国内结构与制度影响：国际气候制度在中、美两国的影响研究（1990-2010）

【作者】 马建英；

【导师】 沈丁立；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际关系， 2011， 博士

【摘要】 全球气候危机的日益加剧催生了国际气候谈判的开启。由于进行温室气体减排涉及到各国的历史和代际间的公平、发展权益的保护、新能源和环保节能技术的开发以及资金的转移等问题,这导致了气候变化问题经历了一个从“科学”到“政治”的“政治化”进程。本文认为,应当以辩证的态度来看待全球公共问题的“政治化”现象。全球气候变化问题的“政治化”既会产生消极的影响,也有其积极的一面,不应予以全面否定。作为世界上最大的两个温室气体排放国,中国和美国在全球气候治理中扮演着至关重要的角色。本文借鉴现有研究成果,将国家参与国际制度划分为两种情形——正向参与和反向参与。前者反映了国家与国际制度之间的一种积极关系；后者反映的是国家与国际制度之间的消极关系。通过对中、美两国参与国际气候制度的实践梳理和国际气候制度在两国的影响评判,本文研究发现：总体上而言,中国正向参与了国际气候制度,并且国际气候制度在中国国内发挥了积极的影响,产生了内化效应。美国反向参与了国际气候制度,后者在美国虽然也产生了一定影响,但美国国内的回应多半是消极被动的。换言之,国际气候制度在美国并没有产生明显的内化效应。而对相似的气候变化挑战和温室气体减排压力,中、美两国除了基于国家利益的不同考量之外,作为一种干预变量的国内结构在国际气候制度产生差异性影响的过程中发挥着不可忽视的作用。本文将国家的国内结构类型划分为国家主导型和社会主导型两类,前者以中国为代表,后者以美国为典型。本文研究认为,在中国的国主导型国内结构中,国家权相对集中,国家领导层一旦接受某项国际制度,会很容易在国内自上而下的实施制度。而在美国的社会主导型国内结构中,有效的政策制定总是需要不同部门和机构“权力妥协”和“利益纷争”,这是一个艰难而复杂的博弈过程,无疑会降低国际制度进入国内几率或者令前者产生积极效应的可能性大打折扣。上述解释是构成国际气候制度在中国产生积极影响和内化效应,而在美国则受到某种程度的抵制,未产生内化效应的重要原因之一。需要特别强调的是,本项研究中所涉及的国内结构类型并无任何褒贬色彩,也不能根据本文的研究结论就此断定国家主导型国内结构比社会主导型国内结构具有所谓的“优越性”。最后,论文就本项研究对中国的政策启示作了粗浅的分析,并指出了未来有待进一步探讨的问题。更多还原

【Abstract】 The aggravating global climate crisis facilitates the emergence of international negotiations over climate governance. Cutting the Green House Gas emissions will definitely involve many countries’interest, such as the historical and intergenerational equality, the protection of development rights, the development of new energy and environment-friendly technology, and the transfer of funds. The above-mentioned concerns make the climate change issue——originally scientific problem and later political dispute——fall into a process of politicization. This study takes a dialectical approach to treat the phenomenon of politicization in the field of global public issues. As a typical global public issue, the politicization of climate change issue has both its positive and negative effects, and this cannot be completely negated.As the two biggest Green House Gas emitters in the world, China and the United States play critical roles in the global climate governance. Based on current studies, this dissertation divides countries’engagement with international institutions into two circumstances, namely active engagement and passive engagement. The former reflects active relations between the participants and international institutions. However, the latter reflects a kind of negative relations. By respectively studying the engagement of China and the United States with the international climate institutions and evaluating the effects of international climate institutions in the two countries’ domestic circle, this dissertation finds that China takes an active engagement and the international climate institutions have made a positive influence and produced the internalization effects domestically. However, the United States takes a passive engagement with the international climate institutions. The international climate institutions do make an impact on the United States, but its response to the international climate institutions is generally negative. In other words, the international climate institutions do not produce apparent internalization effects in the United States.China and the United States are facing the similar climate change challenge and the pressure of reducing Green House Gas emissions. There is no doubt that the two countries’climate change policies are based on their own national interest. Besides that, the domestic structure, as an intervening variable, also plays a critical role in the process of affecting the domestic politics mad by international climate institutions. This study generally makes the domestic structure into two types, namely state-dominated and society-dominated. Typically, China maintains a state-dominated structure and the United States holds a society-dominated one. In the state-dominated structure of China, the power of state is relatively concentrated. Once the state leaders accept some international institution, it would be easier for China to take top-down implementations domestically. In the society-dominated structure of the United States, however, the effective policies always need power compromise or struggles for interest among different institutions and agencies. It is a kind of complex bargaining with great difficulty. This will undoubtedly lower the possibility for international institutions entering into the domestic circle, or let the former’s effect discount. This will partly explain why the international climate institutions have made active influences and internalization effects in China, but failed in the United States. It should be stressed in particular that the types of domestic structure mentioned in this study have no commendatory or derogatory meaning. No one could make a conclusion that the state-dominated structure has advantages over society-dominated structure through this study. Finally, this study shortly discusses the policy implications for China and the issues to be further explored.更多还原