跨越制度边界的互动——国际制度与非成员国关系研究

【作者】 王玮；

【导师】 李少军；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 国际关系， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 国际制度的出现改变了国际社会的版图,在成员国和非成员国之间树立起了无形的边界。探讨国际制度的社会作用,不仅需要考察它在何种程度上促进制度框架内成员国之间的合作,也需要讨论它在何种程度上推动成员国和非成员国之间跨越制度边界的互动。研究国际制度与非成员国的关系,实际上是把现有研究未予重视的经验事实纳入到理论分析的框架之中,因而具有重要的理论价值。为了确立起分析国际制度与非成员国关系的理论框架,本文首先讨论了国际制度对成员国和非成员国社会影响的差异。从国际制度的实际运行来看,一方面,成员国试图扩大制度规则的适用范围,并且会通过纳入新成员的方式提高组织机构的行动能力。另一方面,非成员国也希望通过接触国际制度实现如下目标:对国际制度构成的社会环境作出反应、分享国际制度在推进全球治理中带来的实际利益、以及取得国际社会的认同。当彼此有了交往的需要时,跨越制度边界的互动将成为可能。在讨论了跨界互动的起源之后,本文对跨界互动的规则基础进行了讨论。国际制度作为既成事实,不仅改变了国际社会的治理空白状态,也使得既定行为方式取得了一定的社会认可。在这个意义上,制度规则构成了跨界互动的规则基础。然而,国际制度对制度成员和非成员构成了不同社会约束。质言之,国际制度对成员国产生制度框架内的作用,而对非成员国的作用则通常以后者同意承受拘束为前提。因此,有必要分析驱使非成员国同意承受约束的社会因素。这里提出了国际制度和非成员国相互合法化的解释模式,一方面,非成员国在一定程度上接受制度宗旨;另一方面,国际制度也相应地纳入非成员国的重要关切。本文进一步指出,国际制度和非成员国的相互合法化,不是谁改变了谁的单向因果链条,而是双方协同演化的过程。在这一过程中,国际制度的“教学”作用固然是重要的一个方面,但是国际制度的“学习”功能也不容忽视。否则,制度先行者和后来者之间的冲突将变得不可调解,进而导致跨界互动的中断甚至终止。本文以六方会谈机制、英国入盟欧共体、印度与核不扩散体制关系为例,对上述机理进行了阐释。关于中国全面参与国际制度的提法,本文指出,深化参与已加入国际制度和扩大参与未加入国际制度是两个不同的范畴。处理好中国同未加入国际制度关系,不仅能为中国开辟新的外交场合,而且能带来更高的边际收益。论文就不同事务领域中国未加入国际制度的基本情况进行了考察,同时也结合出口控制领域的有关史实对中国与外部世界的相互合法化作了初步探讨。本文得出结论认为,相互合法化的程度对跨界互动的进程,以及跨界互动形成的结构都有重要影响。在国际关系研究中,讨论国际制度的社会作用,不仅要关注它如何推动了成员国之间的合作,还应该探讨它如何促进了非成员国和成员国的相互靠拢,直至非成员国改变身份成为制度成员。更多还原

【Abstract】 International institutions are created to promote cooperation, with a byproduct of institutional borders distinguishing members with non-members. Social effects of an international institution, therefore, are not only how it affects cooperation among members within the context of institution, but also how it affects the relationship between institutional insiders and outsiders. For this reason, it is theoretically enlightening to analysis how institutions affect social behavior of nonmembers, more or less ignored in current research agenda.To begin with, this dissertation seeks to find out how it differs for member states and nonmembers in facing an institution. The author contends that members endeavor to broaden the scope an institution covers and build up institutional capacity to cope with public concern. Whereas, nonmembers initiate outreach activities to react to the social environment an institution creates, take a share of institutional benefit of global governance, and gain sufficient international recognition. When these two sets of individual needs match with each other, it then paves way for two sides to meet and interact with each other.Insofar as the rules applicable, the author claims that the institution in being constitutes a foundation based on which interaction unfolds. The institution in being may as well advance certain modes of behavior, making the tabula rasa of international society a thing of past. Yet, an international institution confines and enables nonmembers in different ways from it does to members. While it affects members within the context of the institution, this does not happen without non-members’prior adherence to this institution. Therefore, it is necessary to explain why non-members decide to adhere to the principles embedded in an institution. The author points out that the need for mutual legitimization brings institutional insiders and outsiders together. More often than not, non-members need to adhere to the mission and principles advanced, whereas the institution needs to add concerns of outsiders or newcomers in its rule system.The mutual legitimization, however, does not happen accidentally. Here, the logic of who-shapes-whom does not apply, instead, co-evolution between institution and non-members counts. Institution not only teaches, but also learns. The absence of organizational learning makes mutual legitimization difficult if not impossible. The author then takes Six-party talk, UK’s EC entry, and Indian nuclear diplomacy for examples to illustrate above mentioned dynamics.Concerning the empirical experience of China, the author points out that comprehensive participation in international society not only requires China to deepen participation in the context of institutions joined in, but also calls for broadened participation in institutions from which China is still absent. Investment in institutions of the latter category means to China a bright diplomatic opportunity and higher marginal return. The author also takes a sketch over institutions China yet to join and concentrates on the field of non-proliferation to evaluate the extent to which China and international society mutually legitimized.It concludes that mutual legitimization significantly affects both the process of interaction between institutional insiders and outsiders and the realignment of international society as a result. In the field of international relations, when discussing the social effects of international institutions, besides the question of how institutions shapes members’behavior, the phenomenal hits of institutional insiders and outsiders are also noteworthy.更多还原