【作者】 李海龙；

【导师】 王学玉； Gunilla Herolf；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 国际政治， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 长期以来,国际政治学界认识到国际制度是国际秩序的重要支柱。从国际社会发展的现实来看,为什么国家在某个特定的问题领域中愿意选择某一种特定形式的制度安排?为什么国家有时为了加入某个正式的国际制度而愿意放弃或移交部分行动自由乃至部分主权,有时却为了保持自己的行动自由而拒绝加入或违背国际制度?为什么国家有时愿意签订具有法律约束力的条约,有时却选择达成不具有约束力的非正式协议?为什么有的国家试图强化制度安排的超国家性质,而有的国家力图保持它的政府间特点?为何有的制度化能够维持相当一段时间,而有的制度化则仅仅成为昙花一现?这些都是值得国际政治专业学们探讨的问题。其核心问题涉及到制度化的动力及其转变,以及制度化对国家行为产生的影响。对于制度化动力的探讨,当前主要存在两个对立的理论。一个是综合新现实主义和新自由主义的理性选择理论,强调国家从预期结果逻辑出发,对制度化的成本-收益进行计算,其正向结果将推动国家参与和支持制度化,这构成国家的工具性制度化行为。另一个则是吸收建构主义和反思主义的社会建构理论,强调国家对适当性逻辑的遵循——国家追求、遵循、学习制度规范而参与制度化,构成了一个建构性制度化的进程。然而二者进行分析时,总是将对方视为直接对立方而造成单个理论无法全面揭示制度化本质的结果。这是因为在国际制度的现实中,单纯的一种制度化动力和影响路径很少存在,必须建立起一个桥接点,吸收二者之长来进行全面分析。因此,国际制度研究中的一个重要问题在于如何通过建立一种新的概念化框架,将理性选择和社会建构两种分析模型有效的整合在内。如果将理论与现实相结合就能发现,在制度化的过程中两种因素同时起作用。对国家在国际制度中的社会化和社会交往的研究就是一个很好的融合点。理性选择和社会建构的相似之处在于两者都强调社会互动和社会化的性质和作用。社会化水平是衡量制度化高低的重要标准,一个国家的发展和崛起可以通过加入国际制度方式的融入国际社会,以一种温和的方式实现自身利益。本文认为,国家间的制度化进程存在三个主要的变量,国家权力,国家认同以及社会化程度,前两者分别是两个动力的核心变量,国家权力主要是指制度化过程中,参与制度化的国家之间的权力差异；国家认同主要是指国家对自身和他者的认知情况,其中包含对政治制度、经济体制、意识形态、法律体系、文化传统、宗教信仰以及语言等方面等因素。社会化程度是前两者因素发挥作用的平台,是理性选择和社会建构两种制度化动力的桥接点,也是衡量制度化水平高低的重要标准。其他的因素同这三个因素存在重要关系,并以此为中心对制度化发生作用。针对国际制度分析的现实,本文出三个假设：第一,从理性选择的角度来看,国家间权力差距越大,国家接受制度化的愿望越强烈,制度化水平也会相对较高。第二,从社会建构的角度来看,国家间相互认同程度越高,国家间制度化水平越高。第三,在国际制度化中,国家间交往越密切,社会化程度越高,持续性回报越多,从理性选择动力向社会建构动力转化体现地越明显,制度化程度就越高,国际制度就更加有效和稳定。反之亦然。对于跨大西洋关系的制度化,单独的理性选择与社会建构都不能推动它的高水平发展。因此,本文借鉴一个关键词：战略性社会建构动力,将理性技术和社会建构动力结合分析。战略性指的是国家的理性选择战略,也就是对国家权力和利益的考虑以及收益达成所需成本的得失计算,以及在这个基础上对制度规范的战略性使用。社会建构指的是社会因素在国际制度化中的影响,以及制度化对国家的规范性塑造和认同培养,也就是参与制度化的国家之间的社会化交往与发展。在大部分情况下,二者是不可分割的,相互影响甚至转化,这在欧美制度化中得到明显的印证。在这种动力下,理性选择和社会建构融合于动态的社会化交往过程中,共同对国家参与制度制度化产生影响。历史上,国家间的冲突并不少见,安全领域中国家之间的结盟与背叛更是一个常态。但二战后的欧美,在安全领域的制度建设方面,是世界上制度化最为完善和稳定的地区。从一定程度上而言,欧美安全关系的发展史就是一个制度化的历史。冷战期间,欧美联盟以内外双重威胁为动力而开始发展,以北大西洋公约为主体,辅助以其它的安全制度群,建立了一个完善的制度网络。冷战之后,同新现实主义的预测相反,欧美制度化非但没有衰落,反而经历了一个改革与扩大的过程。冷战结束后,国际形势发生了巨大变化,西方领导人希望在现存安全制度的基础上,对跨大西洋地区的安全体系进行重新建构,这包含安全组织的调整和扩大、新制度的建立等等,对未来的欧美关系乃至全球安全体系产生重要影响。因此,欧美之间制度化的发展是国际制度建设的典型代表,其中很多东西对于国家间关系的发展和调整具有深远的启发意义,值得世界各国认真学习。在政治现实的背后隐藏着欧美制度化动力转变的路线。随着欧美关系的发展,经过双方复杂和密集的社会交往,欧美间制度化向更高的层次发展,制度化的动力从单纯的对共同安全的追求和国家利益的追逐,到逐渐浓厚的社会建构,更多的因素尤其是社会因素被包含在内,其作用也愈加明显,形成了一个综合的战略性社会建构动力。欧美制度化动力的变化以及制度化结果给欧美自身甚至整个世界带来了深远的影响。其中欧美制度化呈现了一系列明显的特征,最为明显的是“宪政主义特征”,使得欧美间外交政策的制定和实施很少诉诸于权力而是诉诸于制度。认同方面,欧美双方在原有对西方文化共同认知的基础上,对自由民主规范、法治原则等观念进行内化和吸收,推动跨大西洋地区进入一个以康德文化为主体的安全制度共同体；在社会交往方面,长期的欧美间交往催生了浓厚的制度性回报,为欧美制度的维持和发展提供良好的基础和强劲的动力。这些特征将是未来跨大西洋安全关系发展的重要筹码,推动其总体向一个稳定合作的方向发展。总之,本文在采纳众家之长的基础上,结合新制度主义各派理论,吸收社会学、政治学、历史学的相关知识,论述跨大西洋安全关系的制度化进程。制度化是一个复杂进程,尤其是制度化动力方面,国家参与制度化的动机更是包含众多因素。单纯的理性选择和社会建构理论难以对其进行深入和全面的解释。国际政治现实中,也很少出现单纯某一类型的逻辑动力。如果能够将这些因素和逻辑结合在一起,将加强国际关系理论对国家的国际规范遵守的解释力。从跨大西洋安全关系的制度化进程来看,如果国家能够同时认识制度的工具性影响和建构性影响,将国家的理性分析和社会交往同时给予重视,将有助于国家吸收和学习新的国际规范,它将更快地融入到国际社会中,并达成更加稳定的制度性合作。更多还原

【Abstract】 For a long time, many scholars in the political science have realized that international institution is one of the key pillars for the international order. From reality of the international society, there are lots of interesting questions about the international institutions. Why one state prefers to choose some kind of international institution on peculiar field? Why one state could desert some of national interest even some part of sovereignties to join in some kind of institutionalization but refuse to join others to keep the freedom? Why one state would like to strengthen the super-state rights of some kinds of international institutions and weaken others? And why some international institutions could keep stable for a very long time and others are short-lived. These questions are deserved to be analyze by us. The key question among them is what are the driving forces and their change, also the influence to the national states from the institutionalization.For these two questions, there are two kinds of opposing answers. One is the theory of rational choice which absorbs the common foundation of neorealism and neoliberalism, which emphasizes logic of consequentialism and the cost-benefit calculation, which we can call rational-institutionalism. The other is the theory of social construction which absorbs the constructivism theory and other social theories such as the English School, which emphasizes the logic of appropriateness and national states abide by and learn international norms. We can call it social-institutionalism. However, from observation of the international realities, we can see that one individual theory cannot interpret the institutionalization of transatlantic security relations clearly and completely. I would like to move away from an "either/or," "gladiator" style of analysis (either rational choice or constructivism) to a "both/and" perspective, and build a bridge to connect the rationalism and constructivism. The socialization theory and reality can take the bridge role and make up the gap. There are lots of similarities between rational choice and social construction, the social interaction and socialization are one of the most characteristics. So the analysis of socialization would help us reveal the development of institutionalization. There are three key variables in the process of institutionalization:national power, national identity and the socialization level. The first on is the core of rational choice, especially the power disparities which decide the capability of pursuit of interest and the form of foreign policy. The core of social construction is the national identity means national states how know and understand itself and others, which contains many factors, for example the political system, the economical structure, ideological system, religious belief. The socialization is the stage for first two variables and the bridge for rational choice and social construction, which is also an important measurement for the level of institutionalization. On these three variables, this paper put forward three hypotheses:First, from a view of rational choice, the more extreme the power disparities, the stronger national state want to join in the process of institutionalization, the higher level for the institutionalization. Second, from a view of social construction, the more similar for the national identity is, the higher level for the institutionalization. On the basis of such two hypotheses, we can also find the other two hypotheses. One of them refers to the social interaction of states in the international institutions. The other refers to the membership and effectiveness of international institutions. Third, in the process of institutionalization, the more interaction among states is, the higher for the socialization, the more increasing return to institutions. Which could push the rational choice driving force change into social construction driving force; push the institutionalization level from low to high and bring a more stable and efficient environment and vice versa.And for the Transatlantic security relations, both rational choice or social construction itself cannot bring us a clear explanation. So this paper would like to borrow a word to put forward a comprehensive driving force:the strategic social construction driving force, which contains both rational choice and social construction forces, also the process of social interaction among states. For the strategic part, states would follow the calculation path. National power, interest and the cost are the key elements. For the social construction part, the social factors play important role, especially the national identity, such as the construction of common knowledge, the basic value, and the types of states. With the development of institutionalization, at the basis of the rational choice driving force, more and more social factors are absorbed and finally promote the coming of the strategic social construction driving force. Behind the strategic social construction driving force, the socialization and interaction are core elements, which bring the compliance of international norms and put the institutionalization to a higher level.We all know that the security is the most important field for one state, where state is reluctant to make any concession. From the history, we can always find that the alliance and betrayal are normal behaviors among states, especially on the national security field. However, if we look at the institutionalization of transatlantic security relations, we can find that their alliance is stable, durable and highly institutionalized in general. The characteristic of transatlantic security relations is formalization and multilateralism, which makes the Transatlantic Alliance become the one of the most successful ones in the world history. After the Cold War, there are lots of huge changes in the International Society. The Western leaders plan to reconstruct the transatlantic even the global security structure, whose basis would be the existing security institutions. In the new era, the Transatlantic Alliance itself should make fundamental changes, including the adjustment and enlargement, the building of new institutions and so on. The strategic change brings important influences to the transatlantic relations even the global security. So the institutionalization of Transatlantic is the representative of the whole world, from which we can learn a lot, especially on how to construct and preserve the international institutions.Behind the political reality, we can see the change of driving force for the transatlantic institutionalization. On the basis of rational choice, the transatlantic institutionalization absorbs social factors, changes into a strategic social construction dynamics. Both rational and social factors are integrated into national socialization, which pushes the instrumental institutionalization change into constructive institutionalization, and brings deep and far influence to national states, which brings deep influence for transatlantic relation even the global order. From observation of its process, we can see there are many obvious characteristics, among which is the "constitutional characteristics", which locks the usage of national power during the process of making and carrying out of foreign policy. On the aspect of identity, both sides of transatlantic region build a institutional security community on the basis of norms of freedom, democracy and law, in which Kantian culture is the chief standard. On the aspect of socialization, long history interaction produces thick increasing return to institution and brings strong driving force to keep and develop the transatlantic institutionalization. All of these characteristic are vital factor for the future development of transatlantic security relation, which would make it in a stable cooperation status.In general, this paper wants to adopt the merit of different theories, especially the usage of institutionalism, the sociology, politics, and history and so on, to explain the development of the process of institutionalization of transatlantic relations. The key question of this paper is that:what is the driving force of institutionalization for Transatlantic States? In other word, why states take part in institutions or what kinds of factors decide the level of institutionalization. Inside the core question, I would like to discuss what is the influence of the different driving force? We can see that most of institutionalization are complicated process, which contain many different factors. Either the rational choice or the social construction cannot explain it clearly and profoundly, which need us to use a comprehensive method. For the development of transatlantic institutionalization, if national states could realize both the instrumental and constructive effects of international institutions, and emphasize both the rational choice and socialization, they could reach a more stable and efficient institutional.cooperation.更多还原