学出版社2002年版,第20、25~26页。
(4)S.Pushpanathan,“ASEAN Connectivity and the ASEAN Economic Community”,paper presented at the 24th Asia-Pacific Roundtable,Kuala Lumpur,Jun.2010,http://www.asean.org/news/item/asean-connectivity-and-the-asean-economic-community-by-s-pushpanathan-deputy-secretarygeneral-of-asean-for-asean-economic-community-2.
(5)http://www.saarcstat.org/sites/default/files/publications/tfreports/regional%20connectivity%20in%20south%20asia.pdf.
(1)United Nation,“Regional Connectivity for Shared Prosperity”,2014,http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/RCSP_Introduction.pdf.
(2)Barry Buzan and Ole Waever,Regions and Powers:The Sructure of International Security,pp.45-51.
(3)庞中英:《地区安全治理的未来:走向亚洲协调》,载《国际安全研究》2016年第5期,第3~22页。
(4)巴里·布赞:《美国与诸大国:21世纪的世界政治》,上海世纪出版集团2007年版,第74页。
(1)Elke Krahmann,“Conceptualizing Security Governance”,Cooperation and Conflict,Vol.1,No.38,2003,p.21.
(1)作为政治实体的“东南亚”这一概念是在第二次世界大战期间偶然出现的。1943年8月的魁北克会议上,英美盟军总参谋部决定建立一个涵盖缅甸、马来半岛、苏门答腊和泰国的“东南亚战区”(SEAC),后来战区的范围扩大到荷属东印度群岛和印支半岛,这种军事上的权宜之计为后来东南亚区域主义的发展提供了富有想象力的框架,成为东南亚以区域为单位进行治理的来源。参见尼古拉斯·塔林等:《剑桥东南亚史Ⅱ》,贺圣达等译,云南人民出版社2003年版,第464页。
(2)Amitav Acharya,“Studying the Bandung Conference from a Global IR Perspective”,Australian Journal of International Affairs,Vol.4,No.70,2016,pp.342-357.
(3)Elke Krahmann,“Conceptualizing Security Governance”,p.11.
(4)“东盟方式”是一种以关系治理为优先的区域协调机制,关系治理植根于东南亚的文化传统中,宽容、隐忍的佛教文化、注重和谐秩序的儒家文化、强调家庭与伦理的马来土著文化、相对中东较为温和的伊斯兰文化在东南亚的多元存在,形成了一种“重关系、轻利益、尚和谐”的社会交往传统,这种交往方式多体现在“10+3”的协调机制中。
(5)星野昭吉、张小林:《全球化与区域化视角下构建东亚共同体的思考》,载《世界经济与政治》2011年第4期,第98~102页。
(1)相关研究显示,区域和平的建制化是区域“防御性现实主义世界”的演化过程,区域建制化有社会演化的规律。具体参见Tang Shiping:The Social Evolution of International Politics,pp.110-149;Brigitte Weiffen,“Democracy,Regional Security Institutions,and Rivalry Mitigation:Evidence from Europe,South America,and Asia”,Security Studies,Vol.3,No.20,2011,pp.378-415。
(2)Alex Bellamy,Security Communities and their Neighbors:Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2004,p.106.
(1)东盟机构及其主要职能参见http://asean.org/asean/asean-secretariat/。
(2)Tang Shiping:The Social Evolution of International Politics,p.17.
(3)Alice Ba,(Re)negotiating East and Southeast Asia:Region,Regionalism,and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations,p.103.
(1)黄昌朝、胡令远:《东盟区域安全公共产品研究》,载《求索》2013年第7期,第176~179页。
(1)本文认为,较之“区域一体化”,“区域连结”更能确切地表达区域治理的状况,特别是在文化异质性(cultural heterogeneity)较强的东南亚地区。关于区域一体化与区域安全的关系,并没有相关研究能够直接论证区域一体化能够促进区域和平,区域连结是否可以推动区域安全也存在争议,但大量研究表明,区域一体化与区域和平存在一种内在的正向关系,区域连结的加强有利于区域和平与安全,对此本文不做详细论证。相关文献参见Polachek Solomon,“Conflict and Trade”,Journal of Conflict Resolution,Peace Science Society(International),Vol.24,1980,pp.55-78;Polachek Solomon,“Conflict and Trade:An Economics Approach to Political Interactions”,in Walter Isard&Charles Anderton,eds.,Economics of Arms Reduction and the Peace Process,Amsterdam:North Holland Press,1992,pp.89-120;Biswa Bhattacharyay,“Institutions for Asian Connectivity”,Journal of International Commerce,Economics and Policy,Vol.2,No.1,2010,pp.309-335;Lolette Kritzinger-van Niekerk,“Regional Integration Concepts,Advantages,Disadvantages,and Lessons of Experience”,World Bank,http://siteresources.worldbankorg/EXTAFRREGINICOO/Resources/Kritzinger.pdf(2005)。
(2)尼古拉斯·塔林等:《剑桥东南亚史Ⅱ》,第588页。
(3)张云:《“国际社会”理论下的区域治理模式研究:东南亚的视角》,第69页。
(1)相关数据参见https://www.ceicdata.com/en/blog/intra-asean-trade。
(2)“帕雷托法则”中的“二八分析法”认为:在任何一组研究对象中,约20%是重要的少数,其余80%尽管是多数,但却受20%的左右。具体到东南亚的内部贸易状况,也就是20%的内部贸易额会对其他80%的贸易额产生决定性影响。关于“帕雷托法则”的社会效应,参见Howard Chang,“A Liberal Theory of Social Welfare:Fairness,Utility,and the Pareto Principle”,The Yale Law Journal,Vol.2,No.110,2000,pp.173-235。
(3)S.Pushpanathan,“ASEAN Connectivity and the ASEAN Economic Community”.
(4)The ASEAN Secretariat,“Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity 2025”,Aug.2016,http://asean.org/storage/2016/09/Master-Plan-on-ASEAN-Connectivity-20251.pdf.
(1)Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen,The Evolution of International Security Studies,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2009,p.59.
(2)根据相关统计,1979年夏秋,近60万柬埔寨人涌到柬泰边境。从1975年至1991年,仅抵达中国香港的越南难民或船民就达20.6万人之多。参见Karl D.Jackson and Wiwat Mungkandi,eds.,United States-Thailand Relations,Berkeley:University of California,p.34;李若建:《香港的越南难民与船民》,载《东南亚研究》1997年第1期,第57~60页。
(3)Secretariat,ASEAN,“Zone of Peace,Freedom and Neutrality Declaration”,Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia,1971,http://asean.org/?static_post=table-of-contents-asean-documentsseries-1967-1988.
(1)董拜南:《戈尔巴乔夫上任以来的中苏关系》,载《苏联问题参考资料》1989年第1期,第8~11页。
(2)刘恩照:《联合国在柬埔寨的和平行动》,载《国际问题研究》1993年第3期,第51页。
(1)ASEAN,“Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia”,Feb.24,1976,http://asean.org/treaty-amity-cooperation-southeast-asia-indonesia-24-february-1976/.
(2)张云:《国际政治中“弱者”的逻辑---东盟与亚太地区大国关系》,社会科学文献出版社2010年版,第37页。
(3)曹云华:《东南亚的区域合作》,华南理工大学出版社1995年版,第8页。
(1)关于东盟从干预到制约的研究,参见Jones Lee,“ASEAN Intervention in Cambodia:From Cold War to Conditionality”,The Pacific Review,Vol.4,No.20,2007,pp.523-550。
(2)在关于柬埔寨问题的《巴黎协议》的签署和履行过程中,国际政治发生了重大变化:持续半个世纪的冷战结束,东欧发生剧变,苏联解体,社会主义阵营瓦解,意识形态对峙的国际环境不复存在。具体参见Yoneji Kuroyanagi,“The Asian Cold War and ASEAN:From ZOPFAN to ASEAN Way”,Plant&Soil,Vol.1-2,No.290,2007,pp.245-257。
(1)Amitav Acharya,Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia:ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order,p.151.
(2)关于“非对称理论”(asymmetry theory)及相关研究,参见Brantly Womack,“China and Southeast Asia:Asymmetry,Leadership and Normalcy”,Pacific Affairs,Vol.76,No.3,2003,pp.529-548;Brantly Womack,China and Vietnam:The Politics of Asymmetry,New York:Cambridge University Press,2006。
(3)Alan Collins,The Security Dilemmas of Southeast Asia,New York:Palgrave Macmillan,Springer,2000,p.98.
(4)参见Michael Leifer,The ASEAN Regional Forum:Extending ASEAN’s Model of Regional Security。
(5)关于苏越结盟,参见俞亚克:《苏越结盟以来东盟各国对苏联的看法和立场》,载《世界经济与政治》1988年第8期,第44~48页。
(1)Geoffrey Gunn,East Timor and the United Nations:The Case for Intervention,Lawrenceville,NJ:Red Sea Press,1997.
(1)1975年12月12日,联合国大会和安理会分别通过决议,要求印度尼西亚撤军,呼吁各国尊重东帝汶的领土完整和人民的自决权力。1976年12月1日,联合国大会通过第3153号决议,不承认印度尼西亚与东帝汶合并。
(2)冷战期间,联合国屡次通过东帝汶问题的决议,但美国视印度尼西亚为“友好的反共”政权,在联合国历次谴责印度尼西亚的决议中,美国都投弃权票,而且在1975年印支三国革命胜利后,西方国家更把印度尼西亚视为抵挡共产主义前进的最有力堡垒,都不愿因东帝汶而影响到与印度尼西亚的关系。由于西方国家采取默认既成事实的态度,导致东帝汶问题一直没有取得实质性进展。关于美国与印度尼西亚的关系,参见Paul F.Gardner:Shared Hopes,Separate Fears:Fifty Years of US-Indonesian Relations,Boulder,Colo.:Westview Press,1997。
(3)Elizabeth Stanley,Torture,Truth and Justice:The Case of Timor-Leste,Abingdon:Routledge,2008,p.3.
(1)王小龙:《亚太经合组织与地区政治安全问题》,载《当代亚太》2003年第4期,第51页。
(2)参见https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/152/88/IMG/NR015288.pdf?OpenElement。1960年,联合国大会将“东帝汶及附属地”列入适用《联合国宪章》第十一章规定的非自治领土名单。第十一章:“关于非自治领土之宣言”要求管理这类领土的国家促进各领土居民的福祉,特别是“发展自治”,对各领土人民之“政治愿望,予以适当之注意”。1975年之前,葡萄牙政府坚称东帝汶为其海外省,不承担《宪章》第十一章规定的义务。但1975年新政府上台后,推行非殖民地化,接受了第十一章的规定。
(3)宋效峰:《印尼-澳大利亚关系中的东帝汶因素》,载《南洋问题研究》2006年第2期,第28~31页。
(4)Alan Dupont,“ASEAN’s Response to the East Timor Crisis”,Australian Journal of International Affairs,Vol.2,No.54,2000,pp.163-170.
(1)Maria Ortuoste,“Timor-Leste and ASEAN:Shaping Region and State in Southeast Asia”,Asian Journal of Political Science,Vol.1,No.19,2011,pp.1-24.
(2)具体参见http://static.visionofhumanity.org/#page/indexes/global-peace-index/2016/TLS/OVER。
(3)东帝汶与东盟国家间相关经贸数据参见http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=TL。
(1)JoséManuel Ramos Horta,“Why Timor-Leste should Join ASEAN Now”,http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/05/16/why-timor-leste-should-join-asean-now/.
(2)Selver Sahin,“Timor-Leste’s Foreign Policy:Securing State Identity in the PostIndependence Period”,Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs,Vol.2,No.33,2014,p.21.
(3)http://asean.org/sg-minh-receives-the-pm-of-timor-leste-at-the-asean-secretariat/.
(1)秦亚青:《关系与过程:中国国际关系理论的文化建构》,第143页。