论印度对外干预——以印度介入斯里兰卡民族冲突为例
|
摘要
印度是地区性强国中具有对外干预传统的国家。作为南亚地区实力最强大的国家,印度极力塑造"以印度为中心的南亚秩序"。一方面印度排斥区域外国家介入南亚地区事务,另一方面对本地区国家实施了不同程度的控制和影响。多数印度周边国家曾被其干预过内部事务,甚至被施加过直接的军事干预。在印度众多对外干预记录中,其对斯里兰卡民族冲突干预的时间之长、介入程度之深、政策演变之复杂均具有代表性。在印度干预斯里兰卡民族冲突的过程中,由于斯里兰卡民族冲突的复杂性超出了印度的干预能力,使其遇到严峻挑战,被迫多次调整干预政策,并一度退出对斯里兰卡民族冲突的介入。本文以印度干预斯里兰卡民族冲突为案例,探讨印度这样的地区性强国的对外干预理念、干预政策与干预行为。
India is a major regional power with a tradition of foreign interventionism.As the most powerful state in Asia,India has worked to mold a South Asian order centered around its interests.On the one hand,India has prevented states from outside the region from intervening in South Asian regional affairs.On the other hand,it has also exerted different levels of control and influence on the other states of the region.Most of India's neighboring countries have been the targets of Indian interference in their internal affairs,or have even faced a direct military intervention from India.In terms of India's history of foreign interventions,its most prolonged,deepest and most sophisticated involvement from an evolutionary policy standpoint was that in the Sri Lankan conflict.In the course of its intervention in the Sri Lankan conflict,as the complexity of the conflict far exceeded India's capacity to Interfere,India faced a serious challenge,and was forced to shift its mode of intervention on numerous occasions,and to finally withdraw.Based on a case study of India's interference in the Sri Lankan conflict,this article considers the Indian concept of foreign intervention,as well as its relevant policies and behaviors as a major regional power.
India is a major regional power with a tradition of foreign interventionism.As the most powerful state in Asia,India has worked to mold a South Asian order centered around its interests.On the one hand,India has prevented states from outside the region from intervening in South Asian regional affairs.On the other hand,it has also exerted different levels of control and influence on the other states of the region.Most of India's neighboring countries have been the targets of Indian interference in their internal affairs,or have even faced a direct military intervention from India.In terms of India's history of foreign interventions,its most prolonged,deepest and most sophisticated involvement from an evolutionary policy standpoint was that in the Sri Lankan conflict.In the course of its intervention in the Sri Lankan conflict,as the complexity of the conflict far exceeded India's capacity to Interfere,India faced a serious challenge,and was forced to shift its mode of intervention on numerous occasions,and to finally withdraw.Based on a case study of India's interference in the Sri Lankan conflict,this article considers the Indian concept of foreign intervention,as well as its relevant policies and behaviors as a major regional power.
引文
(1)张家栋:《印度独立以来的周边外交:野心、手腕与现实的碰撞》,澎湃新闻,2017年7月22日。http://www.thepaper.cn/newsD etail_forward_1738290
(2)时殷弘:《论人道主义干涉及其严格限制---兼武装干涉利比亚批判》,载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第2页。
(3)James N.Rosenau,“Intervention as a Scientific Concept,”Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.13,No.2,1969,p.159.
(4)Max Hilaire,“Internationale Law and the United States Military Intervention in the Western Hemisphere,”American Journal of International Law,Vol.92,No.3,1998,p.4.
(1)时殷弘:《国际政治中的对外干预---兼论冷战后美国的对外干预》,《美国研究》,1996年第4期,第111页。
(2)张蕴岭:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第1页。
(3)Randall Schweller,“Bandwagoning for Profit:Bring the Revisionist State Back in,”International Security,Vol.19,No.1,1994,pp.72-107.
(4)Alexander Wendt and Daniel Friedheim,“Hierarchy under Anarchy:Informal Empire and the East German State,”International Organization,Vol.49,No.4,1995,pp.703-705.
(5)David Rapkin,“Empire and Its Discontents,”New Politics Economy,Vol.10,No.3,2005,pp.400-401.
(6)漆海霞:《冷战后美国均势干预的动因分析》,载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,第64~85页。
(1)Thomas G.Weiss,Humanitarian Intervention:Ideas in Action(Cambridge:Polity,2007),p.18.
(2)D.Chatterjee and D.Scheid,Ethics and Foreign Intervention(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003);Gareth Evans,The Responsibility to Protect:Ending Mass Crimes Once for All(Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2008);Cristina Gabriela Badescu,Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect:Security and Human Rights(Abingdon:Routledge,2011);刘波:《秩序与正义之间:国际社会人道主义干预问题研究》,北京,中国社会出版社,2011年版;黄海涛:《干涉的悖论:冷战后人道主义干涉研究》,天津,南开大学出版社,2015年版。
(3)周弘:《论人道主义干涉及其严格限制---兼武装干涉利比亚批判》(序言),载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,第7页。
(4)Delef Nolte,“How to Compare Regional Power:Analytical Concepts and Research Topics,”Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,Oct.2010,pp.889-893.
(1)Kanti Bajpa,i“Managing Conflict in South Asia,”in Paul Diehl and Joseph Lepgold eds.,Regional Conflict Management(Lanham:Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,2003),p.212.
(2)Marian Prys,“Hegemony,Domination,Detachment:Differences in Regional Powerhood,”Review of International Studies,Vol.12,No.4,Dec.2010,pp.479-504;Sandra Destrad,i“Regional Power and their Strategies:Empire,Hegemony,and Leadership,”Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,Oct.2010,pp.903-930.
(3)Stefan Schirm,“Leaders in Need of Followers:Emerging Powers in Global Governance,”European Journal of International Relations,Vol.16,No.2,June 2010,pp.197-221;Daniel Flemes and Thorsten Wojczewsk,i“Contested Leadership in International Relations:Power Politics in South America,South Asia,and Sub-Saharan Africa,”GIGA Working Papers,February 2010.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1547773_code634010.pdf
(4)Derrick Frazier and Robert Stewart-Ingersol,l“Regional Power and Security:A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Order within Regional Security Complexes,”European Journal of International Relations,Vol.14,No.6,Dec.2010,pp.1-23.
(5)马加力:《印斯和平协议的前前后后》,《南亚研究季刊》,1988年第3期,第57~60页。
(6)易玲:《印度1980年代的斯里兰卡政策与“泰米尔问题”》,《南亚研究季刊》,2006年第1期,第93~99页。
(1)邓刚:《斯里兰卡民族冲突中的印度因素》,《经营管理者》,2009年第21期,第248页。
(2)《斯里兰卡国家概况》,中华人民共和国外交部网站。http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_676205/1206_676884/1206x0_676886/
(1)张位均:《斯里兰卡民族问题之来龙去脉》,《当代亚太》,1998年第8期,第50~53页。
(2)[斯]穆罕默德·伊姆提亚兹、王勇:《斯里兰卡民族冲突析论》,《南京大学学报》(哲学、人文科学、社会科学版),2000年第5期,第81页。
(3)[德]马歇尔·R.辛格、马宁:《斯里兰卡泰米尔人与僧伽罗人的民族冲突》,《世界民族》,1993年第6期,第22~26页。
(1)Sandra Destarad,“India and Sri Lanka’s Civil War:The Failure of Regional Conflict Management in South Asia,”Asian Survey,Vol.52,No.3,2012,p.600.
(1)张家栋:《印度独立以来的周边外交:野心、手腕与现实的碰撞》。
(2)马孆:《冷战后印度南亚政策的变化》,《当代亚太》,2004年第5期,第19页。
(3)Stephen Philip Cohen,India:Emerging Power(Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2001),pp.137-138.
(1)张威:《印度对斯里兰卡内战政策的演变(1983~1990)》,《北京教育学院学报》,2014年第6期,第19页。
(2)Shelton Kodikara ed.,South Asian Strategic Issues:Sri Lanka Perspectives(New Delhi:Sage Publications,1990),p.18.
(3)Narayan Swamy,Tigers of Lanka:From Boys to Guerrillas(New Delhi:Konark Publishers,2002),p.112.
(1)马加力:《印斯和平协议的前前后后》,第57页。
(2)Shelton Kodikara ed.,South Asian Strategic Issues:Sri Lanka Perspectives,p.18.
(1)Jaswant Singh,Defending India(New Delhi:St.Martin’s Press,1999),p.238.
(2)楠雅:《斯印和平协议签署前后》,《瞭望》,1987年第35期,第34页。
(1)P.A.Ghost,Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Role of India Peace Keeping Force(New Delhi:A.P.H.Publishing Corporation,1999),p.145.
(1)J.N.Dixit,Makers of India’s Foreign Policy(New Delhi:Harper Collins Publishers,2004),p.144.
(2)黄正多:《古杰拉尔主义及其对印度外交的影响》,《南亚研究季刊》,2005年第4期,第56页。
(3)辉明:《冷战后印斯关系的变化》,《当代亚太》,2005年第1期,第52页。
(4)黄德凯、徐秀良:《印度-斯里兰卡海洋渔业争端探析》,《边界与海洋研究》,2016年第3期,第116~119页。
(1)《莫迪政府对斯政策走向何方》,中国日报网,2014年7月3日。http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqgj/jryw/2014-07-03/content_11940229.html
(2)《专家:莫迪不会改变印度外交政策的基本面》,新华网,2014年5月28日。http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-05/28/c_126556115_2.htm
(1)P.Venkateshwar Rao,“Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka:India’s Role and Perception,”Asian Survey,Vol.28,No.4,1998,p.422.
(2)时殷弘:《论人道主义干涉及其严格限制---兼武装干涉利比亚批判》,载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第2页。
(3)James N.Rosenau,“Intervention as a Scientific Concept,”Journal of Conflict Resolution,Vol.13,No.2,1969,p.159.
(4)Max Hilaire,“Internationale Law and the United States Military Intervention in the Western Hemisphere,”American Journal of International Law,Vol.92,No.3,1998,p.4.
(1)时殷弘:《国际政治中的对外干预---兼论冷战后美国的对外干预》,《美国研究》,1996年第4期,第111页。
(2)张蕴岭:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,北京,社会科学文献出版社,2012年版,第1页。
(3)Randall Schweller,“Bandwagoning for Profit:Bring the Revisionist State Back in,”International Security,Vol.19,No.1,1994,pp.72-107.
(4)Alexander Wendt and Daniel Friedheim,“Hierarchy under Anarchy:Informal Empire and the East German State,”International Organization,Vol.49,No.4,1995,pp.703-705.
(5)David Rapkin,“Empire and Its Discontents,”New Politics Economy,Vol.10,No.3,2005,pp.400-401.
(6)漆海霞:《冷战后美国均势干预的动因分析》,载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,第64~85页。
(1)Thomas G.Weiss,Humanitarian Intervention:Ideas in Action(Cambridge:Polity,2007),p.18.
(2)D.Chatterjee and D.Scheid,Ethics and Foreign Intervention(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2003);Gareth Evans,The Responsibility to Protect:Ending Mass Crimes Once for All(Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2008);Cristina Gabriela Badescu,Humanitarian Intervention and Responsibility to Protect:Security and Human Rights(Abingdon:Routledge,2011);刘波:《秩序与正义之间:国际社会人道主义干预问题研究》,北京,中国社会出版社,2011年版;黄海涛:《干涉的悖论:冷战后人道主义干涉研究》,天津,南开大学出版社,2015年版。
(3)周弘:《论人道主义干涉及其严格限制---兼武装干涉利比亚批判》(序言),载张蕴岭主编:《西方新国际干预的理论与现实》,第7页。
(4)Delef Nolte,“How to Compare Regional Power:Analytical Concepts and Research Topics,”Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,Oct.2010,pp.889-893.
(1)Kanti Bajpa,i“Managing Conflict in South Asia,”in Paul Diehl and Joseph Lepgold eds.,Regional Conflict Management(Lanham:Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,2003),p.212.
(2)Marian Prys,“Hegemony,Domination,Detachment:Differences in Regional Powerhood,”Review of International Studies,Vol.12,No.4,Dec.2010,pp.479-504;Sandra Destrad,i“Regional Power and their Strategies:Empire,Hegemony,and Leadership,”Review of International Studies,Vol.36,No.4,Oct.2010,pp.903-930.
(3)Stefan Schirm,“Leaders in Need of Followers:Emerging Powers in Global Governance,”European Journal of International Relations,Vol.16,No.2,June 2010,pp.197-221;Daniel Flemes and Thorsten Wojczewsk,i“Contested Leadership in International Relations:Power Politics in South America,South Asia,and Sub-Saharan Africa,”GIGA Working Papers,February 2010.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1547773_code634010.pdf
(4)Derrick Frazier and Robert Stewart-Ingersol,l“Regional Power and Security:A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Order within Regional Security Complexes,”European Journal of International Relations,Vol.14,No.6,Dec.2010,pp.1-23.
(5)马加力:《印斯和平协议的前前后后》,《南亚研究季刊》,1988年第3期,第57~60页。
(6)易玲:《印度1980年代的斯里兰卡政策与“泰米尔问题”》,《南亚研究季刊》,2006年第1期,第93~99页。
(1)邓刚:《斯里兰卡民族冲突中的印度因素》,《经营管理者》,2009年第21期,第248页。
(2)《斯里兰卡国家概况》,中华人民共和国外交部网站。http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/gjhdq_676201/gj_676203/yz_676205/1206_676884/1206x0_676886/
(1)张位均:《斯里兰卡民族问题之来龙去脉》,《当代亚太》,1998年第8期,第50~53页。
(2)[斯]穆罕默德·伊姆提亚兹、王勇:《斯里兰卡民族冲突析论》,《南京大学学报》(哲学、人文科学、社会科学版),2000年第5期,第81页。
(3)[德]马歇尔·R.辛格、马宁:《斯里兰卡泰米尔人与僧伽罗人的民族冲突》,《世界民族》,1993年第6期,第22~26页。
(1)Sandra Destarad,“India and Sri Lanka’s Civil War:The Failure of Regional Conflict Management in South Asia,”Asian Survey,Vol.52,No.3,2012,p.600.
(1)张家栋:《印度独立以来的周边外交:野心、手腕与现实的碰撞》。
(2)马孆:《冷战后印度南亚政策的变化》,《当代亚太》,2004年第5期,第19页。
(3)Stephen Philip Cohen,India:Emerging Power(Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,2001),pp.137-138.
(1)张威:《印度对斯里兰卡内战政策的演变(1983~1990)》,《北京教育学院学报》,2014年第6期,第19页。
(2)Shelton Kodikara ed.,South Asian Strategic Issues:Sri Lanka Perspectives(New Delhi:Sage Publications,1990),p.18.
(3)Narayan Swamy,Tigers of Lanka:From Boys to Guerrillas(New Delhi:Konark Publishers,2002),p.112.
(1)马加力:《印斯和平协议的前前后后》,第57页。
(2)Shelton Kodikara ed.,South Asian Strategic Issues:Sri Lanka Perspectives,p.18.
(1)Jaswant Singh,Defending India(New Delhi:St.Martin’s Press,1999),p.238.
(2)楠雅:《斯印和平协议签署前后》,《瞭望》,1987年第35期,第34页。
(1)P.A.Ghost,Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Role of India Peace Keeping Force(New Delhi:A.P.H.Publishing Corporation,1999),p.145.
(1)J.N.Dixit,Makers of India’s Foreign Policy(New Delhi:Harper Collins Publishers,2004),p.144.
(2)黄正多:《古杰拉尔主义及其对印度外交的影响》,《南亚研究季刊》,2005年第4期,第56页。
(3)辉明:《冷战后印斯关系的变化》,《当代亚太》,2005年第1期,第52页。
(4)黄德凯、徐秀良:《印度-斯里兰卡海洋渔业争端探析》,《边界与海洋研究》,2016年第3期,第116~119页。
(1)《莫迪政府对斯政策走向何方》,中国日报网,2014年7月3日。http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hqgj/jryw/2014-07-03/content_11940229.html
(2)《专家:莫迪不会改变印度外交政策的基本面》,新华网,2014年5月28日。http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2014-05/28/c_126556115_2.htm
(1)P.Venkateshwar Rao,“Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka:India’s Role and Perception,”Asian Survey,Vol.28,No.4,1998,p.422.