期刊简介
《国际关系》在观点上是明确的多元化。在许多学术期刊在范围上越来越专业化，在方法上越来越宗派的时候，本刊的编辑政策仍倾向于主题和方法的多样性。除了更主流的概念工作和政策分析外，本刊欢迎来自所有角度和与国际关系相关的所有主题的文章或建议：法律、经济学、伦理、战略、哲学、文化、环境等。本刊认为，这种多元化受到学术和政策界以及感兴趣的公众的极大需求。每卷通常都包含同行评审的研究文章，以及综述文章、采访、辩论和论坛的组合。总之，我们欢迎各种观点。2024年该期刊的影响因子为1.5。
本期目录
1
将气候带入现实存在
Bringing the climate into exsistence
2
适合其目的？气候变化、安全与国际关系
Sustaining gender: Natural resource management, conflict prevention, and the UN Sustaining Peace agenda in times of climate catastroph
3
从死亡中归来：国际关系生态学
Back from the dead: the ecology of IR
4
国际关系、气候政治与变革：有成效的参与机遇？
IR, climate politics, and change: opportunities for productive engagement?
5
自然权利国际法庭是多元化的吗？
Are the International Tribunals of Rights of Nature pluriversal?
6
原住民气候金融与国际关系的世界化：动态中的气候正义
Indigenous climate finance and the worlding of International Relations: climate justice in motion
7
从超越人类的世界中转化认识论脱节：生态调谐的知识方式的（交）节点
Transforming epistemological disconnection from the more-than-human world: (inter)nodes of ecologically attuned ways of knowing
8
超越国际关系，走向国际关系？
Beyond International Relations and toward International Relationality?
9
生成性衰败：走向关乎地球且服务地球的政
Generative decay: toward a politics of and for earth
内容摘要
将气候带入现实存在
题目：Bringing the climate into existence
作者：Hannah Hughes，英国阿伯里斯特威斯大学国际政治系国际政治与气候变化高级讲师。
摘要：本期特刊探讨了这样一个问题：国际关系研究以及我们作为学者的自身身份，如何能够通过何种方式、在哪些领域，与气候变化建立更紧密的联系，并为应对全球环境退化所需的社会和政治变革作出贡献。在引言中，本文从作者开始意识到在国际政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）的研究和分析中缺少气候变化的地方开始。通过合作和其他世界作家带领进行的旅程，本文回望并理解了这种缺失。这里提供了一个起点，以探索文章和评论在通过国际关系学科研究气候变化的旅程中将我们带向何方。每篇文章阐明了这一特刊试图解决的问题的不同维度，同时也探索国际关系研究如何、在哪里以及通过何种方式能够重新扎根于与地球更紧密的联系中。
This special issue takes up the problem of how, where and through what methodological means the study of international relations, and ourselves as scholars, may be brought into closer connection to climate change and contribute to the social and political change critical to responding to global environmental degradation. In the introduction, I begin from where I became aware of the absence of climate change in how I studied and analysed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I came to look back on and understand this absence through a journey that I was taken on by collaboration and with writers of and from other worlds. This provides a starting point to explore where the articles and commentaries take us as they chart their own journeys through the discipline of IR in the study of climate change. Each article articulates particular dimensions of the challenge that the special issue grapples with as it sets out to examine how, where and through what means the study of international relations may be re-rooted in closer relation to the Earth.
适合其目的？气候变化、安全与国际关系
题目：Fit for purpose? Climate change, security and IR
作者：Matt McDonald, 澳大利亚昆士兰大学国际关系政治学与国际研究教授。
摘要：正如本期特刊的文章所表明，国际关系学（IR）与环境问题之间的关系一直存在问题。实际上，很难避免这样的结论：IR几乎将环境变化视为全球政治重要关注的干扰因素，为我们理解或有效应对这些挑战提供的资源极其有限。这在安全研究子领域中或许最为明显，尽管越来越多的人认识到环境变化值得作为安全问题考虑。本文审视了这种关联性，尤其聚焦于气候变化问题。最终，本文提出了两个论点。首先，位于传统安全研究中的气候变化与安全关系探讨，难以应对人类世挑战的本质，更具体地说，是难以回答谁需要得到保护；威胁的性质是什么；以及谁有能力或负责应对这种威胁的问题。然而，其次我们可以看到，在国际关系领域中，当有关气候变化安全影响的学术研究与传统安全论述分道扬镳，不允许现有的权力配置定义思考代理性和政治场所的条件，并且反思性地、自我意识地借鉴国关学科之外的洞察时，其参与便蕴含着进步的潜力。这种更具批判性的参与所产生的工作量不断增加，这为这一研究领域在与像气候变化这样复杂且重要的挑战中进行富有成效的参与提供了希望的依据。
As the contributions to this special issue suggest, IR has had a problematic relationship with environmental issues. Indeed it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that IR has treated environmental change almost as a distraction from important concerns of global politics, and gives us few significant resources for understanding these challenges or addressing them effectively. This is perhaps most starkly evident in the subfield of security studies, despite increasing recognition that environmental change warrants consideration as a security issue. This paper examines this engagement with a particular focus on climate change. Ultimately, the paper advances two arguments. First, examinations of the climate change–security relationship located in traditional security studies struggle to come to terms with the nature of the Anthropocene challenge and more specifically with the questions of who needs securing; what the nature of the threat posed is; and who is capable of or responsible for addressing this threat. Second, however, we can see progressive potential in engagement with the security implications of climate change in IR where such scholarship parts ways with traditional accounts of security; does not allow existing configurations of power to define the conditions for thinking about agency and sites of politics; and reflexively and self-consciously draws on insights from beyond the IR discipline. The increasing volume of work consistent with this more critical engagement is grounds for hope for this field of study in engaging productively even with a challenge as complex and significant as climate change.
从死亡中归来：国际关系生态学
题目：Back from the dead: the ecology of IR
作者：Peter Newell, 英国萨塞克斯大学国际关系学教授，环境与发展领域的政治及政治经济学专家。
摘要：如果国际关系想要在寻求解释并改变正处于深化“多重危机”中的世界，从而在社会科学中保持其相关性，与其在死亡中交易，它需要认识到自己在生命网络中的位置并占据一席之地。在这篇文章中，作者首先论证了“选择生命”的必要性，通过去中心化国际关系学科的三个关键（相互关联的）支柱：将黩武主义常态化为外交政策的手段和目的；经济增长作为工业经济的目的和手段；人类中心主义及其在世界事务中未明言的人类至上主义意识形态。其次，作者提出了一系列概念和方法论上的创新，通过这些创新，国际关系学科可能会采纳更生态化的观点，并提出了将这种观点嵌入国际关系行为中的具体政治策略。作者认为，这些举措构成了两方面的基础：一方面是对世界政治中关键威胁如战争、贫困和生态危机的根源的改善性解释；另一方面，能提供替代性的解决思路，其重点在于通过一种超越人类范畴的国际关系阐释，以及对世界政治及其内部最为重要的关系进行更具全球性和多元普遍性的解读，来超越该学科的主导特征。
Rather than dealing in death, if IR is to retain relevance among the social sciences in seeking to both account for and change a world in the midst of a deepening ‘polycrisis’, it needs to recognise and take its place in the web of life. In this article, I firstly argue for the need to ‘choose life’ by de-centring three key (interrelated) pillars of the discipline: the normalisation of militarism as a means and end of foreign policy; economic growth as the means and end of industrial economies and anthropocentrism and its unstated ideology of human supremacy in world affairs. Secondly, I propose a series of conceptual and methodological innovations by which a more ecological view of IR might take hold in the discipline, as well as concrete political strategies for embedding it in the conduct of IR. I suggest that these moves form the basis of both an improved account of the underlying sources of key threats in world politics such as war, poverty and ecological crises and an alternative source of solutions focused on transcending dominant features of the discipline through a more than human account of IR and a more global and pluriversal account of world politics and the relations which matter most within it.
国际关系、气候政治与变革：有成效的参与机遇
题目：IR, climate politics, and change: opportunities for productive engagement
作者：Steven Bernstein, 加拿大多伦多大学政治学系教授，研究涵盖全球治理与制度、全球环境政治、非国家治理形式、国际政治经济学以及政策研究等领域。
摘要：“变革” 或 “转型” 一直是国际关系（IR）以及全球气候变化政治学术研究领域长期关注的重点。然而，这两个领域在很大程度上占据着相互独立的价值论、认识论、规范性和本体论空间，这导致了误解、相互批评，以及在这些问题上缺乏认真深入的交流互动。其结果是错失了变革国际关系的机遇，对气候变化的政治动态做出了错误诊断，而且反常的是，政治分析对更广泛的气候变化学术研究影响力有限。本文梳理了与这两个领域均相关的有关变革和转型的理解，提出了一种更具建设性的认识论和本体论转向，以在不确定性面前分析和规范性地应对变革。随后，本文介绍了一些实用的研究策略，用于开展与政策相关且具有前瞻性的学术研究，这些策略从解释变革转向识别能够强化（或削弱）变革及转型的因果逻辑和动态过程。文章最后通过对两项具有变革潜力的宏观政策变化的轨迹及可能存在的局限性进行示例分析作结，这两项政策变化分别是《巴黎协定》中的1.5摄氏度雄心目标以及全球范围内“净零”政策的扩散。
‘Change’ or ‘transformation’ are longstanding preoccupations of both International Relations (IR) and global climate change politics scholarship. Yet, the two fields largely occupy independent axiological, epistemological, normative, and ontological spaces that have led to misunderstandings, mutual criticisms, and a lack of serious engagement on these questions. The result is missed opportunities to transform IR, misdiagnoses of political dynamics of climate change, and, perversely, the limited influence of political analysis on wider climate change scholarship. This article identifies understandings of change and transformation relevant to both fields and introduces a productive epistemological and ontological shift for analyzing and normatively engaging with change in the face of uncertainty. It then introduces practical research strategies for policy-relevant and forward-looking scholarship that moves from explaining change to identifying causal logics and dynamic processes that can reinforce (or undermine) change and transformation. It concludes with illustrative analyzes of trajectories and possible limits of two macro policy changes with transformative potential: the 1.5-degree Celsius aspirational target in the Paris Agreement, and the proliferation of ‘net zero’ policies around the world.
自然权利国际法庭是多元宇宙化的吗？
题目：Are the International Tribunals of Rights of Nature pluriversal?
作者：Amaya Querejazu, 哥伦比亚安蒂奥基亚大学法律与政治科学学院副教授。
摘要：将河流、森林和山脉等自然实体视为权利主体的做法正在世界范围内成为一种重要趋势。这是法律和环保活动家、原住民群体以及团结在自然权利（RoN）运动等旗帜下的民间社会组织努力的结果，他们挑战人类与自然之间的二元分离。自然权利国际法庭（ITRN）通过基于这种视角发布判决，发挥着独特的作用。但是，它们是否具有多元宇宙性，即允许不同世界的共存？这里的论点是，它们可以为多元宇宙开辟空间，即不同世界关系性地相互联系。这并不是没有复杂性的，因为听证会和诉讼程序也可能被解读为属于或被吸收为现代/西方（自由主义）权利观念。然而，仅仅说这些法庭是混合式的，这种说法会过于简单化。本文试图通过多元宇宙关系性、政治本体论和宇宙政治学来解决这个问题，以识别揭示多元宇宙的关系细微差别。为此，本文聚焦于参与者参与听证的方式、他们所扮演的角色以及他们所带来的观念世界。本文通过分析提出一些替代性观点，这些观点可以通过关系性方法重新构建和重塑国际关系（IR）。
The recognition of natural entities like rivers, forests, and mountains as subjects of rights is becoming an important trend throughout the world. It is a result of efforts by legal and environmental activists, Indigenous groups, and civil society organizations united under – among others – the Rights of Nature (RoN) movement that contest the binary separation between human and nature. The International Tribunals of Rights of Nature (ITRN) play a unique role by issuing judgments based on this perspective. But are they pluriversal in the sense that allow the coexistence of different worlds? The argument here is that they can open spaces for the pluriverse, of different worlds relationally interconnected. This does not happen without complications, for hearings and proceedings can also be interpreted as pertaining to or coopted as modern/Western (liberal) understandings of rights. Yet, saying that tribunals are hybrid would be reductionist. This paper seeks to address this drawing from pluriversal relationality, political ontology, and cosmopolitics to identify the relational nuances that reveal the pluriverse. For this it focuses on the ways participants engage in the hearings, the roles they play, and the worlds they bring with them. This paper conducts an analysis proposing alternative viewpoints that can reframe and reground IR through relational approaches.
原住民气候金融与国际关系的世界化：动态中的气候正义
题目：Indigenous climate finance and the worlding of International Relations: climate justice in motion
作者：Veronica Korber Gonçalves, 巴西里约格兰德联邦大学（经济与国际关系系副教授；Thais Lemos Ribeiro，巴西利亚大学国际关系研究所博士候选人；Cristina Yumie Aoki Inoue，巴西拉德堡德大学副教授，利亚大学高级研究员；Juliana Lins，巴西拉德堡德大学博士研究生。
摘要：这项探索性研究通过分析两个由原住民社区自主管理的原住民气候基金“Shandia人民、自然与气候联盟”和“Podáali基金” ,探讨了原住民如何重塑国际关系（IR）并挑战其既有边界。通过考察这些基金在第26届联合国气候变化大会（COP-26）上的参与及相关访谈，本研究展示了原住民通过其独特的本体论和认识论，成为塑造IR的重要主体。研究结果凸显了这些基金在拓宽国际视野方面的作用，尤其是在化解紧张关系以及促进对话方面，这些对话将气候正义重新定义为一个持续的抵抗进程。最终，本文通过将原住民的视角与实践置于核心地位，为重新扎根国际关系框架做出了贡献，从而例证了一种“世界化”的实践，丰富了我们对动态气候正义的理解。
This exploratory research investigates how Indigenous Peoples (IPs) reshape International Relations (IR) and challenge established boundaries through an analysis of two Indigenous Climate Funds: the “Shandia Alliance for People, Nature and Climate” and the “Podáali Fund,” both autonomously managed by indigenous communities. By examining their engagements at COP-26 and conducting interviews, this study demonstrates how IPs act as pivotal agents shaping IR through their distinct ontologies and epistemologies. The findings underscore these funds’ role in broadening international perspectives, particularly in navigating tensions and fostering dialogues that redefine climate justice as an ongoing process of resistance. Ultimately, this paper contributes to re-rooting IR frameworks by centering indigenous perspectives and practices, thus exemplifying a “worlding” exercise that enriches our understanding of climate justice in motion.
从超越人类的世界中转化认识论脱节：生态调谐的知识方式的（交）节点
题目：Transforming epistemological disconnection from the more-than-human world: (inter)nodes of ecologically attuned ways of knowing
作者：Erzsébet Strausz, 奥地利布达佩斯中欧大学国际关系系助理教授，研究专注于批判性安全研究、批判性教育学、日常生活政治，以及在研究世界政治中的创造性、实验性和叙事性方法。
摘要：本文通过艺术实践和学科内的批判性想象之间的共鸣，梳理出重新植根于国际关系学（IR）的概念性、创造性和体验性资源，以应对气候问题及超越人类世界的需求。作者沿着两个主要的灵感来源追踪其所描述的生态调谐认知方式：L. H. M. Ling的《想象世界政治》和Shelley Sacks设计的7000 人类参与式倡议。以根茎式的敏感性写作，并突出可能在树木相遇中产生和发展的认知方式，作者探索了将与植物生命的认识论脱节转变为具身化、整合性、提升生命的关系模式的可能性，这种模式既面向我们自身，也面向超越人类的世界。
Drawing out resonances across art-based practice and critical imaginations in the discipline, this paper maps out conceptual, creative and experiential resources for re-rooting International Relations for the climate and the needs of the more-than-human world. I trace what I describe as ecologically attuned ways of knowing along two main inspirations: L. H. M. Ling’s Imagining World Politics and the 7000 HUMANS participatory initiative designed by Shelley Sacks. Writing with a rhizomatic sensibility and foregrounding ways of knowing that may emerge in and through encounters with trees, I explore imaginative possibilities for transforming epistemological disconnection from vegetal life into embodied, integrative, life-enhancing modes of relating to both ourselves and the more-than-human world.
超越国际关系，走向国际关系？
题目：Beyond International Relations and toward International Relationality?
作者：Rajeswari S. Raina，希夫纳达尔大学人文与社会科学学院国际关系与治理研究系教授、系主任；Rishabh Kachroo，希夫纳达尔大学人文与社会科学学院国际关系与治理研究系博士研究生。
摘要：本文对本期特刊中的文章进行了回顾与评论，这些文章提出了替代性的国际关系（alter-IRs）路径，将气候变化作为一种能够变革理论与实践的力量或现象引入国际关系理论及实践当中。作者根据自己的解读对这些文章进行了总结，并指出这可能是一个徒劳的尝试。描述新的本体论和认识论是否足以以有意义的方式将气候变化引入国际关系？如果这个学科受到其根深蒂固的本体论和认识论的如此限制，那么为什么要努力尝试这种转变呢？鉴于我们作为哲学家的任务是“改变世界”，那么将实现这一目标的理论和实践又是什么呢？
This article provides a review and commentary on the articles in this special issue, which offer alter-IRs as approaches to bringing climate change into international relations theory and practice as a force or phenomenon that can transform theory and practice. I summarize the articles, as I read them, and suggest that this is a largely futile task. Is description of new ontologies and epistemologies sufficient to bring climate change into IR in a meaningful way? If the discipline is so constrained by its deeply rooted ontology and epistemology, why make the effort to attempt this transformation? And given that our task as philosophers is to ‘change the world’, what are the theories and practices that will make this happen?
生成性衰败：走向关乎地球且服务地球的政治
题目：Generative decay: toward a politics of and for earth
作者：Audra Mitchell, 加拿大巴尔西利国际事务学院教授，专注研究全球暴力、权力和压迫结构如何塑造生态和政治系统。
摘要：本文评估了变革国际关系（IR）和全球环境研究（GES）的可能性，并对本期特刊中的相关文章进行了思考。文章认为，尽管批判学者、活动家、实践者以及其他人士热情地努力转变这些学科，但它们在结构和认识论上仍然根植于与地球及其过程根本对立的压迫性逻辑，并与“CRAACHE+形态”（一系列相互交织的结构性暴力模式，包含殖民主义、种族主义、能力歧视、人类中心主义、资本主义、异性恋父权制、优生学及其混合形式）相契合。文章呼吁采用一种生态式的知识生产方法，而非致力于修复IR和GES这两门学科，在这种方法下，要让这些学科内积累的知识和资源能被那些致力于使其政治活动与地球运行过程相契合的社区及运动重新利用。
This article assesses the possibility of transforming International Relations (IR) and Global Environmental Studies (GES), reflecting on the contributions to this special edition. It argues that despite passionate efforts by critical scholars, activists, practitioners, and others to transform these disciplines, they remain structurally and epistemically rooted in oppressive logics that are fundamentally at odds with the planet and its processes, and aligned with the ‘CRAACHE+ formation’ (a set of interlocking modes of structural violence compromising colonialism, racism, ableism, anthropocentrism, capitalism, heteropatriarchy, eugenics, and their alloys). Instead of working to recuperate IR and GES, the article calls for an ecological approach to knowledge production in which the knowledge and resources accumulated within these disciplines is made available for repurposing by communities and movements working to align their politics with earth processes.
译者：常靖婧，国政学人编译员，日内瓦高级国际关系与发展研究院，研究兴趣为粮食能源/环境交叉全球治理。
审校 | 赖永桢
排版 | 王静怡
本文源于《国际关系》(IR), Vol. 38,No.3 , September 2024，本文为公益分享，服务于科研教学，不代表本平台观点。如有疏漏，欢迎指正。
