【新刊速递】《中国国际政治季刊》（CJIP） Vol. 17, No. 3, 2024 | 国政学人

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.

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.

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.

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.

题目：The Use and Misuse of East Asian History in IR Theorizing

作者：陈拯，复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院教授。

摘要：过去二十年来，东亚国际关系史研究掀起了一股热潮。学者们试图拓宽国际关系史的参考框架，以验证理论及形成理论。本文回顾这一最新趋势，审视其局限性并探讨未来议程。在研究东亚国际关系史时，学者们对其研究是支持、补充还是削弱西方主流国际关系有着不同的期待。因此，他们的历史研究之时空范围及理论抱负也大相径庭。学者们不再简单地将所有东亚历史视为一个案例，而是将其视为具有不同模式的多个案例。他们认识到该系统不仅由中国组成，还由多个参与者组成。除了将东亚与西欧进行对比，他们还探讨了东亚与其他非西方地区的相似之处。然而，要推进这一议程，学者们必须谨慎地处理三种张力：“东方”与“西方”之间的张力、历史与国际关系两个学科之间的张力，以及过去与现在之间的张力。因此，未来的研究必须拓宽视野以更好地超越民族中心主义和例外论，完善研究方法，既要避免选择偏差，又要进行更复杂的比较，并与当代政治保持适当的距离。最重要的是，他们应将高质量的历史研究与前沿的国际关系理论趋势相结合，构建可应用于其他地区的动态理论。

The past two decades have witnessed a wave of research into the history of East Asian international relations (IR). Scholars seek to broaden the historical frames of reference in IR for both theory testing and theory generation. The article reviews this recent trend, examining its limitations and exploring future agenda. In studying historical East Asian IR, scholars have different expectations regarding whether their research would support, complement, or undermine mainstream Western IR. The spatial and temporal scope of their historical inquiries, as well as theoretical ambitions, therefore, differ significantly. Scholars no longer treat all East Asian history as simply one case, but as multiple cases with divergent patterns, and they recognize that the system consisted not solely of China but of multiple actors. In addition to contrasting East Asia with Western Europe, they explore also the similarities between East Asia and other non-Western regions. To advance the agenda, however, scholars must scrupulously navigate three tensions. They are: the tension between the “East” and “West”; the tension between the two disciplines of history and IR; and the tension between past and present. Future studies, therefore, must broaden their horizons in order to better transcend ethnocentrism and exceptionalism, refine their methodology both to avoid selection bias and conduct more sophisticated comparisons, and to maintain a proper distance from contemporary politics. Most importantly, they should combine high-quality historical research with cutting-edge IR theoretical trends to construct dynamic theories that could be applied to other regions.