人类命运共同体构建与全球“元”治理范式
|
摘要
西方基于不同理论框架和体系的全球治理研究,除了针对如何解决全球性问题的经验社会科学研究路径即工具主义路径外,还有一条指向全球化的未来构想和构型的反思性研究路径,即建构主义路径。通过与全球化的历史、现实、发展和前景密切联系起来,全球治理的视阈在与"国际社会"、"国家社会"、"世界政府"、"世界共同体"(或"全球共同体")、"全球民间社会"等概念的界定、探讨和阐发中不断得以扩展。同时,由于治理本身所蕴涵的基本逻辑,如治理模式、治理类型、治理结构和元治理等,在欧盟的建制和实践的启发下,发展出一些新的概念,如多层次(元)治理、多尺度(元)治理和多空间(元)治理等,全球治理的建构主义研究路径凸显出更为重要的意义。关于人类命运共同体的研究,不能仅仅把它作为全球治理的中国方案,可能更为重要的是把它当做全球化的一种理想构型。循此思路,需要论证的就是,人类命运共同体怎样作为超越西方的"世界共同体"或"全球共同体"和"全球民间社会"这些概念的一种未来世界构型,并且怎样作为全球化时代的全球治理的"元"治理范式。
Western global governance studies based on various theoretical frameworks and systems have two approaches,one is empirical social science approach focused on tackling global problems,i.e. instrumental approach,another is reflective approach directed to the imagination and configuration for the future of globalization,i.e. constructive approach. By relating to the history,reality,development and perspective of globalization,the horizons of global governance are widened in terms of the definition,exploration and interpretation for concepts such as ‘international society',‘society of states',‘world government',‘world community'(or‘global community'),and‘global civil society'. The basic logics of governance,such as governance model,governance style,governance structure,and meta-governance,evolve into some new concepts,such as multi-level(meta-) governance,multi-scalar(meta-) governance,and multi-spatial(meta-) governance,in the light of constitution and practice of European Union. So constructive approach makes more important significance.The studies on a community with shared future for mankind,should not be only regarded as Chinese project,but it is more important to regard it as the ideal configuration of globalization. What need to be done is to argue,how it is possible for a community with shared future for mankind to be the configuration of world future by transcending ‘world community'(or ‘global community'),and ‘global civil society',and how is it possible to be a paradigm for global meta-governance.
Western global governance studies based on various theoretical frameworks and systems have two approaches,one is empirical social science approach focused on tackling global problems,i.e. instrumental approach,another is reflective approach directed to the imagination and configuration for the future of globalization,i.e. constructive approach. By relating to the history,reality,development and perspective of globalization,the horizons of global governance are widened in terms of the definition,exploration and interpretation for concepts such as ‘international society',‘society of states',‘world government',‘world community'(or‘global community'),and‘global civil society'. The basic logics of governance,such as governance model,governance style,governance structure,and meta-governance,evolve into some new concepts,such as multi-level(meta-) governance,multi-scalar(meta-) governance,and multi-spatial(meta-) governance,in the light of constitution and practice of European Union. So constructive approach makes more important significance.The studies on a community with shared future for mankind,should not be only regarded as Chinese project,but it is more important to regard it as the ideal configuration of globalization. What need to be done is to argue,how it is possible for a community with shared future for mankind to be the configuration of world future by transcending ‘world community'(or ‘global community'),and ‘global civil society',and how is it possible to be a paradigm for global meta-governance.
引文
[1]Bob Jessop.“The Political Economy of Scale and European Governance”,Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,2005,96(2).
[2]Alberto Martinelli.“Markets,Governments,Communities,Global Governance”,International Sociology,2003,Vol. 18(2).
[3]Jan Aart Scholte. Globalisation:A Critical Introduction,2nd edition,Basingstoke and New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
[4]Jonathan Joseph. The Social in the Global:Social Theory,Governmentality and Global Politics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012.
[5]Alberto Martinelli.“Markets,Governments,Communities,Global Governance”,International Sociology,2003,Vol. 18(2).
[6]B. Ramesh Babu.“Genuine Global Governance:Hegemony to Legitimacy”,South Asian Survey,2017,21(1&2).
[7]Luis Cabrera.“Global Government and the Sources of Globoscepticism”,Millennium:Journal of International Studies,2015,Vol. 43(2).
[8]Thomas G. Weiss. Global Governance:Why? What? Whither? Cambridge and Malden,MA:Polity Press,2013.
[9]Henri Vogt.“Possibilities of Global Governance in the Age of Globalisation”,Forum for Development Studies,2003,30(1).
[10]Steven Slaughter.“The Prospects of Deliberative Global Governance in the G20:Legitimacy,Accountability,and Public Contestation”,Review of International Studies,2013,39.
[11]Louis Meuleman. Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies,Networks and Markets,Heidelberg:PhysicaVerlag,2008.
[12]R. A. W. Rhodes. Understanding Governance:Policy Networks,Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability,Buckingham·Philadelphia:Open University Press,1997.
[13]Louis Meuleman.“The Culture Dimension of Metagovernance:Why Governance Doctrines May Fail”,Public Organization Review,2010,10.
[14]Chris Brown.“World Society and the English School:An‘International Society’Perspective on World Society”,European Journal of International Relations,2001,7(4).
[15]B. Ramesh Babu.“Genuine Global Governance:Hegemony to Legitimacy”,South Asian Survey,2017,21(1&2).
[16]Akira Iriye. Global Community:the Role of International Organizations in the Contemporary World,Berkeley,Los Angeles and London:University of California Press.
[17]David Held.“Restructuring Global Governance:Cosmopolitanism,Democracy and the Global Order”,Millennium:Journal of International Studies,2009,37(3).
[18]Helmut Anheier et al..“Introducing Global Civil Society”,in Helmut Anheier,Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor(eds.),Global Civil Society,2001,Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[19]T. Olaf Corry.“Global Civil Society and Its Discontents”,Voluntas,2006,17.
[20]Volker Heins.“Global Civil Society as Politics of Faith”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[21]Jens Bartelson.“Making Sense of Global Civil Society”,European Journal of International Relations,2006,12(3).
[22]David Held.“Cosmopolitanism:Globalisation Tamed”,Review of International Studies,2003,29(4).
[23]Richard Falk. On Humane Governance:Toward a New Global Politics,Cambridge:Polity,1995.
[24]Henrik Enroth.“Community?”,in Henrik Enroth and Douglas Brommesson(eds.),Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchange,London and New York:Rowman&Littlefield International,Ltd,2015.
[25]Jens Bartelson. Visions of World Community,New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[26]Andrew Mason. Community,Solidarity and Belonging:Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[27]Luke Ulas.“Global Community as a Response to the Cosmopolitan Solidarity Problem”,in Henrik Enroth and Douglas Brommesson(eds.),Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchange,London and New York:Rowman&Littlefield International,Ltd,2015,
[28]Gideon Baker and David Chandler.“Global Civil Society and the Future of World Politics”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[29]James N. Rosenau.“Change,Complexity,and Governance in a Globalizing Space”,in Jon Pierre(ed.),Debating Governance,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[30]Bob Jessop.“Metagovernance”,in Mark Bevir(ed.)The SAGE Handbook of Governance,Sage,2011.
[31]Bob Jessop.“Territory,Politics,Governance and Multispatial Metagovernance”,Territory,Politics,Governance,2016,4(1).
[32]Bob Jessop.“Multi-level Governance and Multi-level Metagovernance”,in Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders(eds.),Multi-level Governance,New York:Oxford University Press,2004.
[33]Bob Jessop. State Power:A Strategic-Relational Approach,Cambridge:Polity,2007.
(1)本文把“世界共同体”与“全球共同体”看做是基本内涵相同的概念,尽管西方不同的学者在不同的语境当中分别使用这两个概念。本文在不同的地方涉及西方学者使用这两个概念之处都与作者原文保持一致。
(1)“全球社会”概念泛指是一个更大的社会整体,而不是单个个人或个别社会的总和(参见Jens Bartelson,“Is There a Global Society?”,International Political Sociology,2009,3,pp.112–115)。它与全球民间社会概念的主要区别在于它无须预设或包含任何社会的构成方式和机制,如道德、权利、法律和政体等。
(2)基恩所提出的新词“cosmocracy”(普世统治),是由拉丁语的kosmos(意为世界、秩序、普遍的地方或空间)和kratō(意为统治或掌控)所构成,它是一种理想类型。它以最简洁的形式描述了制度化权力的一种类型,即背离所有以前的管治形式——从亚里士多德试图发展城邦类型学,持续到今天区分威斯特伐利亚国家,后现代和后殖民国家,或者现代、后现代和前现代国家的不同做法。参见John Keane,“Cosmocracy and Global Civil Society”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005,pp.30-31.
[2]Alberto Martinelli.“Markets,Governments,Communities,Global Governance”,International Sociology,2003,Vol. 18(2).
[3]Jan Aart Scholte. Globalisation:A Critical Introduction,2nd edition,Basingstoke and New York:Palgrave Macmillan,2005.
[4]Jonathan Joseph. The Social in the Global:Social Theory,Governmentality and Global Politics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012.
[5]Alberto Martinelli.“Markets,Governments,Communities,Global Governance”,International Sociology,2003,Vol. 18(2).
[6]B. Ramesh Babu.“Genuine Global Governance:Hegemony to Legitimacy”,South Asian Survey,2017,21(1&2).
[7]Luis Cabrera.“Global Government and the Sources of Globoscepticism”,Millennium:Journal of International Studies,2015,Vol. 43(2).
[8]Thomas G. Weiss. Global Governance:Why? What? Whither? Cambridge and Malden,MA:Polity Press,2013.
[9]Henri Vogt.“Possibilities of Global Governance in the Age of Globalisation”,Forum for Development Studies,2003,30(1).
[10]Steven Slaughter.“The Prospects of Deliberative Global Governance in the G20:Legitimacy,Accountability,and Public Contestation”,Review of International Studies,2013,39.
[11]Louis Meuleman. Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies,Networks and Markets,Heidelberg:PhysicaVerlag,2008.
[12]R. A. W. Rhodes. Understanding Governance:Policy Networks,Governance,Reflexivity and Accountability,Buckingham·Philadelphia:Open University Press,1997.
[13]Louis Meuleman.“The Culture Dimension of Metagovernance:Why Governance Doctrines May Fail”,Public Organization Review,2010,10.
[14]Chris Brown.“World Society and the English School:An‘International Society’Perspective on World Society”,European Journal of International Relations,2001,7(4).
[15]B. Ramesh Babu.“Genuine Global Governance:Hegemony to Legitimacy”,South Asian Survey,2017,21(1&2).
[16]Akira Iriye. Global Community:the Role of International Organizations in the Contemporary World,Berkeley,Los Angeles and London:University of California Press.
[17]David Held.“Restructuring Global Governance:Cosmopolitanism,Democracy and the Global Order”,Millennium:Journal of International Studies,2009,37(3).
[18]Helmut Anheier et al..“Introducing Global Civil Society”,in Helmut Anheier,Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor(eds.),Global Civil Society,2001,Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[19]T. Olaf Corry.“Global Civil Society and Its Discontents”,Voluntas,2006,17.
[20]Volker Heins.“Global Civil Society as Politics of Faith”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[21]Jens Bartelson.“Making Sense of Global Civil Society”,European Journal of International Relations,2006,12(3).
[22]David Held.“Cosmopolitanism:Globalisation Tamed”,Review of International Studies,2003,29(4).
[23]Richard Falk. On Humane Governance:Toward a New Global Politics,Cambridge:Polity,1995.
[24]Henrik Enroth.“Community?”,in Henrik Enroth and Douglas Brommesson(eds.),Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchange,London and New York:Rowman&Littlefield International,Ltd,2015.
[25]Jens Bartelson. Visions of World Community,New York:Cambridge University Press,2009.
[26]Andrew Mason. Community,Solidarity and Belonging:Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[27]Luke Ulas.“Global Community as a Response to the Cosmopolitan Solidarity Problem”,in Henrik Enroth and Douglas Brommesson(eds.),Global Community? Transnational and Transdisciplinary Exchange,London and New York:Rowman&Littlefield International,Ltd,2015,
[28]Gideon Baker and David Chandler.“Global Civil Society and the Future of World Politics”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005.
[29]James N. Rosenau.“Change,Complexity,and Governance in a Globalizing Space”,in Jon Pierre(ed.),Debating Governance,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[30]Bob Jessop.“Metagovernance”,in Mark Bevir(ed.)The SAGE Handbook of Governance,Sage,2011.
[31]Bob Jessop.“Territory,Politics,Governance and Multispatial Metagovernance”,Territory,Politics,Governance,2016,4(1).
[32]Bob Jessop.“Multi-level Governance and Multi-level Metagovernance”,in Ian Bache and Matthew Flinders(eds.),Multi-level Governance,New York:Oxford University Press,2004.
[33]Bob Jessop. State Power:A Strategic-Relational Approach,Cambridge:Polity,2007.
(1)本文把“世界共同体”与“全球共同体”看做是基本内涵相同的概念,尽管西方不同的学者在不同的语境当中分别使用这两个概念。本文在不同的地方涉及西方学者使用这两个概念之处都与作者原文保持一致。
(1)“全球社会”概念泛指是一个更大的社会整体,而不是单个个人或个别社会的总和(参见Jens Bartelson,“Is There a Global Society?”,International Political Sociology,2009,3,pp.112–115)。它与全球民间社会概念的主要区别在于它无须预设或包含任何社会的构成方式和机制,如道德、权利、法律和政体等。
(2)基恩所提出的新词“cosmocracy”(普世统治),是由拉丁语的kosmos(意为世界、秩序、普遍的地方或空间)和kratō(意为统治或掌控)所构成,它是一种理想类型。它以最简洁的形式描述了制度化权力的一种类型,即背离所有以前的管治形式——从亚里士多德试图发展城邦类型学,持续到今天区分威斯特伐利亚国家,后现代和后殖民国家,或者现代、后现代和前现代国家的不同做法。参见John Keane,“Cosmocracy and Global Civil Society”,in Gideon Baker and David Chandler(eds.),Global Civil Society:Contesting Futures,London and New York:Routledge,2005,pp.30-31.