期刊简介
《中国国际政治季刊》（The China Journal of International Politics）创刊于2006年，2012年进入SSCI，迄今仍是中国大陆主办的唯一一份政治学SSCI专业期刊。自创刊以来，CJIP坚持发表原创性学术研究成果，重点推动国际关系理论创新和中国对外关系方面的研究，发表了诸多国内外知名学者的文章。CJIP发表的文章在东亚、欧洲和北美三地学者间保持了较好的平衡，在促进国际关系理论多元化发展方面发挥了独特作用。2022年该刊影响因子为2.0，在96份国际关系类SSCI期刊中名列第39，是亚洲地区排名最高的国际关系类SSCI期刊。
本期目录
国际关系理论中是否存在中国学派？
Is There a Chinese School of IR Theory?
例外主义的关系分析：将自由主义与儒家多边主义和情感相联系
A Relational Analysis of Exceptionalism: Connecting Liberalism with Confucian Multilateralism and Emotion
为什么现在有非西方国际关系理论
Why there is Now Non-Western International Relations Theory
论坛：国际关系理论中国学派之辩
Forum: Debating the Chinese School(s) of IR Theory
国际关系理论中东亚历史的使用与误用
The Use and Misuse of East Asian History in IR Theorizing
内容摘要
国际关系理论中是否存在中国学派？
题目：Is There a Chinese School of IR Theory?
作者：Peter J Katzenstein，康奈尔大学政府系国际研究教授。
摘要：国际关系理论中是否存在中国学派？作者对这个问题的回答是矛盾的。尽管国际关系理论中没有一个内核一致的中国学派，却有一些不同的由中国学者提出的国际关系理论。如果说“物以类聚，人以群分”，那么中国学者在研究方法上的差异与他们都是中国人这一事实同样重要。清华学派/道义现实主义和古典现实主义有很多共同之处。文化关系主义、共生理论和天下观念提供了很有意思的中国方法。中国国际关系学者和美国、欧洲以及世界其他地方的学者一样，都沉浸于19世纪牛顿机械论的世界观中，自然科学中的量子力学和科学宇宙论已经证实了牛顿世界观的局限性。相比之下，人文学科的世界观与20世纪的物理学完全一致。然而，中国和世界其他地方的社会科学和国际关系分析家仍然坚持牛顿世界观，这导致无论是中国还是西方的国际关系学者都在管窥蠡测一般预测未来。从历史学和语义学角度来看，未来和过去一样始终处于变化之中，历史总能被再次解释，未来也总是不可被预测。
Is there a Chinese School of International Relations (IR) Theory? My answer to this question is ambivalent。 Although a Chinese school of IR theory does not exist in the singular, it does exist in the plural。 If “birds of a feather flock together,” then the difference in approaches taken by Chinese scholars is as relevant as is the fact that the scholars are all Chinese。 The Tsinghua School and moral realism share much with classical realism。 Cultural relationalism also offers a distinctive Chinese approach as do Gongsheng/symbiotic and tianxia approaches。
That said, Chinese IR scholarship shares with IR scholarship in America, Europe, and the rest of the world its firm anchor in the Newtonian mechanical worldview of the late 19th century。 Natural sciences, such as quantum mechanics and scientific cosmology, meanwhile concluded long ago that Newtonianism offers an often practicable yet constricted view of the world。 In contrast, the humanities operate with a worldview fully consonant with 20th century physics。 It is the social sciences and the analysis of IR which continues to adhere to the mechanical worldview common in the late 19th century—in China and the rest of the world。
In both “China” and “the West” IR, scholars are tapping their canes against the pavement, seeking to fathom what will happen next。 If historians and semantic modelers are right, like the future, the past is never distant。 Always open to reinterpretation, it is like the future—unpredictable。
例外主义的关系分析：将自由主义与儒家多边主义和情感相联系
题目：A Relational Analysis of Exceptionalism: Connecting Liberalism with Confucian Multilateralism and Emotion
作者：石之瑜，同济大学政治与国际关系学院客座教授、台湾大学政治学系名誉教授；郭銘傑，台湾大学政治学系副教授。
摘要：关于例外主义的文献关注其独特的国家来源和由此而来的不同风格。因此，例外主义几乎成了文化和身份的代名词，而非国际关系。本文认为，例外主义揭示了一种关系身份，这种身份在例外主义出现之前既喻示多边关系，又受其影响。本文还认为，所有关系系统都在寻求扩张和共存。基于对儒家和自由主义多边关系的比较研究，两者都有类似的参与、转变、脱离和学习循环。然而，多边关系中的两种例外主义有所不同。美国例外主义信奉一种超越的身份，并以此与其他国家形成鲜明对比，因为其他国家拥有相同的身份，也应该遵循相同的规则。相反，中国例外主义设想了一种优越的、仁慈的身份，以确保没有共同身份的所有人之间的和谐与和平。本文追溯了儒家思想与自由主义在多边主义——包容性与基于规则的治理，仁慈的例外与普遍的权利——的解释上的差异，以及由此产生的与陌生人接触时的取向。结论前的最后一部分对与国际关系理论日益关注的情感因素相对应。这种例外主义与情感之间的理性—情感联系进一步证明了关系议程在解释多元国际关系方面的前景。
The literature on exceptionalism is preoccupied with its distinctive national sources and resultantly differing styles。 Exceptionalism has thus become almost synonymous with culture and identity, rather than international relations (IRs)。 The paper instead argues that exceptionalism reveals a relational identity that both informs and is informed by a multilateral relation prior to the emergence of exceptionalism。 It also argues that all relational systems seek expansion and coexistence。 Based upon a comparative study of Confucian and liberal multilateral relationalities, a similar cycle of engagement, conversion, disengagement, and learning is applicable to both。
Two exceptionalisms in multilateral relationality differ, however。 American exceptionalism embraces a transcendent identity with which to contrast with the rest, who share the same identity and are expected to follow the same rules。 Chinese exceptionalism contrarily envisions a superior, benevolent identity to ensure harmony and peace among all, who share no collective identity。 The paper traces how Confucianism diverges from liberalism with regard to what accounts for multilateralism—inclusiveness versus rule-based governance, and benevolent exceptions versus universal rights—and the resulting orientations during encounters with strangers。
The last section before the conclusion corresponds to the growing attention in IRs theorising to the factor of emotion。 Such rational–emotional connectivity—between exceptionalism and emotion—can further attest to the promise of the relational agenda in explaining pluriversal IRs。
为什么现在有非西方国际关系理论
题目：Why there is Now Non-Western International Relations Theory
作者：任晓，北京外国语大学区域与全球治理高等研究院教授，复旦大学国际问题研究院教授。
摘要：过去二十年来，中国国际关系学者开启了世界政治的创新思维之旅。这一努力结出了理论硕果，既是对现有范式的补充，也有可能形成独特的国际关系“中国学派”。与常见的误解相反，这一新兴学派并非试图直接挑战西方理论霸权，而是要反映中国知识贡献的有机演变，不受政府的直接影响。值得注意的是，“共生”等理论在脱离西方国际关系框架的情况下已经独立成熟。因此，“中国学派”的出现预示着向更具包容性的全球国际关系计划迈出了重要一步。
Over the past two decades, Chinese international relations scholars have embarked on a journey of innovative thinking in world politics. The endeavour has borne theoretical fruits that both complement existing paradigms and potentially constitute a distinct “Chinese school” of international relations. Contrary to common misconceptions, this emerging school seeks not to challenge Western theoretical hegemony outright, but rather to reflect the organic evolution of Chinese intellectual contributions, independent of direct government influence. Notably, such theories as gongsheng/symbiosis have, in diverging from Western IR frameworks, matured autonomously. The emergence of a “Chinese school” thus heralds a significant stride towards a more inclusive Global IR programme.
论坛：国际关系理论中国学派之辩
题目：Forum: Debating the Chinese School(s) of IR Theory
作者：鲁鹏，华东政法大学政府管理学院教授；任晓，北京外国语大学区域与全球治理高等研究院教授，复旦大学国际问题研究院教授；Toni Erskine，澳大利亚国立大学亚太事务学院教授；Stefano Guzzini，欧洲大学学院政治与社会科学系教授，日内瓦高等学院国际关系与政治学系兼职教授；Barry Buzan，伦敦政治经济学院国际关系系名誉教授；Beate Jahn，萨塞克斯大学国际关系系名誉教授；Justin Rosenberg，萨塞克斯大学国际关系系名誉教授。
摘要：本论坛论文与本刊往期和本期连续发表的八篇论文共同构成了一个特别的专题研讨会，在国际关系理论的“中国学派”与“西方”国际关系理论之间展开对话。撰稿人既有代表各种西方范式的著名西方理论家，也有来自“中国学派”三个分支，即“道义现实主义”“关系理论”和“共生理论”的中国顶尖理论家。中国学派与西方理论之间的对话之所以成为可能，是因为前者近年来在理论上取得了突破，而后者则在增强理论多样性方面作出了努力。双方作者都致力于促进平等、全面和建设性的对话。西方理论家对中国学派进行了整体评价，并深入探讨了其分支的具体内容。他们将中国学派与西方理论进行比较，强调异同，反思共同问题，指出中国学派的贡献与不足，并为其进一步发展提出解决方案。作为回应，中国学派学者重申了他们的理论关切，并相应地完善了其理论立场。此次对话展示了中西方理论家克服语言和文化障碍，实现相互理解和宝贵合作的潜力。
The papers in this Forum, along with eight papers consecutively published in previous and current issues of this journal, constitute a special symposium, which engages in a dialogue between the “Chinese School” of International Relations (IR) theory and “Western” IR theories。 The contributors are renowned Western theorists representing various Western paradigms and leading Chinese theorists from the three branches of the Chinese School, namely “moral realism,” “relational theory,” and “symbiosis theory。
” The dialogue between the Chinese School and Western theories has become feasible due to recent theoretical breakthroughs achieved by the former and the observed efforts to enhance theoretical diversity in the latter。 Contributors from both sides are committed to fostering an equal, comprehensive, and constructive dialogue。 Western theorists provide an evaluation of the Chinese School as a whole and delve into the specifics of its branches。 They compare the Chinese School with Western theories, highlighting similarities and differences, reflecting on shared issues, identifying both contributions and shortcomings of the Chinese School, and proposing solutions for its further development。
In response, Chinese School scholars reiterate their theoretical concerns and refine their theoretical stances accordingly。 This dialogue demonstrates the potential for Chinese and Western theorists to overcome language and cultural barriers to achieve mutual understanding and valuable collaboration。
国际关系理论中东亚历史的使用与误用
题目：The Use and Misuse of East Asian History in IR Theorizing
限 时 特 惠： 本站每日持续更新海量各大内部创业教程，一年会员只需98元，全站资源免费下载 点击查看详情
站 长 微 信： lzxmw777
