南太平洋地区主义的新发展:地区机制与影响评估
|
摘要
南太平洋地区是一个重要但长期以来研究不足的地区。本文在建立评估标准、简述历史背景和概括"新发展"内涵的基础上,从主体(地区组织与机制)、过程、影响三个方面评估2009年左右以来南太平洋地区主义的新发展。本文认为太平洋岛国发展论坛的成立、《瑙鲁协定》缔约国的机制化、美拉尼西亚先锋集团的组织化、太平洋小岛屿发展中国家机制作为联合国的一个非正式集团的建立、《太平洋地区主义框架》的出台和实施及太平洋岛国论坛的全面改革等共同构成了以太平洋岛国为主体的南太平洋地区主义的新发展,对地区秩序产生了深远影响。
The South Pacific is an important region. It is also an under-researched region for a long time however This paper evaluates the new developments of South Pacific regionalism from the actors( regional organizations and mechanisms),processes and impacts on the basis of establishing the criteria for evaluation,outlining historical background and summarizing the connotation of "new developments. "This paper argues that the establishment of the Pacific Islands Development Forum,the institutionalization of the contracting parties to the Nauru Agreement as well as the Melanesian Spearhead Group,the formation of the Pacific Small Island Developing States as an informal group in the United Nations,and the introduction and implementation of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,and the comprehensive reform of the Pacific Islands Forum together constitute new developments of the South Pacific regionalism with Pacific island countries as the main actors,having had a profound impact on the regional order.
The South Pacific is an important region. It is also an under-researched region for a long time however This paper evaluates the new developments of South Pacific regionalism from the actors( regional organizations and mechanisms),processes and impacts on the basis of establishing the criteria for evaluation,outlining historical background and summarizing the connotation of "new developments. "This paper argues that the establishment of the Pacific Islands Development Forum,the institutionalization of the contracting parties to the Nauru Agreement as well as the Melanesian Spearhead Group,the formation of the Pacific Small Island Developing States as an informal group in the United Nations,and the introduction and implementation of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,and the comprehensive reform of the Pacific Islands Forum together constitute new developments of the South Pacific regionalism with Pacific island countries as the main actors,having had a profound impact on the regional order.
引文
(1)汪诗明、王艳芬:《太平洋英联邦国家:处在现代化的边缘》,四川人民出版社2004年版,第335页。
(2)杜起文:《关于太平洋岛国地区形势和中太关系的几点看法》,载陈德正主编:《太平洋岛国研究》(第一辑),社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第4页。
(1)小约瑟夫·奈(Joseph S.Nye)将“地区”界定为“由地缘关系和相互依赖程度联系起来的一定数量的国家”,这一定义被广为接受,参见Joseph S.Nye,“Introduction,”in Joseph S.Nye,ed.,International Regionalism:Readings,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1968,p.vi.在国际关系研究的中文语境中,“地区”与“区域”同义,都对应英文中的“Region”。
(2)参见徐秀军:《地区主义与南太平洋地区秩序的构建》,华中师范大学博士学位论文2009年6月,第2页。
(3)广义定义与狭义定义之间最核心的区别就是澳大利亚、新西兰是否属于南太平洋地区,以及南太平洋地区是否包括未独立的太平洋岛屿。对此较为透彻的列举式定义参见Kennedy Graham,“Models of Regional Governance:Is There a Choice for the Pacific,”in Kennedy Graham,ed.,Models of Regional Governance for the Pacific:Sovereignty and the Future Architecture of Regionalism,Christchurch:Canterbury University Press,2008,pp.23~26.其中,作者将南太平洋地区做了三重界定:澳大利亚、新西兰与太平洋岛国;新西兰与太平洋岛国(不包括澳大利亚);太平洋岛国(不包括澳大利亚、新西兰)。国内学界对南太平洋地区和太平洋岛国的内涵与外延的不同界定,参见汪诗明、王艳芬:《如何界定太平洋岛屿国家》,《太平洋学报》2014年第11期,第1~8页。
(4)本文指的是太平洋岛国论坛(PIF)成员中的主权国家,包括帕劳、密克罗尼西亚联邦(密联邦)、马绍尔群岛、基里巴斯、瑙鲁、巴布亚新几内亚(巴新)、所罗门群岛、瓦努阿图、斐济、图瓦卢、汤加、萨摩亚、库克群岛、纽埃。日本、菲律宾等太平洋上的岛国并不属于太平洋岛国的范畴。2016年,法属波利尼西亚和新喀里多尼亚成为太平洋岛国论坛正式成员,但因其尚未独立拥有主权,因此不包含在本文对南太平洋地区的严格定义中,虽然这些未独立的太平洋岛屿本身也是南太平洋地区政治活动中的重要行为体与议题。
(5)梁甲瑞:《中美南太平洋地区合作:基于维护海上战略通道安全的视角》,中国社会科学出版社2018年版,第1~2页。
(6)Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,“Introduction:Framework of the Handbook and Conceptual Clarifications,”in Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,eds.,The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,p.7.
(1)关于国内南太平洋地区研究的最新梳理,参见王作成、孙雪岩:《20世纪以来中国的太平洋岛国研究综述》,《太平洋学报》2014年第11期,第9~15页;汪诗明:《国内太平洋岛屿国家研究趋势前瞻》,《太平洋学报》2017年第9期,第86~95页。
(2)吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第105~111页。
(3)吕桂霞、张登华:《太平洋岛国地区气候变化现状及各方的应对》,《学海》2017年第6期,第59~62页;梁甲瑞、曲升:《全球海洋治理视域下的南太平洋地区海洋治理》,《太平洋学报》2018年第4期,第48~64页;曲升:《近年来太平洋岛屿区域海洋治理的新动向和优先事项》,载陈德正主编:《太平洋岛国研究》(第二辑),社会科学文献出版社2018年版,第47~68页。
(4)该工作坊的部分成果集中发表在喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版。
(5)例如,张剑从澳大利亚的角度,将本文定义的南太平洋地区主义新发展描述为斐济、巴新等国“在地区事务中日益表示了希望有更多发言权及影响力的要求”。这种描述没有概括南太平洋地区主义新发展的实质。详见[澳]张剑:《澳大利亚对太平洋地区合作政策的演变及面临的新挑战》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第126~137页。
(1)Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin,Our Near Abroad:Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2011,pp.1~3.
(2)Joanne Wallis,Crowded and Complex:The Changing Geopolitics of the South Pacific,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2017,pp.15~19.
(3)Stephanie Lawson,“Regionalism,Sub-regionalism and the Politics of Identity in Oceania,”The Pacific Review,Vol.29,No.3,2016,pp.387~409;Tess Newton Cain,“Rebuild or Reform:Regional and Subregional Architecture in the Pacific Island Region,”Le Journal de la Sociétédes Océanistes[Enligne],Vol.140,No.6,2015,pp.49~58.
(4)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,pp.155~164.
(5)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,pp.20~37.
(6)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017.
(1)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,p.20.
(2)Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”http://ssgm.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2015-12/DP-2015-3-Fry-ONLINE_0.pdf.
(3)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.155.
(4)笔者在本文写作期间赴斐济、萨摩亚和新西兰实地调研,受邀参加了新西兰太平洋研究所(NZIPR)举办的“海洋与岛屿”研讨会、聊城大学与萨摩亚国立大学(NUS)举办的“第三届中国太平洋岛国研究高层论坛”和新西兰维多利亚大学举办的“中印在南太平洋”研讨会等,并对参与《太平洋地区主义框架》制定过程的专家进行了访谈。
(5)极少数将南太平洋地区纳入地区主义研究著作的例子参见Gregory E.Fry,“International Cooperation in the South Pacific:From Regional Integration to Collective Diplomacy,”in W.Andrew Axline,ed.,The Political Economy of Regional Cooperation:Comparative Case Studies,London:Pinter Publishers,1994,pp.136~177;Kate Stone,“Oceania:A Critical Regionalism Challenging the Foreign Definition of Pacific Identities in Pursuit of Decolonised Destinies,”in Timothy Shaw,Andrew Grant and Scarlett Cornelissen,eds.,The Ashgate Research Companion to Regionalisms,Surrey:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2011,pp.257~272;Tiru Jayaraman,“Regional Integration in the Pacific,”in Emmanuel Fanta,Timothy Shaw and Vanessa Tang,eds.,Comparative Regionalisms for Development in the 21st Century,Surrey:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2013,pp.103~125。
(1)参见梁甲瑞:《日本南太地区战略调整及对中国的影响》,《国际关系研究》2015年第5期,第108~126页;梁甲瑞:《海上战略通道视角下中国南太地区的海洋战略》,《世界经济与政治论坛》2016年第3期,第47~60页。
(2)库克群岛总理亨利·普纳(Henry Puna)是最早提出这一概念的太平洋岛国领导人之一。参见Hon.Henry Puna,“Thinking‘Outside the Rocks’:Reimagining the Pacific,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.286~287。
(3)陈晓晨、常玉迪:《中国与太平洋岛国共建“一带一路”:价值、瓶颈与举措》,《祖国》2019年第8期,第31页。
(4)中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会、商务部、外交部:《共建丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2015-03/28/c_1114793986.htm。2017年5月,中国政府将大洋洲定位为“21世纪海上丝绸之路”的南向延伸地区,并明确太平洋岛国是重要组成部分。参见推进“一带一路”建设工作领导小组办公室:《共建“一带一路”:理念、实践与中国的贡献》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2017-05/10/c_1120951928.htm;刘伟主编:《读懂“一带一路”蓝图:〈共建“一带一路”:理念、实践与中国的贡献〉详解》,商务印书馆2017年版。
(5)2016年,中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会对“‘一带一路’专项课题---21世纪海上丝绸之路南太平洋方向建设路径研究”进行了公开征集,参见中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会:《“一带一路”建设2016年专项课题入选单位公告》,http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/gzdt/201607/t20160721_811799.html。其中第7号课题“21世纪海上丝绸之路南太平洋方向建设路径研究”由笔者供职机构中国人民大学重阳金融研究院承担。
(6)新华社:《习近平同建交太平洋岛国领导人举行集体会晤并发表主旨讲话》,http://www.xinhuanet.com//world/2018-11/16/c_1123726560.htm。
(1)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“Pacific Plan Review(2013):Report to Pacific Leaders,”pdf,p.141.
(1)Phillippe de Lombaerde,“Introduction and Summary,”in Phillipe de Lombaerde,ed.,Assessment and Measurement of Regional Integration,New York:Routledge,2006,pp.1~6.
(2)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,pp.158~15
(1)徐秀军:《地区主义与地区秩序:以南太平洋地区为例》,社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第83~90页。
(2)太平洋岛国论坛的前身。
(3)Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”pdf,p.5.
(4)Stewart Firth,“The New Regionalism and its Contradictions,”in Greg Fry and Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka,eds.,Intervention and State-Building in the Pacific:The Legitimacy of‘Cooperative Intervention’,Manchester:Manchester University Press,2008,pp.119~134.
(1)包括韩锋、赵江林:《巴布亚新几内亚》,社会科学文献出版社2012年版;吕桂霞:《斐济》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版;王敬媛、陈万会:《汤加》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版;赵少峰:《瑙鲁》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版等。
(1)Elise Huffer,“The Pacific Plan:A Political and Cultural Critique,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,pp.157~174。这本书的编者也对此表达了担忧,认为南太平洋地区主义面临“不确定的未来”。详见Ian Frazer and Jenny Bryant-Tokalau,“Introduction:The Uncertain Future of Pacific Regionalism,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,pp.1~24。“太平洋方式”首次由斐济独立后的首任总理拉图·卡米塞塞·马拉在1970年联合国大会上提出,原文参见Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara,The Pacific Way:A Memoir,Honolulu:University of Hawai'I Press,1997,pp.237~241.南太平洋地区研究学者迈克尔·哈斯(Michael Haas)将其概括为6大方面:“太平洋问题、太平洋解决”(Pacific Solutions to Pacific Problems)、“文化平等”(Equality of Cultures)、“达成一致的妥协”(Unanimous Compromise)、“政治目标优先”(Primacy of Political Goals)、“泛太平洋精神”(Pan-Pacific Spirit)、“乐观的渐进主义”(Optimistic Incrementalism)。参见Michael Haas,The Pacific Way:Regional Cooperation in the South Pacific,New York:Praeger Publishers,1989,pp.10~13。
(2)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.315.
(3)参见笔者当时对太平洋岛国图瓦卢气候谈判首席代表伊恩·弗莱(Ian Fry)的采访。陈晓晨:《图瓦卢:现有的承诺远远不够》,《第一财经日报》2010年10月13日,A10版。
(4)2014年通过的《太平洋地区主义框架》开篇即明确提出,该框架“替代”《太平洋计划》。参见Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“The Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”pdf,p.1.
(1)Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin,Our Near Abroad:Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2011,p.52.
(2)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.156.
(1)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.162.
(2)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017,p.295.
(3)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Regional Voice?An Observer's Perspective on the Pacific Islands Development Forum(PIDF),Inaugural Summit,Denarau,Fiji,5~7 August 2013,”pdf,p.1。但也有瓦努阿图方面对斐济的看法等复杂原因。
(4)吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第107页。
(1)Stephanie Lawson,“Regionalism,Sub-regionalism and the Politics of Identity in Oceania,”The Pacific Review,Vol.29,No.3,2016,p.400.
(2)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Regional Voice?The Pacific Islands Development Forum,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.84.
(3)Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,“The‘New Pacific Diplomacy’:An Introduction,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.8~9;吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第110~111页。
(4)Nitish Narayan,“UN Admits PIDF as Official Observer to the UN General Assembly,”http://pacificidf.org/un-admits-pidf-as-official-observer-to-the-un-general-assembly/.
(1)“Pacific Consultation on South-South Cooperation,”http://www.asia-pacific.unsouthsouth.org/2019/03/pacific-consultation-on-south-south-cooperation-nadi-fiji-6-8-march-2019/.
(2)Elizabeth Havice and Liam Campling,“Are Pacific Island States Losing Their Rights to Tuna Resources?”https://www.soas.ac.uk/cdpr/publications/dv/file55529.pdf.
(3)又译“每船每日计划”、“船日计划”、“休渔期计划”、“渔船作业天数方案”、“渔船作业天数机制”等。参见“The PNA Vessel Day Scheme,”https://www.pnatuna.com/VDS。
(4)Transform Aqorau,“How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.229.
(5)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.316.
(1)Transform Aqorau et al.,“The Contribution of E-Government to Primary Industries and Rural Development in Pacific Island States,”in Rowena Cullen and Graham Hassall,eds.,Achieving Sustainable E-Government in Pacific Island States,Cham:Springer Nature,Springer International Publishing,2017,pp.258~263.
(2)Transform Aqorau,“How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.231~234.
(3)Jemima Garret,t“Pacific Island Nations Secure$90m Tuna Deal with United States,”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-08/pacific-island-nations-secure-$90m-tuna-deal-with-us/5799494.
(4)“PNA:2016 U.S.Treaty Deal Underlines Value of Pacific Fishery,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/278.
(5)PACNEWS,“‘Tuna Diplomacy’Is One of the Game-changers for the Pacific,”Nukualofa Times,December9,2018.
(6)“PNA Members Confirm:Vessel Day Scheme Is Here to Stay,”https://www.pnatuna.com/node/340.
(7)Ronald May,“The Melanesian Spearhead Group:Testing Pacific Island Solidarity,”pdf,pp.1~8.
(1)Gordon Nanau,“The Melanesian Spearhead Group and Pacific Regional Cooperation,”Pacific Studies,Vol.39,No.3,2016,pp.284~287.
(2)部分专属经济区与海洋权益划界存在争议。Asian Development Bank,“Pacific Economic Monitor(2016),”pdf,p.19.
(3)Tess Newton Cain,“Rebuild or Reform:Regional and Subregional Architecture in the Pacific Island Region,”pdf,p.55.
(4)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.319.
(1)DionisiaT abureguc,i“Intra-MSG Trade Grows,”http://www.islandsbusiness.com/archives/item/537-intramsg-trade-grows.html.
(2)中华人民共和国商务部:《美拉尼西亚先锋集团完成新的自由贸易协定谈判》,http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/i/jyjl/l/201605/20160501329471.shtml。
(3)Tess Newton Cain,“The Renaissance of the Melanesian Spearhead Group,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.156.
(4)“MSG Helps Micronesian States on Endeavour towards Closer Economic Integration,”http://www.pina.com.fj/?p=pacnews&m=read&o=1602344024542b5789295d578f36e3.
(5)Karen McN amara,“Voices from the Margins:Pacific Ambassadors and the Geopolitics of Marginality at the U-nited Nations,”Asia Pacific Viewpoint,Vol.50,No.1,2009,pp.1~12.
(6)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017,p.277.
(1)斐济在联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)、联合国环境署(UNEP)占有席位,还是联合国开发计划署(UNDP)、联合国人口基金(UNFPA)和联合国项目事务署(又译联合国项目事务厅,UNOPS)的执行局成员;斐济还和汤加同时是国际海底管理局(ISA)理事会成员;巴新是联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)和联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)执行局成员;所罗门群岛是联合国妇女署(UN Women)执行局成员;萨摩亚在儿童权利委员会(CRC)有一名专家。
(2)George Carter,“Establishing a Pacific Voice in the Climate Change Negotiations,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.205~222.
(3)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“The Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”http://www.forumsec.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/Framework-for-Pacific-Regionalism.pdf/.
(1)Dame Meg Taylor,“The Future of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.43~45.
(1)Dame Meg Taylor,“The Future of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.45~47.
(2)Sandra Tarte,“The Changing Paradigm of Pacific Regional Politics,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.5.
(3)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,p.33
(1)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,pp.321~322.
(2)Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,“The‘New Pacific Diplomacy’:An Introduction,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.6.
(3)上述对牛顿-凯恩的访谈。
(4)“Pacific Plan Review(2013):Report to Pacific Leaders,”pdf,p.55.
(5)作为地理意义上的东南亚国家,东帝汶近年来积极参与南太平洋地区事务。这也是南太平洋地区主义新发展的一个方面。
(6)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Voice?The Pacific Islands Development Forum,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.84.
(1)Transform Aqorau,“Why PNA is Succeeding,And the Look of Future Fisheries Management,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/362.
(2)Ian Frazer and Jenny Bryant-Tokalau,“Introduction:The Uncertain Future of Pacific Regionalism,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,p.12.
(3)先锋集团如其名称一样,希望成为推动整个地区主义与地区合作的“先锋”。参见Stephanie Lawson,“‘Melanesia’:The History and Politics of an Idea,”The Journal of Pacific History,Vol.48,No.1,2013,pp.1~22
(4)Francisco Blaha,“Capturing Economic Benefits from the Pacific's Tuna Resources,”http://www.franciscoblaha.info/blog/2016/8/8/capturing-economic-benefits-from-the-pacifics-tuna-resources.
(1)Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency,“Tuna Development Indicators 2016,”https://www.ffa.int/system/files/FFA%20Tuna%20Development%20Indicators%20Brochure.pdf.
(2)“History,”http://www.bsp.com.pg/About-Us/History.aspx.
(3)Nic Maclellan,“Pacific Diplomacy and Decolonisation in the 21st Century,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.263~281.
(4)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.322.
(1)弗莱将当前的地区主义发展形容为“夺回1971年的精神”,指的主要就是“太平洋方式”的复归和“集体外交”的重新兴起。Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”pdf,p.1.
(2)Transform Aqorau,“Why PNA is Succeeding,And the Look of Future Fisheries Management,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/362.
(3)“Pacific Islands Forum Chair Highlights Priorities for the Blue Pacific at the United Nations,”https://www.forumsec.org/pacific-islands-forum-chair-highlights-priorities-for-the-blue-pacific-at-the-united-nations/;《〈平潭宣言〉出炉!中国及岛屿国家将构建“蓝色伙伴关系”》,https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/bdzmg/ydylzbd/51228.htm。
(4)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“State of Pacific Regionalism:Report 2017,”pdf,pp.13~15;“Pacific Regionalism&The Blue Pacific,”https://www.forumsec.org/pacific-regionalism/.
(5)Kaliopate Tavola,“Towards a New Regional Diplomacy Architecture,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.27~38.
(1)Joanne Wallis,Crowded and Complex:The Changing Geopolitics of the South Pacific,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2017,p.9.
(1)Yoram Barzel,Economic Analysis of Property Rights,New York:Cambridge University Press,1989,pp.2~3.
(2)[新]杨杰生:《太平洋多层次地区主义:寻找合作点》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第122页。
(3)Wang Shiming,“General Review on the Process of Australia's Participation in Reginonal Cooperation with the Pacific Island Countries,”in Yu Changsen,ed.,Regionalism in South Pacific,Beijing:Social Science Academic Press,2018,p.39~42.
(4)[新]杨杰生:《太平洋多层次地区主义:寻找合作点》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第117页。
(5)[美]斯蒂芬·范埃弗拉著,陈琪译:《政治学研究方法指南》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第8~9页、第19页。
(1)地区主义理论界学者弗雷德里克·索德伯姆(Fredrick S9derbaum)将地区主义理论发展概括为早期地区主义、旧地区主义、新地区主义和比较地区主义4个阶段。参见Fredrick S?derbaum,“Old,New,and Comparative Regionalism:The History and Scholarly Development of the Field,”in Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,eds.,The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,pp.16~38.
(2)杜起文:《关于太平洋岛国地区形势和中太关系的几点看法》,载陈德正主编:《太平洋岛国研究》(第一辑),社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第4页。
(1)小约瑟夫·奈(Joseph S.Nye)将“地区”界定为“由地缘关系和相互依赖程度联系起来的一定数量的国家”,这一定义被广为接受,参见Joseph S.Nye,“Introduction,”in Joseph S.Nye,ed.,International Regionalism:Readings,Boston:Little,Brown and Company,1968,p.vi.在国际关系研究的中文语境中,“地区”与“区域”同义,都对应英文中的“Region”。
(2)参见徐秀军:《地区主义与南太平洋地区秩序的构建》,华中师范大学博士学位论文2009年6月,第2页。
(3)广义定义与狭义定义之间最核心的区别就是澳大利亚、新西兰是否属于南太平洋地区,以及南太平洋地区是否包括未独立的太平洋岛屿。对此较为透彻的列举式定义参见Kennedy Graham,“Models of Regional Governance:Is There a Choice for the Pacific,”in Kennedy Graham,ed.,Models of Regional Governance for the Pacific:Sovereignty and the Future Architecture of Regionalism,Christchurch:Canterbury University Press,2008,pp.23~26.其中,作者将南太平洋地区做了三重界定:澳大利亚、新西兰与太平洋岛国;新西兰与太平洋岛国(不包括澳大利亚);太平洋岛国(不包括澳大利亚、新西兰)。国内学界对南太平洋地区和太平洋岛国的内涵与外延的不同界定,参见汪诗明、王艳芬:《如何界定太平洋岛屿国家》,《太平洋学报》2014年第11期,第1~8页。
(4)本文指的是太平洋岛国论坛(PIF)成员中的主权国家,包括帕劳、密克罗尼西亚联邦(密联邦)、马绍尔群岛、基里巴斯、瑙鲁、巴布亚新几内亚(巴新)、所罗门群岛、瓦努阿图、斐济、图瓦卢、汤加、萨摩亚、库克群岛、纽埃。日本、菲律宾等太平洋上的岛国并不属于太平洋岛国的范畴。2016年,法属波利尼西亚和新喀里多尼亚成为太平洋岛国论坛正式成员,但因其尚未独立拥有主权,因此不包含在本文对南太平洋地区的严格定义中,虽然这些未独立的太平洋岛屿本身也是南太平洋地区政治活动中的重要行为体与议题。
(5)梁甲瑞:《中美南太平洋地区合作:基于维护海上战略通道安全的视角》,中国社会科学出版社2018年版,第1~2页。
(6)Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,“Introduction:Framework of the Handbook and Conceptual Clarifications,”in Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,eds.,The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,p.7.
(1)关于国内南太平洋地区研究的最新梳理,参见王作成、孙雪岩:《20世纪以来中国的太平洋岛国研究综述》,《太平洋学报》2014年第11期,第9~15页;汪诗明:《国内太平洋岛屿国家研究趋势前瞻》,《太平洋学报》2017年第9期,第86~95页。
(2)吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第105~111页。
(3)吕桂霞、张登华:《太平洋岛国地区气候变化现状及各方的应对》,《学海》2017年第6期,第59~62页;梁甲瑞、曲升:《全球海洋治理视域下的南太平洋地区海洋治理》,《太平洋学报》2018年第4期,第48~64页;曲升:《近年来太平洋岛屿区域海洋治理的新动向和优先事项》,载陈德正主编:《太平洋岛国研究》(第二辑),社会科学文献出版社2018年版,第47~68页。
(4)该工作坊的部分成果集中发表在喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版。
(5)例如,张剑从澳大利亚的角度,将本文定义的南太平洋地区主义新发展描述为斐济、巴新等国“在地区事务中日益表示了希望有更多发言权及影响力的要求”。这种描述没有概括南太平洋地区主义新发展的实质。详见[澳]张剑:《澳大利亚对太平洋地区合作政策的演变及面临的新挑战》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第126~137页。
(1)Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin,Our Near Abroad:Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2011,pp.1~3.
(2)Joanne Wallis,Crowded and Complex:The Changing Geopolitics of the South Pacific,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2017,pp.15~19.
(3)Stephanie Lawson,“Regionalism,Sub-regionalism and the Politics of Identity in Oceania,”The Pacific Review,Vol.29,No.3,2016,pp.387~409;Tess Newton Cain,“Rebuild or Reform:Regional and Subregional Architecture in the Pacific Island Region,”Le Journal de la Sociétédes Océanistes[Enligne],Vol.140,No.6,2015,pp.49~58.
(4)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,pp.155~164.
(5)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,pp.20~37.
(6)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017.
(1)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,p.20.
(2)Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”http://ssgm.bellschool.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/2015-12/DP-2015-3-Fry-ONLINE_0.pdf.
(3)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.155.
(4)笔者在本文写作期间赴斐济、萨摩亚和新西兰实地调研,受邀参加了新西兰太平洋研究所(NZIPR)举办的“海洋与岛屿”研讨会、聊城大学与萨摩亚国立大学(NUS)举办的“第三届中国太平洋岛国研究高层论坛”和新西兰维多利亚大学举办的“中印在南太平洋”研讨会等,并对参与《太平洋地区主义框架》制定过程的专家进行了访谈。
(5)极少数将南太平洋地区纳入地区主义研究著作的例子参见Gregory E.Fry,“International Cooperation in the South Pacific:From Regional Integration to Collective Diplomacy,”in W.Andrew Axline,ed.,The Political Economy of Regional Cooperation:Comparative Case Studies,London:Pinter Publishers,1994,pp.136~177;Kate Stone,“Oceania:A Critical Regionalism Challenging the Foreign Definition of Pacific Identities in Pursuit of Decolonised Destinies,”in Timothy Shaw,Andrew Grant and Scarlett Cornelissen,eds.,The Ashgate Research Companion to Regionalisms,Surrey:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2011,pp.257~272;Tiru Jayaraman,“Regional Integration in the Pacific,”in Emmanuel Fanta,Timothy Shaw and Vanessa Tang,eds.,Comparative Regionalisms for Development in the 21st Century,Surrey:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2013,pp.103~125。
(1)参见梁甲瑞:《日本南太地区战略调整及对中国的影响》,《国际关系研究》2015年第5期,第108~126页;梁甲瑞:《海上战略通道视角下中国南太地区的海洋战略》,《世界经济与政治论坛》2016年第3期,第47~60页。
(2)库克群岛总理亨利·普纳(Henry Puna)是最早提出这一概念的太平洋岛国领导人之一。参见Hon.Henry Puna,“Thinking‘Outside the Rocks’:Reimagining the Pacific,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.286~287。
(3)陈晓晨、常玉迪:《中国与太平洋岛国共建“一带一路”:价值、瓶颈与举措》,《祖国》2019年第8期,第31页。
(4)中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会、商务部、外交部:《共建丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路的愿景与行动》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2015-03/28/c_1114793986.htm。2017年5月,中国政府将大洋洲定位为“21世纪海上丝绸之路”的南向延伸地区,并明确太平洋岛国是重要组成部分。参见推进“一带一路”建设工作领导小组办公室:《共建“一带一路”:理念、实践与中国的贡献》,http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/2017-05/10/c_1120951928.htm;刘伟主编:《读懂“一带一路”蓝图:〈共建“一带一路”:理念、实践与中国的贡献〉详解》,商务印书馆2017年版。
(5)2016年,中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会对“‘一带一路’专项课题---21世纪海上丝绸之路南太平洋方向建设路径研究”进行了公开征集,参见中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会:《“一带一路”建设2016年专项课题入选单位公告》,http://www.ndrc.gov.cn/gzdt/201607/t20160721_811799.html。其中第7号课题“21世纪海上丝绸之路南太平洋方向建设路径研究”由笔者供职机构中国人民大学重阳金融研究院承担。
(6)新华社:《习近平同建交太平洋岛国领导人举行集体会晤并发表主旨讲话》,http://www.xinhuanet.com//world/2018-11/16/c_1123726560.htm。
(1)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“Pacific Plan Review(2013):Report to Pacific Leaders,”pdf,p.141.
(1)Phillippe de Lombaerde,“Introduction and Summary,”in Phillipe de Lombaerde,ed.,Assessment and Measurement of Regional Integration,New York:Routledge,2006,pp.1~6.
(2)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,pp.158~15
(1)徐秀军:《地区主义与地区秩序:以南太平洋地区为例》,社会科学文献出版社2013年版,第83~90页。
(2)太平洋岛国论坛的前身。
(3)Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”pdf,p.5.
(4)Stewart Firth,“The New Regionalism and its Contradictions,”in Greg Fry and Tarcisius Tara Kabutaulaka,eds.,Intervention and State-Building in the Pacific:The Legitimacy of‘Cooperative Intervention’,Manchester:Manchester University Press,2008,pp.119~134.
(1)包括韩锋、赵江林:《巴布亚新几内亚》,社会科学文献出版社2012年版;吕桂霞:《斐济》,社会科学文献出版社2015年版;王敬媛、陈万会:《汤加》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版;赵少峰:《瑙鲁》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版等。
(1)Elise Huffer,“The Pacific Plan:A Political and Cultural Critique,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,pp.157~174。这本书的编者也对此表达了担忧,认为南太平洋地区主义面临“不确定的未来”。详见Ian Frazer and Jenny Bryant-Tokalau,“Introduction:The Uncertain Future of Pacific Regionalism,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,pp.1~24。“太平洋方式”首次由斐济独立后的首任总理拉图·卡米塞塞·马拉在1970年联合国大会上提出,原文参见Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara,The Pacific Way:A Memoir,Honolulu:University of Hawai'I Press,1997,pp.237~241.南太平洋地区研究学者迈克尔·哈斯(Michael Haas)将其概括为6大方面:“太平洋问题、太平洋解决”(Pacific Solutions to Pacific Problems)、“文化平等”(Equality of Cultures)、“达成一致的妥协”(Unanimous Compromise)、“政治目标优先”(Primacy of Political Goals)、“泛太平洋精神”(Pan-Pacific Spirit)、“乐观的渐进主义”(Optimistic Incrementalism)。参见Michael Haas,The Pacific Way:Regional Cooperation in the South Pacific,New York:Praeger Publishers,1989,pp.10~13。
(2)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.315.
(3)参见笔者当时对太平洋岛国图瓦卢气候谈判首席代表伊恩·弗莱(Ian Fry)的采访。陈晓晨:《图瓦卢:现有的承诺远远不够》,《第一财经日报》2010年10月13日,A10版。
(4)2014年通过的《太平洋地区主义框架》开篇即明确提出,该框架“替代”《太平洋计划》。参见Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“The Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”pdf,p.1.
(1)Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin,Our Near Abroad:Australia and Pacific Islands Regionalism,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2011,p.52.
(2)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.156.
(1)Tim Bryar and Anna Naupa,“The Shifting Tides of Pacific Regionalism,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.162.
(2)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017,p.295.
(3)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Regional Voice?An Observer's Perspective on the Pacific Islands Development Forum(PIDF),Inaugural Summit,Denarau,Fiji,5~7 August 2013,”pdf,p.1。但也有瓦努阿图方面对斐济的看法等复杂原因。
(4)吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第107页。
(1)Stephanie Lawson,“Regionalism,Sub-regionalism and the Politics of Identity in Oceania,”The Pacific Review,Vol.29,No.3,2016,p.400.
(2)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Regional Voice?The Pacific Islands Development Forum,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.84.
(3)Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,“The‘New Pacific Diplomacy’:An Introduction,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.8~9;吕桂霞:《全球化、区域化与太平洋岛国发展论坛》,《历史教学问题》2018年第4期,第110~111页。
(4)Nitish Narayan,“UN Admits PIDF as Official Observer to the UN General Assembly,”http://pacificidf.org/un-admits-pidf-as-official-observer-to-the-un-general-assembly/.
(1)“Pacific Consultation on South-South Cooperation,”http://www.asia-pacific.unsouthsouth.org/2019/03/pacific-consultation-on-south-south-cooperation-nadi-fiji-6-8-march-2019/.
(2)Elizabeth Havice and Liam Campling,“Are Pacific Island States Losing Their Rights to Tuna Resources?”https://www.soas.ac.uk/cdpr/publications/dv/file55529.pdf.
(3)又译“每船每日计划”、“船日计划”、“休渔期计划”、“渔船作业天数方案”、“渔船作业天数机制”等。参见“The PNA Vessel Day Scheme,”https://www.pnatuna.com/VDS。
(4)Transform Aqorau,“How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.229.
(5)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.316.
(1)Transform Aqorau et al.,“The Contribution of E-Government to Primary Industries and Rural Development in Pacific Island States,”in Rowena Cullen and Graham Hassall,eds.,Achieving Sustainable E-Government in Pacific Island States,Cham:Springer Nature,Springer International Publishing,2017,pp.258~263.
(2)Transform Aqorau,“How Tuna is Shaping Regional Diplomacy,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.231~234.
(3)Jemima Garret,t“Pacific Island Nations Secure$90m Tuna Deal with United States,”https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-08/pacific-island-nations-secure-$90m-tuna-deal-with-us/5799494.
(4)“PNA:2016 U.S.Treaty Deal Underlines Value of Pacific Fishery,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/278.
(5)PACNEWS,“‘Tuna Diplomacy’Is One of the Game-changers for the Pacific,”Nukualofa Times,December9,2018.
(6)“PNA Members Confirm:Vessel Day Scheme Is Here to Stay,”https://www.pnatuna.com/node/340.
(7)Ronald May,“The Melanesian Spearhead Group:Testing Pacific Island Solidarity,”pdf,pp.1~8.
(1)Gordon Nanau,“The Melanesian Spearhead Group and Pacific Regional Cooperation,”Pacific Studies,Vol.39,No.3,2016,pp.284~287.
(2)部分专属经济区与海洋权益划界存在争议。Asian Development Bank,“Pacific Economic Monitor(2016),”pdf,p.19.
(3)Tess Newton Cain,“Rebuild or Reform:Regional and Subregional Architecture in the Pacific Island Region,”pdf,p.55.
(4)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.319.
(1)DionisiaT abureguc,i“Intra-MSG Trade Grows,”http://www.islandsbusiness.com/archives/item/537-intramsg-trade-grows.html.
(2)中华人民共和国商务部:《美拉尼西亚先锋集团完成新的自由贸易协定谈判》,http://www.mofcom.gov.cn/article/i/jyjl/l/201605/20160501329471.shtml。
(3)Tess Newton Cain,“The Renaissance of the Melanesian Spearhead Group,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.156.
(4)“MSG Helps Micronesian States on Endeavour towards Closer Economic Integration,”http://www.pina.com.fj/?p=pacnews&m=read&o=1602344024542b5789295d578f36e3.
(5)Karen McN amara,“Voices from the Margins:Pacific Ambassadors and the Geopolitics of Marginality at the U-nited Nations,”Asia Pacific Viewpoint,Vol.50,No.1,2009,pp.1~12.
(6)Joanne Wallis,Pacific Power?Australia's Strategy in the Pacific Islands,Melbourne:Melbourne University Publishing Limited,2017,p.277.
(1)斐济在联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)、联合国环境署(UNEP)占有席位,还是联合国开发计划署(UNDP)、联合国人口基金(UNFPA)和联合国项目事务署(又译联合国项目事务厅,UNOPS)的执行局成员;斐济还和汤加同时是国际海底管理局(ISA)理事会成员;巴新是联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)和联合国教科文组织(UNESCO)执行局成员;所罗门群岛是联合国妇女署(UN Women)执行局成员;萨摩亚在儿童权利委员会(CRC)有一名专家。
(2)George Carter,“Establishing a Pacific Voice in the Climate Change Negotiations,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.205~222.
(3)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“The Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”http://www.forumsec.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/Framework-for-Pacific-Regionalism.pdf/.
(1)Dame Meg Taylor,“The Future of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.43~45.
(1)Dame Meg Taylor,“The Future of the Pacific Islands Forum and the Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.45~47.
(2)Sandra Tarte,“The Changing Paradigm of Pacific Regional Politics,”The Round Table,Vol.106,No.2,2017,p.5.
(3)Helen Leslie and Kirsty Wild,“Post-hegemonic Regionalism in Oceania:Examining the Development Potential of the New Framework for Pacific Regionalism,”The Pacific Review,Vol.31,No.1,2018,p.33
(1)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,pp.321~322.
(2)Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,“The‘New Pacific Diplomacy’:An Introduction,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.6.
(3)上述对牛顿-凯恩的访谈。
(4)“Pacific Plan Review(2013):Report to Pacific Leaders,”pdf,p.55.
(5)作为地理意义上的东南亚国家,东帝汶近年来积极参与南太平洋地区事务。这也是南太平洋地区主义新发展的一个方面。
(6)Sandra Tarte,“A New Pacific Voice?The Pacific Islands Development Forum,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,p.84.
(1)Transform Aqorau,“Why PNA is Succeeding,And the Look of Future Fisheries Management,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/362.
(2)Ian Frazer and Jenny Bryant-Tokalau,“Introduction:The Uncertain Future of Pacific Regionalism,”in Jenny Bryant-Tokalau and Ian Frazer,eds.,Redefining the Pacific?Regionalism Past,Present and Future,Aldershot:Ashgate Publishing Limited,2006,p.12.
(3)先锋集团如其名称一样,希望成为推动整个地区主义与地区合作的“先锋”。参见Stephanie Lawson,“‘Melanesia’:The History and Politics of an Idea,”The Journal of Pacific History,Vol.48,No.1,2013,pp.1~22
(4)Francisco Blaha,“Capturing Economic Benefits from the Pacific's Tuna Resources,”http://www.franciscoblaha.info/blog/2016/8/8/capturing-economic-benefits-from-the-pacifics-tuna-resources.
(1)Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency,“Tuna Development Indicators 2016,”https://www.ffa.int/system/files/FFA%20Tuna%20Development%20Indicators%20Brochure.pdf.
(2)“History,”http://www.bsp.com.pg/About-Us/History.aspx.
(3)Nic Maclellan,“Pacific Diplomacy and Decolonisation in the 21st Century,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.263~281.
(4)Sandra Tarte,“Regionalism and Changing Regional Order in the Pacific Islands,”pdf,p.322.
(1)弗莱将当前的地区主义发展形容为“夺回1971年的精神”,指的主要就是“太平洋方式”的复归和“集体外交”的重新兴起。Greg Fry,“Recapturing the Spirit of 1971:Towards a New Regional Political Settlement in the Pacific,”pdf,p.1.
(2)Transform Aqorau,“Why PNA is Succeeding,And the Look of Future Fisheries Management,”http://www.pnatuna.com/node/362.
(3)“Pacific Islands Forum Chair Highlights Priorities for the Blue Pacific at the United Nations,”https://www.forumsec.org/pacific-islands-forum-chair-highlights-priorities-for-the-blue-pacific-at-the-united-nations/;《〈平潭宣言〉出炉!中国及岛屿国家将构建“蓝色伙伴关系”》,https://www.yidaiyilu.gov.cn/bdzmg/ydylzbd/51228.htm。
(4)Pacific Islands Forum Secretaria,t“State of Pacific Regionalism:Report 2017,”pdf,pp.13~15;“Pacific Regionalism&The Blue Pacific,”https://www.forumsec.org/pacific-regionalism/.
(5)Kaliopate Tavola,“Towards a New Regional Diplomacy Architecture,”in Greg Fry and Sandra Tarte,eds.,The New Pacific Diplomacy,Australian National University Press,2015,pp.27~38.
(1)Joanne Wallis,Crowded and Complex:The Changing Geopolitics of the South Pacific,Barton:The Australian Strategic Policy Institute Limited,2017,p.9.
(1)Yoram Barzel,Economic Analysis of Property Rights,New York:Cambridge University Press,1989,pp.2~3.
(2)[新]杨杰生:《太平洋多层次地区主义:寻找合作点》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第122页。
(3)Wang Shiming,“General Review on the Process of Australia's Participation in Reginonal Cooperation with the Pacific Island Countries,”in Yu Changsen,ed.,Regionalism in South Pacific,Beijing:Social Science Academic Press,2018,p.39~42.
(4)[新]杨杰生:《太平洋多层次地区主义:寻找合作点》,载喻常森主编:《大洋洲发展报告(2016~2017):全球治理框架下的大洋洲区域合作》,社会科学文献出版社2017年版,第117页。
(5)[美]斯蒂芬·范埃弗拉著,陈琪译:《政治学研究方法指南》,北京大学出版社2006年版,第8~9页、第19页。
(1)地区主义理论界学者弗雷德里克·索德伯姆(Fredrick S9derbaum)将地区主义理论发展概括为早期地区主义、旧地区主义、新地区主义和比较地区主义4个阶段。参见Fredrick S?derbaum,“Old,New,and Comparative Regionalism:The History and Scholarly Development of the Field,”in Tanja A.B9rzel and Thomas Risse,eds.,The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,pp.16~38.