志坤要求翻譯文檔-整理版1

志坤要求翻譯文檔-整理版1TheU.S.governmenthasenduredseveralpainfulroundsofscrutinyasittriestofigureoutwhatwentwrongonSept.11,2001.Theintelligencecommunityfacesradicalrestructuring;themilitaryhasmadeasharppivottofaceanewenemy;andavastnewfederalagencyhasblossomedtocoordinatehomelandsecurity.試圖為了找出2001年9月1號那天所犯的錯誤，美國政府已經(jīng)經(jīng)歷了好幾輪的精密調(diào)查。情報團體面臨著激進的重組；軍事方面已經(jīng)將重點轉(zhuǎn)向面對新的敵人；而且一個新的巨大的聯(lián)邦機構(gòu)已經(jīng)成立，以協(xié)助配合國內(nèi)安全。ButdidSeptember11signalafailureoftheoryonparwiththefailuresofintelligenceandpolicy?但911事件是否標志著一個理論的失敗和標志著情報和決策的失敗呢？Familiartheoriesabouthowtheworldworksstilldominateacademicdebate.關(guān)于世界如何運作類似的理論依然在學術(shù)爭論中處于主導地位。Insteadofradicalchange,academiahasadjustedexistingtheoriestomeetnewrealities.學術(shù)界已經(jīng)調(diào)整了現(xiàn)存的理論去適應新的現(xiàn)實，而不是進行徹底的改革。Has this approach succeeded? Doesinternational relations theory still havesomethingtotellpolicymakers?采取這樣的途徑能夠成功嗎？那些國際關(guān)系理論還依然能夠為那些策略者提供某些提示嗎？Sixyearsago,politicalscientistStephenM.Waltpublishedamuch-citedsurveyofthefieldinthesepages(“OneWorld,ManyTheories,”Spring1998).六年前，政治科學家StephenM.Walt發(fā)表了關(guān)于這個領(lǐng)域的一個調(diào)查。（該調(diào)查收錄于1998春發(fā)表的《一個世界，多種理論》里）He sketched out three dominantapproaches: realism, liberalism, and anupdated form of idealism called“constructivism.”他擬定了三個占有主導性的途徑：現(xiàn)實主義，自由主義和一個現(xiàn)實主義適時的形式，并被稱之為“構(gòu)成主義”。Waltarguedthatthesetheoriesshapebothpublicdiscourseandpolicyanalysis.Walt堅持認為這些理論形成了公共論述和政策分析。Realism focuses on the shiftingdistribution of power amongstates.現(xiàn)實主義將焦點放在國與國之間力量的轉(zhuǎn)移分布的問題上。Liberalism

highlights

the

rising

number

ofdemocracies

and

the

turbulence

ofdemocratic

transitions. 自由主義強調(diào)的是日益俱增的民主國家和民主轉(zhuǎn)變的動蕩。Idealismilluminatesthechangingnormsofsovereignty,humanrights,andinternationaljustice,aswellastheincreasedpotencyofreligiousideasinpolitics.理想主義闡明了主權(quán)變化的規(guī)范與標準，人權(quán)，和國際公正，還闡明了在政治中的宗教思想的不斷增加的權(quán)力。Theinfluenceoftheseintellectual constructsextendsfarbeyonduniversity classroomsandtenure committees. 這些知識構(gòu)圖的影響延伸到了大學教室和決定教授職權(quán)委員會之外。Policymakersandpublic commentators invokeelementsofallthesetheorieswhenarticulatingsolutionstoglobalsecuritydilemmas.當涉及到關(guān)于全球安全困境解決問題的時候，政策制定者和大眾評論員援引了所有這些理論的因素。President GeorgeW.BushpromisestofightterrorMiddle

byspreadingliberalEastandclaimsthat

democracytotheskeptics“whocallthemselves‘realists.have’?lostcontactwithafundamentalreality”that“Americaisalwaysmoresecurewhenfreedomisonthemarch.”喬治布什總統(tǒng)承諾通過向中東傳播自由民主這種方式打擊恐怖主義，并且宣稱那些將自己稱之為“現(xiàn)實主義者”的懷疑論者已經(jīng)與那個基本的現(xiàn)實（當自由在進行中的時候，美國總是更加安全的）脫節(jié)了。Strikingamoreeclectictone,NationalSecurityAdvisorCondoleezzaRice,aformerStanfordUniversitypoliticalscienceprofessor,explainsthatthenewBushdoctrineisanamalgamofpragmaticrealismandWilsonianliberaltheory.打出一個更加折中的語氣，國際安全顧問，前斯坦福大學政治學教授，CondoleezzaRice解釋到新的布什信條是實用現(xiàn)實主義和威爾遜自由理論的結(jié)合體。During

therecentpresidential

campaign,Sen.John

Kerry

sounded

remarkably

similar:“Ourforeignpolicyhasachievedgreatness,”hesaid,

“onlywhen

it

hascombined

realism”在最近的總統(tǒng)競選活動期間，Sen.JohnKerry的話聽起來非常地相似：“我們的外交政策已經(jīng)取得偉大成就，”他還說到：“只有當我們的外交政策和現(xiàn)實主義和理想主義相聯(lián)系的時候，（才能取得這樣的成就）”International relationstheoryalsoshapesandinforms thethinking ofthepublicintellectualswhotranslate anddisseminateacademicideas.國際關(guān)系理論也在形成，并且將其思想告知那些解釋和傳播學術(shù)思想民眾的知識分子。Duringthesummerof 2004,forexample,twoinfluential framers of neoconservativethought,columnistCharlesKrauthammerandpoliticalscientistFrancisFukuyama,collidedovertheimplicationsoftheseconceptualparadigms

forU.S.policyin

Iraq.例如，在2004年的夏天期間，兩個具有影響力的新保守主義思想的準則的策劃者，專欄作家CharlesKrauthammer和政治學家FrancisFukuyama，與這些美國對伊概念模范的內(nèi)涵所相抵觸。Backing

the

Bush

administration

’s

MiddleEast

policy,

Krauthammer

argued

for

anassertiveamalgamofliberalismandrealism,whichhecalled“democraticrealism.”Krauthammer支持布什政府中東政策，他還反對他稱之為民主現(xiàn)實主義的自由主義和現(xiàn)實主義那自信的混合體。FukuyamaclaimedthatKrauthammer’sfaithintheuseofforceandthefeasibilityofdemocraticchangeinIraqblindshimtothewar’slackoflegitimacy,afailingthat“hurtsboththerealistpartofouragenda,bydiminishingouractualpower,andtheidealistportionofit,byundercuttingourappealastheembodiment

ofcertain

ideasandvalues.

”Fukuyama

宣稱Krautham

mer’s對武力上的使用和對伊拉克民主變化的可行性上的信奉，使得他無法解釋戰(zhàn)爭缺乏合法性這個問題，而且讓他也無法解釋這樣的一個失?。阂酝ㄟ^減少我們實在的力量和減少現(xiàn)實主義的比重，并且通過削減我們作為某種思想和價值的具體形式的呼吁的這樣一種方式，同時傷害了現(xiàn)實主義的作用和我們的議事日程。Indeed,whenrealism,liberalism,and idealismenter the policymaking arena and publicdebate,theycansometimesbecomeintellectualwindowdressingforsimplisticworldviews.的確，當現(xiàn)實主義，自由主義和理想主義進入了決策制定的競技場和公共的爭論的時候，這些理論有時候能夠成為為過于簡單化的世界觀增添了一絲活力的知識窗口。Properlyunderstood,however,theirpolicyimplicationsaresubtleandmultifaceted.雖然能夠被正常理解，然而，他們的政策的含義是微妙的，多層面的。Realisminstillsapragmaticappreciationoftheroleofpowerbutalsowarnsthatstateswillsufferiftheyoverreach.現(xiàn)實主義漸漸灌輸一種國家作用實用主義的評價，但現(xiàn)實主義同時也警告國家，如果這些國家做得過火的話，他們也將會遭受痛苦。Liberalismhighlightsthecooperativepotentialofmaturedemocracies,especiallywhenworkingtogetherthrougheffectiveinstitutions,butitalsonotesdemocracies’tendencytocrusadeagainsttyranniesandthepropensityofemergingdemocraciestocollapseintoviolentethnicturmoil.自由主義強調(diào)成熟民主國家間合作的潛力，特別當它一起完成有效的體系，不過自由主義也指出了這種與暴政做斗爭，并且瓦解于暴力種族騷亂日益顯現(xiàn)的民主國家的傾向的民主趨勢。Idealismstressesthataconsensusonvaluesmustunderpinanystablepoliticalorder,yetitalsorecognizesthatforgingsuchaconsensusoftenrequiresanideologicalstrugglewiththepotentialforconflict.理想主義強調(diào)，在價值觀方面上的共識必須支持任何一種穩(wěn)定的政治秩序，然而它也應該意識到鍛造這樣的一個共識經(jīng)常需要和潛在沖突做意識上的斗爭。Eachtheory offersafilter for looking atacomplicated picture.每一個理論都為了解復雜的情況提供了清晰的說法。Assuch,theyhelpexplaintheassumptionsbehindpoliticalrhetoricaboutforeignpolicy.就這點而論，他們有助于解釋那些隱藏在關(guān)于外交政策政治的華麗修飾語背后的假設(shè)。Evenmoreimportant, thetheoriesactasapowerfulcheck是，這些理論力的阻礙。

oneachother.更加重要的在相互之間充當了強而有Deployedeffectively,theyrevealtheweaknessesin arguments that can lead to misguidedpolicies.由于得到有效的部署，這些理論揭露在爭論中的弱點，這些弱點可能會導致做出錯誤的決策。ISREALISM STILL REALISTIC?At realism’s coreinternational affairsamongself-interested

is the belief thatareastruggleforpowerstates.在以自我為本位的國家中，國際事務是一種權(quán)力的斗爭，這樣的一個信念是現(xiàn)實主義的核心。Although

some

of

realism’s

leading

lights,notablythe

lateUniversity

ofChicago

politicalscientist

Hans

J.

Morgenthau,

are

deeplypessimistic

about

human

nature,

it

is

not

atheoryofdespair.雖然現(xiàn)實主義中一些重要的主導人物，特別是最近的芝加哥大學政治學家Hans J.Morgenthau ，對人的本性的態(tài)度是非常悲觀的，但是這并不是一個讓人感到絕望的理論。Clear-sighted

statescanmitigate

thecausesofposetoeachother.那些精明的國家可以通過采取這種尋找途徑從而降低那些國家相互之間構(gòu)成的威脅的方式，來緩和戰(zhàn)爭的起因。Norisrealismnecessarilyamoral;itsadvocatesemphasizethataruthlesspragmatismaboutpowercanactuallyyieldamorepeacefulworld,ifnotanidealone.現(xiàn)實主義必然和道德是有關(guān)聯(lián)的；其倡導者強調(diào)，如果不是一個理想化的實用主義的話，關(guān)于權(quán)力的無情的實用主義實際上能夠獲得一個更加和平的世界。Inliberaldemocracies,realismisthetheorythateveryonelovestohate.在自由的民主國家中，現(xiàn)實主義是這樣一個理論：每一個人都愛憎恨。DevelopedlargelybyEuropeanémigrésattheendofWorldWarii,realismclaimedtobeanantidotetothenaivebeliefthatinternationalinstitutionsandlawalonecanpreservepeace,amisconceptionthatthisnewgenerationofscholarsbelievedhadpavedthewaytowar.在二戰(zhàn)末，很大程度上是由歐洲的émigrés發(fā)展著理想主義，對于這樣幼稚的一個信念：單單是國際體系和法律就能夠維護和平，新一代學者所相信的這樣的一個信念是錯誤的概念已經(jīng)為戰(zhàn)爭鋪平了道路，理想主義自稱為是一種對抗手段。In

recent

decades,the

realist

approach

hasbeenmostfully

articulated

byU.S.theorists,butitstillhas broad appealoutsidetheUnitedStatesaswell.Theinfluential writerarticulately commentsrealisttraditions.

andon

editor JosefJoffeGermany’sstrong頗有影響力的作家兼編輯

Josef

Joffe對德國激進的現(xiàn)實主義傳統(tǒng)做出了明確的評論。Thatstates,nottheUnitedNationsorHumanRightsWatch,haveledthefightagainstterrorism.Evenifrealistsacknowledgetheimportanceofnon-stateactorsasachallengetotheirassumptions,thetheorystillhasimportantthingstosayaboutthebehaviorandmotivationsofthesegroups.雖然現(xiàn)實主義者承認非國家成員的重要性作為對這些現(xiàn)實主義者假設(shè)的一個質(zhì)疑，但是那樣的一個理論在涉及關(guān)于這些組織的行為和動機的時候，依然有很多重要的事情要說。TherealistscholarRobertA.Pape,forexample,hasarguedthatsuicideterrorismcanbearational,realisticstrategyfortheleadershipofnationalliberation(MindfuloftheoverwhelmingimportanceofU.S.powertoEurope’sdevelopment,JoffeoncecalledtheUnitedStates“Europes’pacifier.”)China’scur-rentforeignpolicyisgroundedinrealistideasthatdatebackmillennia.現(xiàn)實主義者RobertA.Pape堅持宣稱：“例如，對于國家自由的領(lǐng)導來說，自殺式恐怖主義可能是一種合理的，現(xiàn)實的范疇?！盇sChinamodernizesitseconomyandentersinternationalinstitutionssuchastheWorldTradeOrganization,itbehavesinawaythatrealistsunderstandwell:developingitsmilitaryslowlybutsurelyasitseconomicpowergrows,andavoidingaconfrontationwithsuperiorU.S.forces.Realismgetssomethingsrightaboutthepost-9/11world.Thecontinuedcentralityofmilitarystrengthandthepersistenceofconflict,eveninthisageofglobaleconomicinterdependence,doesnotsurpriserealists.Thetheory’smostobvioussuccessisitsabilitytoexplaintheUnitedStates’forcefulmilitaryresponsetotheSeptember11terroristattacks.Whenastategrowsvastlymorepowerfulthananyopponent,realistsexpectthatitwilleventuallyusethatpowertoexpanditssphereofdomination,whetherforsecurity,wealth,orothermotives.TheUnitedStatesemployeditsmilitarypowerinwhatsomedeemedanimperialfashioninlargepartbecauseitcould.美國在一些人認為很大部分是帝國的潮流里使用了其軍事力量，因為美國具備這樣的實力。Itisharderforthenormallystate-centricrealiststoexplainwhytheworld’sonlysuperpowerannouncedawaragainstalQaeda,anon-stateterroristorganization.對于正規(guī)的以國家為中心現(xiàn)實主義者來說，去解釋為什么世界上唯一超級大國對阿凱達，這樣的一個非國家基地組織宣戰(zhàn)，無疑是更加困難的。How can realist theory account for theimportance of powerful and violentindividualsinaworld ofstates?現(xiàn)實主義的理論怎樣才能在多個國家并存的世界里解釋強大而極端的個人的重要性呢？Realistspointoutthat thecentralbattlesinthe“waronterror”havebeenfoughtagainsttwostates(AfghanistanandIraq),andmovementsseekingtoexpeldemocraticpowersthatoccupytheirhomelands.Otherscholarsapplystandardtheoriesofconflictinanarchytoexplainethnicconflictincollapsedstates.Insightsfrompoliticalrealism—aprofoundandwide-rangingintellectualtraditionrootedintheenduringphilosophyofThucydides,NiccolMachiavelli,òandThomasHobbes—arehardlyrenderedobsoletebecausesomenon-stategroupsarenowabletoresorttoviolence.Post-9/11developmentsseemtoundercutoneofrealism’scoreconcepts:thebalanceofpower.StandardrealistdoctrinepredictsthatweakerstateswillallytoprotectthemselvesfromstrongeronesandtherebyformandSo,whenGermanyunifiedinthelate19thcenturyandbecameEurope’sleadingmilitaryandindustrialpower,RussiaandFrance(andlater,Britain)soonalignedtocounteritspower.YetnocombinationofstatesorotherpowerscanchallengetheUnitedStatesmilitarily,andnobalancingcoalitionisimminent.Realistsarescramblingtofindawaytofillthisholeinthecenteroftheirtheory.Some theorists speculate that the UnitedStates’geographicdistanceanditsrelativelybenignintentionshavetemperedthebalancinginstinct.Second-tierpowerstendtoworrymore abouttheirimmediateneighborsandevenseetheUnitedStatesasahelpfulsourceofstabilityinregionssuchasEastAsia.U.S.foesinIraq,Afghanistan,andelsewhere,andfoot-draggingbyitsformalalliesactuallyconstitutethebeginningsofbalancingagainstU.S.hegemony.TheUnitedStates’strainedrelationswithEuropeofferambiguousevidence:FrenchandGermanoppositiontorecentU.S.policiescouldbeseenasclassicbalancing,buttheydonotresistU.S.dominancemilitarily.Instead,thesestateshavetriedtoundermineU.S. moral legitimacy and constrain thesuperpower in a web of multilateralinstitutions and treaty regimes—not whatstandard realisttheorypredicts.Theseconceptualdifficultiesnotwithstanding,realismisalive,well,andcreativelyreassessinghowitsrootprinciplesrelatetothepost-9/11world.Despite changing configurations of power,realistsremainsteadfastinstressingthat policymustbebasedonpositionsofrealstrength,notoneitheremptybravadoorhopefulillusionsaboutaworldwithoutconflict.Intherun-up totherecentIraq war,severalprominent realists signed a public lettercriticizingwhattheyperceivedasan exerciseinAmericanhubris.Andinthecontinuingaftermathofthatwar,manyprominentthinkerscalledforareturntorealism.Agroupofscholarsandpublicintellectuals(myself included)evenapproach.Itsstatement ofprinci- plesarguesthat“themovetowardempiremustbehaltedimmediately.”Thecoalition,thoughpoliticallydiverse,islargelyinspiredbyrealisttheory.Itsmembershipofseeminglyoddbedfellows—includingfor-merDemocraticSen.GaryHartandScottMcConnell,theexecutiveeditoroftheAmericanConservativemagazine—illus-tratesthepowerofinternationalrelationstheorytocutthroughoftenephemeralpoliticallabelsandcarrydebatetotheunderlyingassumptions.THE DIVIDED HOUSE OF LIBERALISMTheliberalschoolofinternationalrelationstheory,whosemostfamousproponentswereGermanphilosopherImmanuelKantandU.S.PresidentWoodrowWilson,contendsthatrealismhasastuntedvisionthatcannotaccountforprogressinrelationsbetweennations.Liberalsforeseeaslowbutinexorablejourneyawayfromtheanarchicworldtherealistsenvision,astradeandfinanceforgetiesbetweennations,anddemocraticnormsspread.Becauseelectedleadersareaccountabletothepeople(whobeartheburdensofwar),liberalsexpectthatdemocracieswillnotattackeachotherandwillregardeachother’sregimesaslegitimateandnonthreatening.因為當選的領(lǐng)導者們對人們（那些肩負起戰(zhàn)爭的人們）負責，自由派期望民主國將不會相互攻擊對方，并且將相互之間的政體看作是一種合法和對其不構(gòu)成威脅的政體。Many

liberals

also

believe

that

the

rule

oflawand

transparency

ofdemocratic

processesmake

it

easier

to

sustain

internationalcooperation,especiallywhenthesepracticesareenshrinedinmultilateralinstitutions.很多自由主派也相信法律的統(tǒng)治和民主進程的透明使得維持國際間的合作變得更加容易，尤其是當這些實踐莊嚴地載入了多邊體系中，LiberalismhassuchapowerfulpresencethattheentireU.S.politicalspectrum,fromneoconservativestohumanrightsadvocates,assumesitaslargelyself-evident.自由主義擁有這樣一個頗具影響力的范疇，以致整個美國政治范圍內(nèi)，從新保守主義者到人權(quán)倡導者，很大程度上都認為它是顯而易見的。OutsidetheUnitedStates,aswell,theliberalviewthatonlyelectedgovernmentsarelegitimateandpoliticallyreliablehastakenhold.同樣地，除了美國之外，這樣一個自由的觀點：只有當選的政府才是合法的，并且在政治上才是可靠的，已經(jīng)站穩(wěn)了腳跟了。Soit isnosurprise that liberal themesareconstantlyinvokedasaresponsetotoday’ssecuritydilemmas.因此，自由的主題不斷地被引用作為對于當今的安全困境的回應，這并不會讓人感到驚訝。Butthelastseveralyearshavealsoproducedafiercetug-of-warbetweendisparatestrainsofliberal thought. 但是在過去的幾年里，在不同的自由思想的緊張之間也產(chǎn)生了一個激烈的競爭。SupportersandcriticsoftheBushadministration,inparticular,haveemphasizedverydifferentelementsoftheliberalcanon.支持者們和布什政府的批評家們尤其強調(diào)自由準則的不同因素。For

its

part,

the

Bush

administrationhighlights

democracy

promotion

while

largelyturning

its

back

on

the

internationalinstitutions that most liberal theoristschampion.對其來說，當很大程度上拋棄了絕大多數(shù)自由主義理論者擁護的國際機構(gòu)的時候，布什政府強調(diào)民主提升了。TheU.S.NationalSecurityStrategyofSeptember2002,famousforitssupportofpreventivewar,alsodwellsontheneedtopromotedemocracyasameansoffightingterrorism andpromoting peace.美國國家2002年九月份的安全策略，以其對預防戰(zhàn)爭的支持而聞名，也詳述了促進民主作為促進和平和打擊恐怖主義的一種方法的需要。TheMillennium Challenge program allocatespartofU.S.foreignaidaccordingtohowwellcountriesimprove

their

performance

onseveralmeasuresof

democratization

andthe

rule

oflaw.千年挑戰(zhàn)計劃根據(jù)國家關(guān)于民主化和法規(guī)的幾個措施改善其表現(xiàn)的程度， 分派部分美國國外幫助。TheWhiteHouse’ssteadfastsupportforpromotingdemocracyintheMiddleEast—evenwithturmoilinIraqandrisinganti-AmericanismintheArabworld—demonstratesliberalism’semotionalandrhetoricalpower.美國白宮對于中東地區(qū)提倡民主堅定的支持—甚至在伊拉克地區(qū)還處于騷亂狀態(tài)， 并且在阿拉伯存在日益增長的反美主義—證明了自由主義令人動情的，用詞華麗的力量。Inmanyrespects,liberalism’sclaimtobeawisepolicyguidehasplentyofharddatabehindit.很多方面，自由主義宣稱是一個明智的政策引導在其背后已經(jīng)有很多確切的數(shù)據(jù)支持著這么一個理論了。Duringthelasttwodecades,thepropositionthatdemocraticinstitutionsandvalueshelpstatescooperatewitheachotherisamongthemostintensivelystudiedinallofinternationalrelations,andithasheldupreasonablywell.在過去的二十年期間，民主的機構(gòu)和價值幫助國與國之間相互合作這樣的一個提議在所有的國際關(guān)系中，是最值得集中研究的，而且這樣的一個提議已經(jīng)相當合理地被擱置。Indeed,thebeliefthatdemocraciesneverfightwarsagainsteachotheristheclosestthingwehavetoanironlawinsocialscience.的確，民主國家相互之間永遠不會發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭這樣的一個信念是一件我們所擁有的，并且離我們最近的事情，這件事情是相對于一個在社會科學中的剛強的法律而言的。Butthetheoryhassomeveryimportantcorollaries,whichtheBushadministrationglossesoverasitdrawsuponthedemocracy-promotionelementofliberalthought.但是，那個理論有一些非常重要的推論，布什政府一直掩飾著這樣的一個理論，因為布什政府利用了了自由思想促進民主的因素。ColumbiaUniversitypoliticalscientistMichaelW.Doyle’sarticlesondemocraticpeacewarnedthat,thoughdemocraciesneverfighteachother,theyarepronetolaunchmessianicstrugglesagainstwarlikeauthoritarianregimesto“maketheworldsafefordemocracy.”哥倫比亞大學政治學家MichaelW.Doyle在關(guān)于民主和平的文章警告說：“雖然民主國家相互之間沒有戰(zhàn)爭，但是這些民主國家傾向于與那些喜好戰(zhàn)爭的獨裁主義政權(quán)做救世主般的斗爭，從而讓這個世界在對于民主這個范疇來講的時候，是安全的?！盜twaspreciselyAmericandemocracy’stendencytooscillatebetweenself-righteouscrusadingandjadedisolationismthatpromptedearlyColdWarrealists’callforamorecalculated,prudentforeignpolicy.精確來講，正是在偽善的改革運動和疲憊不堪的孤立主義之間的美國民主主義猶豫不決的趨勢促使了早期冷戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)實主義者呼吁一個更有計劃的，有遠見的外交政策。Countriestransitioningtodemocracy,withweakpoliticalinstitutions,aremorelikelythanotherstatestogetintointernationalandcivilwars.Inthelast15years,warsorlarge-scalecivilviolencefollowedexperimentswithmasselectoraldemocracyincountriesincludingArmenia,Burundi,Ethiopia,Indonesia,Russia,andtheformerYugoslavia.Nor isscholarsliberalism

itcleartocontemporaryliberalthatnascentdemocracyandeconomiccanalwayscohabitate.Freetradeandthemultifacetedglobalizationthatadvanceddemocraciespromoteoftenbuffettransitional societies.Worldmarkets’penetrationofsocietiesthatrunonpatronageandprotectionismcandisruptsocialrelationsandspurstrifebetweenpotentialwinnersandlosers.Inothercases,universalfreetradecanmakeseparatismlookattractive,assmallregionssuchasAcehinIndonesiacanlayclaimtolucrativenaturalresources.Sofar,thetrade-fueledboominChinahascreatedincentivesforimprovedrelationswiththeadvanceddemocracies,butithasalsosetthestageforapossibleshowdownbetweentherelativelywealthycoastalentrepreneursandthestillimpoverishedruralmasses.Whileaggressivelyadvocatingthevirtuesofdemocracy,theBushadministrationhasshownlittlepatienceforthesecomplexitiesinliberal thought—orforliberalism’semphasisontheimportanceofinternationalinstitutions.Morefundamental,emergingdemocraciesoftenhavenascentpoliticalinstitutionsthatcannotchannelpopulardemandsinconstructivedirectionsorcrediblyenforcecompromisesamongrivalgroups.Inthissetting,democraticaccountabilityworksimperfectly,andnationalistpoliticianscanhijackpublicdebate.TheviolencethatisvexingtheexperimentwithdemocracyinIraqthatbeganwiththeFrenchRevolution.Contemporaryliberaltheoryalsopointsoutthattherisingdemocratictidecreatesthepresumptionthatallnationsoughttoenjoythebenefitsofself-determination.當代的自由主義理論也指出，日益劇增的民主趨勢創(chuàng)造了這樣的一個可能性：所有的國家應該享受民族自決的利益。Thoseleftoutmayundertakeviolentcampaignstosecuredemocraticrights.這些被忽略了的國家可能采取暴力行動，從而保護了民主權(quán)利。Someofthesemovementsdirecttheirstrugglesagainstdemocraticorsemi-democraticstatesthattheyconsideroccupyingpowers—suchasinAlgeriainthe1950s,orChechnya,Palestine,andtheTamilregionofSriLankatoday.其中一些運動直接于民主國家或者半民主國家做斗爭，他們認為這些民主或者半民主國家一直持有權(quán)力—例如二十世紀50年代的阿爾及利亞，或者車臣，巴勒斯坦和當今的斯里蘭卡的坦米爾地區(qū)。Violencemayalsobedirected atdemocraticsupporters ofoppressiveregimes,muchliketheU.S.backingofthegovernmentsofSaudiArabiaandEgypt.暴力也可能被用來作為那些暴政民主的支持者，就很像美國對沙特阿拉伯和埃及政府的支持那樣。Democraticregimesmakeattractivetargetsforterroristviolencebynationalliberationmovementspreciselybecausetheyareaccountabletoacost-consciouselectorate.之所以民主政體使那些通過國家自由運動而獲取的，針對恐怖主義暴力的目標變得非常吸引人，準確來說，那是因為這些政體對這些有價值意識的選民負責。tryingtoassureotherpowersthattheUnitedStateswouldadheretoaconstitutionalorder,Bush“unsigned”theInternationalCriminalCourtstatute,rejectedtheKyotoenvironmentalagreement,dictatedtake-it-or-leave-itarmscontrolchangestoRussia,andinvadedIraqdespiteoppositionattheUnitedNations andamongcloseallies.試圖安慰其他別的一些國家說美國將會堅持憲法秩序，布什“未簽署的”國際犯罪法庭法令，駁回了京都環(huán)境協(xié)議，規(guī)定對俄國不容討價還價的軍隊控制變化，并且不管聯(lián)合國和一些同盟國的反對，侵略伊拉克Recentliberaltheoryoffersathoughtfulchallengetotheadministration’spolicychoices.最近，自由主義給政府決策選擇提供了讓人值得深思的質(zhì)疑。ShortlybeforeSeptember11,politicalscientistG.JohnIkenberrystudiedattemptstoestablishinternationalorderbythevictorsofhegemonicstrugglesin1815,1919,1945,and1989.在911前不久，政治學家G.JohnIkenberry借助了那些于1815年，1919年，1945年和1989年支配斗爭的勝利者研究了建立國際秩序的企圖。Hearguedthateventhemostpowerfulvictorneededtogainthewilling cooperation ofthevanquishedandotherweakstatesbyofferingamutuallyattractivebargain,codifiedinaninternationalconstitutionalorder.他堅持認為正是最強大的勝利者需要通過提供一個編纂在國際憲法秩序里面，相互吸引的契約，從而獲得那些戰(zhàn)敗國和別的一些弱小國家的自愿的合作。Democraticvictors,hefound,havethebestchanceofcreatingaworkingconstitutionalorder,suchastheBrettonWoodssystemafterWorldWarii,becausetheirtransparencyandlegalismmaketheirpromisescredible.他發(fā)現(xiàn)，民主勝利者擁有一個創(chuàng)造工作憲法秩序的最好機遇，例如二戰(zhàn)后的BrettonWoods系統(tǒng)，因為他們的透明度和一成不變使得其諾言十分可信。DoestheBushadministration’sresistancetoinstitutionbuildingrefuteIkenberry’sversionofliberaltheory?布什政府對 機構(gòu)體制的反對駁斥了自由主義Ikenberry’s的這個版本的說法嗎？Somerealistssayitdoes,andthatrecenteventsdemonstratethatinternationalpowerifitspreferenceschange.一些現(xiàn)實主義者認為這個說法的確如此，并且他們認為最近的一些事件證明了：如果這個掌握霸權(quán)的國家的偏愛改變的話，國際體制遏制不了它。Butinternationalinstitutionscannonethelesshelpcoordinateoutcomesthatareinthelong-termmutualinterestofboththehegemonandtheweakerstates.但是國際機構(gòu)仍然能夠幫助協(xié)調(diào)這些結(jié)果，這些結(jié)果是處在強國和弱國長期，相互的利益之中。Ikenberrydidnotcontendthathegemonicdemocraciesareimmunefrommistakes.Ikenberry并沒有堅持認為強大的民主國家不會犯錯。Statescanactindefianceoftheincentivesestablished by their position in theinternational system,buttheywill suffertheconsequencesandprobably learn tocorrectcourse.國與國之間能夠在違抗某些激勵中起作用，這些激勵是他們所出于國際體系中的位置而建立的。InresponsetoBush’sunilateralist stance,Ikenberry wrote that theincentivesfortheUnitedStatestotaketheleadinestablishingamultilateralconstitutionalorderremainpowerful.Soonerorlater,thependulumwillswingback.為了回應布什片面的立場態(tài)度，Ikenberry寫到，那些能夠讓美國在建立一個多邊的憲法秩序中處于領(lǐng)先地位的刺激依然很強大。這種搖擺不定的情況遲早會穩(wěn)定下來的。IDEALISM’S NEW CLOTHINGIdealism, thebeliefthat foreign policyisandshouldbeguidedbyethicalandlegalstandards,alsohasalongpedigree.理想主義，是這樣的一個信念：外交政策是并且應該是由道德與合法的標準來引導，外交政策也應該擁有一個悠長的傳統(tǒng)。BeforeWorld WariiforcedtheUnitedStatestoacknowledgealesspristinereality,SecretaryofStateHenryStimsondenigratedespionageonthegroundsthat“gentlemendonotreadeachother’smail.”在二戰(zhàn)迫使美國承認一個不是那么純潔的現(xiàn)實之前，國務卿HenryStimson基于“紳士是不會窺探相互之間的郵件”的理由而貶低了間諜活動。During

the

Cold

War,

such

naive

idealismacquired

a bad

name

in

the

Kissingeriancorridors

of

power

and

among

hardheadedacademics.在冷戰(zhàn)期間，如此幼稚的理想主義在Kissingerian權(quán)力走廊和頑固的學術(shù)界里獲得了一個壞名。Recently, a new version of idealism—calledconstructivism by its scholarlyadherents—returnedtoaprominentplaceindebatesoninternationalrelationstheory.最近一個理想主義新的版本—被其學術(shù)遺民稱之為建構(gòu)主義—在關(guān)于國際關(guān)系理論的爭論中回歸到了一個突出的地位。Constructivism,whichholdsthatsocialrealityiscreatedthroughdebateaboutvalues,oftenechoesthethemesthathumanrightsandinternationaljusticeactivistssound.建構(gòu)主義認為社會現(xiàn)實是通過關(guān)于價值觀的爭論而產(chǎn)生，建構(gòu)主義通常認同那個人權(quán)和國際公正積極分子所探索的主題。Recenteventsseemto vindicate thetheory’sresurgence;atheorythatemphasizestheroleofideologies,identities,persuasion,andtransnationalnetworksishighlyrelevanttounderstanding thepost-9/11world.最近發(fā)生的事情似乎讓這樣的理論又重新有了活力。這個強調(diào)意思形態(tài)，統(tǒng)一性，信仰和跨國網(wǎng)絡作用的理論和911事件后的世界緊密相關(guān)。ThemostprominentvoicesinthedevelopmentofconstructivisttheoryhavebeenAmerican,butEurope’sroleissignificant.在建構(gòu)主義理論的發(fā)展中，最突出的意見一直是美國的方面的，但是歐洲的作用也很重要。European philosophical currents helpedestablishconstructivisttheory,andtheEuropeanJournalofInternationalRelationsisoneoftheprincipaloutletsforconstructivistwork.歐洲哲學趨勢幫助建立了建構(gòu)主義理論，而且對于建構(gòu)主義的作品說，《國際關(guān)系歐洲雜志》是其中一個最重要的發(fā)表的地方。Perhapsmostimportant,Europe’sincreasinglylegalisticapproachtointernationalrelations,reflectedintheprocessofformingtheEuropeanUnionoutofacollectionofsovereignstates,providesfertilesoilforidealistandconstructivistconceptionsofinternationalpolitics.也許最重要的，歐洲日益尊重法律的國際關(guān)系途徑，這些日益尊重法律的國際關(guān)系途徑在主權(quán)國云集形成的歐盟的過程中也有所反映，他們?yōu)槔硐胫杏兄徒?gòu)主義者的國際政治理念提供了豐富的理論基礎(chǔ)。Whereasrealistsdwellonthebalanceofpowerandliberalsonthepowerofinternationaltradeanddemocracy,constructivistsbelievethatdebatesaboutideasarethefundamentalbuildingblocksofinternationallife.然而現(xiàn)實主義者在思考著關(guān)于國際貿(mào)易者民主力量的力量和自由的平衡，建構(gòu)主義者相信關(guān)于這些思想的爭論是那些國際生命重要根基的障礙Individualsandgroupsbecomepowerfuliftheycanconvinceotherstoadopttheirideas.如果他們可以說服別人采取他們的思想和意見的話，個人和團體的力量將會變得很強大。People’sunderstandingoftheirinterestsdependsontheideastheyhold.人們對于他們利益的理解是基于他們所持有的那種思想。Constructivists find absurdtheideaofsomeidentifiable and immutable “nationalinterest,”whichsomerealistscherish.建構(gòu)主義認為一些可辨認的和不可辨認的“國際利益”的想法很荒唐，而這些想法是一些現(xiàn)實主義者所持有的。Especiallyinliberalsocieties,thereis overlapbetweenconstructivistandliberalapproaches,butthetwoaredistinct.尤其是在自由的社會中，在建構(gòu)主義和自由主義的途徑之間，有那么一個重疊處，但是這兩個理論是截然不同的。Constructivists contend that their theoryis

deeper

than

realism

and

liberalismbecause

it

explains

the

origins

of

theforces

that

drivethosecompeting

theories.建構(gòu)主義堅持認為他們的理論比現(xiàn)實主義者自于主義更加深入，因為建構(gòu)主義理論解釋那些力量的來源，這些力量能夠驅(qū)使這些相互矛盾的理論。For

constructivists,

international

changeresults

from

the

work

of

intellectualentrepreneurs

who

proselytize

newideasand“nameandshame”actorswhosebehaviordeviatesfromaccepted standards.對于建構(gòu)主義者來說，國際變化時由于這些知識企業(yè)家的工作所導致的，這些知識企業(yè)家誘導這些思想和“”Consequently,constructivistsroleoftransnationalactivistCampaigntoBanLandmines

oftenstudythenetworks—such—inpromotingchange.Suchgroups typically uncover andpublicizeinformation about violationsoflegalormoralstandards atleastrhetorically supported bypowerful democracies,including“disappearances”duringtheArgentinemilitary’sruleinthelate1970s, concentrationcampsin Bosnia, and the hugenumber ofciviliandeathsfromlandmines.Thispublicityisthenusedtopressgovernmentstoadoptspecificremedies,suchastheestablishmentofawarcrimestribunalortheadoptionofalandminetreaty.Thes