【作者】 曾晓祥；

【导师】 黄正柏；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 世界史， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 在国际政治研究领域,权力、规范往往是一对相互矛盾的话语,它们分别建立在不同的本体论基础之上。现实主义国际政治理论认为权力和利益是国家行为中起决定性作用的因素,其他因素则是国家行为中的次要因素;相反,建构主义理论认为,权力因素固然重要,但唯有通过观念才能真正起作用。在现实中,这种理论范式的不可通约性和经验事实之间似乎存在较大的脱节。东盟围绕柬埔寨问题的冲突管理表明,权力话语和规范话语都是国家或国际组织行为的重要手段,是无法相互替代的。作为以区域和平发展为宗旨的地区主义组织,东盟的成立在很大程度上是创始国管理区内国家间冲突的结果。国家间的冲突管理有多种方式,它包括建立联盟、地区主义和市场一体化等,从地区稳定、制度安全的立场出发,地区一体化的路径最终成为五个创始国的选择。基于经济、社会和文化的共同发展是维护地区和平与稳定的根本这一“共有观念”,东盟将其性质定位于非政治、非军事的合作,但其背后的政治意图是明确的:维护各自国家的主权、独立,防范共产主义的“颠覆”,在此基础上谋求地区事务的主导权。怎样协调成员国之间的不同利益,管理好本地区国家之间的各种冲突,东盟从和平的路径出发,逐步形成了一系列特殊的行为规范。这些规范既包括国际社会所共同遵守的诸多正式的法律理性规范,也包括若干建立在特殊的政治、经济发展水平之上的、以非正式形式出现的社会文化规范。由于东盟成员国特殊的发展阶段和历史际遇,东盟的法律理性规范中出现了对“不干涉内政”、“非军事合作”等原则的绝对化理解,作为非正式行为规范和决策机制的“东盟方式”,实际上也体现了对国家主权的高度敏感。正因为如此,东盟作为一个区域一体化组织,它并不以国家主权的让渡为特征。越柬战争及其连锁反应是对东盟有关“主权平等”、“和平解决争端”与“不干涉内政”等原则的挑战。从国际规范的角度上看,越柬两党、两国矛盾的根源在于双方围绕支配与反支配的斗争。它反应了越南在地区观念上与东盟的巨大差异,也宣告了1975年后东盟第一次规范扩散的失败。战争还加深了大国对地区事务的介入,从而打击了东盟建立“和平、自由和中立区”以及“一个东南亚”的理想。除此之外,难民问题、泰柬边界冲突等问题还直接威胁到了东盟成员国的稳定与安全,也影响到了东盟的团结。尽管如此,由于身份和利益的限制,东盟最终选择了以恢复柬埔寨独立为目的的冲突管理路径,它包括对话、沟通、国际动员、经济制裁和外交对抗等。但如何看待越南的战争行为、如何推动柬埔寨问题的政治解决,东盟成员国存在着不同的看法。最终,作为“东盟方式”灵活性的体现,“双轨外交”既维护了东盟作为一个整体、以“一个声音说话”的原则,也为成员国在越柬冲突各方之间进行有效的沟通创造了条件。早期的双轨外交由于双方的政策底线差距过大而宣告失败。1986年之后,随着各种形势的巨变,东盟对柬埔寨问题的政策出现了重大的法理突破,越南在柬利益及其所扶植的金边政权逐步得到了东盟的容忍和认可,与此同时,越南也逐渐转向了经济利益优先的偏好。在东盟的沟通与斡旋下,共同话语的建立和各自政策的妥协使得越柬冲突各方走上对话的舞台,推动了越柬战争的最终结束,也为越南接受东盟地区规范创造了条件。尽管观念和规范在东盟成员国之间、在东盟与越南的交往中有着重要的地位,但要真正推动柬埔寨问题的政治解决,却绝非那么简单。在任何重大地区问题上,东盟都不可能无视大国实力在东南亚的存在。要解决与越柬冲突,除了与冲突各方进行大力的外交努力外,东盟还必须充分动员国际社会尤其是大国的力量,来对冲突各方施加足够的压力,以促使它们从各自的立场后退,寻求符合东盟规范的冲突解决途径。事实证明,虽然成员国对于大国力量有着不同的看法,东盟及其成员国对这些大国的动员手段和效果都是相当有限的。越柬冲突的结束,固然离不开东盟的努力,但它同时也是大国博弈的结果。东盟介入越柬冲突管理的进程说明,东盟规范在不同层次的冲突管理中有着不同的效应,它能够有效地控制成员国之间的双边争端,但对成员国与区外国家的争端、区外国家之间的争端而言,东盟不得不动员物质性因素即权力的手段来进行管理。总之,在国际政治的多元话语结构中,规范是重要的,但最终起决定性作用的依然是权力因素。东盟在介入柬埔寨问题的冲突管理过程中,能够灵活运用各种物质性和非物质性手段,以推动冲突的最终解决。这也说明,关于规范与权力的学理分歧同外交政策制定者的现实决策之间有着较大的区别,运用权力手段还是规范的话语,取决于领导人追求国家或联盟理想时的特定场景。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the study of World Politics, power and norm which based on different ontology form a pair of antinomies. Realism considers power and benefit to be decisive factors, with the others being subordinate. On the contrary, Constrictivism believes that power could operate only through idea, although the factor of power is important. But in the other hand, the incommensurability between different academic paradigms is out of accord with the practice in international relations. From ASEAN’s intervening in the management of Cambodian Problem, it can be seen that the discourses of power and norm are all important means of action for states or international organizations, each one should not supersede the other.ASEAN as a regionalistic organization which aimed at regional peace and development, its establishment stemmed in large part from the regional conflict management among the five founder nations. There were many measures for the inter-national conflict management, such as leaguer establishment, regionalism and market integration, but regional integration became a optimal option of five founder nations for regional stabilization and their institutional security. Based on "shared ideas" of which economic, social and cultural co-prosperity being the groundwork of regional peace and stabilization, ASEAN was identified in non-political, non-military cooperation. This identification has a definite political intention: protect the sovereignty and independence, keep away the communist subversion, and then struggle for the dominant status in regional affairs.In order to harmonize different benefits and then manage regional conflicts peacefully among member states, ASEAN had established a series of behavioral norms. It include not only the promissory legal-rational norms which should be abode in international community and appeared in statute forms, but also the un-promissory social-cultural norms which based on special development level in ASEAN member states. Because of the historical and contemporary circumstances, there was a disposition of absolutization in ASEAN’s understanding of the legal-rational norms, such as the principles of "noninterference in internal affairs" and "non-military cooperation". As a informal behavioral norm and decision-making regime, the "ASEAN Way" was also resulted in the sensitivity to sovereignty of its members. For these reasons, ASEAN was not characterized by sovereignty transfer to constitute its identity of regional integration.The third Indochina War and its chain-reacting challenged ASEAN’s norms about "sovereign equality", "peacefully conflict resolution" and "noninterference in internal affairs". The war was actually stemmed in the struggle for predomination and anti-predomination between the two nation and their communist parties, Communist Party of Kampuchea and Vietnam Communist Party. The war reflected the great difference about regionalism of Vietnam and ASEAN, and also indicated the latter’s failure to diffuse ASEAN’s regional norms. Furthermore, fore-and-aft this war, great powers got a chance to intervene in Southeast Asia affairs, then endangered ASEAN’s ideal for "Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality" and "One Southeast Asia". Among others, the influx of refugee and conflict in Thai-Cambodian border endangered the stabilization, security and solidarity of ASEAN’s member states.Despite of the intolerable harm which resulted in Vietnamese aggression, ASEAN’s identity confined its action to the conflict management aimed at resume peace in Cambodia, the measure consist of dialogue, communication, mobilization in international community, economic sanction and diplomatic confrontation, etc. But how to evaluate this aggression and how to resolve the Cambodian Problem by political means, there are different views in ASEAN. Embodying the flexibility in "ASEAN Way", "double track" policy stuck to ASEAN’s principle of "speak with one voice" as a collectivity in one hand, it also created an atmosphere for communication among factions in Vietnam-Cambodian conflict in the other hand, and this policy got no achievement because of the great gulf between each factions. 1986 and after see a significant transformation in ASEAN’s policy towards Cambodian Problem, in which Vietnamese benefits and the puppet government in Cambodia got admitted, at the same time, Vietnam took a policy inclining to economic development. By ASEAN’s communication and mediate, the factions in Cambodian Problem entranced into the arena of dialogue based on the foundation of "shared discourse" and every factions’ compromise. At the time the third Indochina War went to end, there saw a disposition for Vietnam to accept ASEAN’s regional norms.Value and norm were both significant in interaction among member states of ASEAN and among ASEAN and Vietnam, but it’s not all for resolving the Cambodian Problem through political ways. ASEAN could not neglect the existence of great power in any sixty-four-dollar question in Southeast Asia. Except diplomatic struggle for a conflict resolution according with ASEAN’s regional norms, ASEAN should impel great powers to press every faction in conflict to get a compromise. Despite the different views and measures, every member states and ASEAN itself could do very little to mobilize the great power. As to the end of the conflict, ASEAN’s efforts were very important, but it was also an outcome of game between powers.It could be seen in ASEAN’s conflict management in the third Indochina War that ASEAN’s norms had different effect in different level of conflict, it had successfully controlled bilateral conflicts among member states. As to conflicts with and among external actors, ASEAN could not but appealed to substantial powers.To sum up, norm was an important factor in the multi-discourse framework of international politics, but it was power which gives a crucial and final function. In order to resolve the Cambodian Problem, ASEAN’s took material or immaterial measures according to circumstances in the conflict management. This proved that there are many distinctions between diplomatic decision-making and doctrinal research about norm and power. Which factor should be assorted to, power or norm, depends on the context in which leaders pursue the ideal of one’s country or of some league.更多还原