志坤要求翻译文档-整理版1

志坤要求翻译文档-整理版1TheU.S.governmenthasenduredseveralpainfulroundsofscrutinyasittriestofigureoutwhatwentwrongonSept.11,2001.Theintelligencecommunityfacesradicalrestructuring;themilitaryhasmadeasharppivottofaceanewenemy;andavastnewfederalagencyhasblossomedtocoordinatehomelandsecurity.试图为了找出2001年9月1号那天所犯的错误，美国政府已经经历了好几轮的精密调查。情报团体面临着激进的重组；军事方面已经将重点转向面对新的敌人；而且一个新的巨大的联邦机构已经成立，以协助配合国内安全。ButdidSeptember11signalafailureoftheoryonparwiththefailuresofintelligenceandpolicy?但911事件是否标志着一个理论的失败和标志着情报和决策的失败呢？Familiartheoriesabouthowtheworldworksstilldominateacademicdebate.关于世界如何运作类似的理论依然在学术争论中处于主导地位。Insteadofradicalchange,academiahasadjustedexistingtheoriestomeetnewrealities.学术界已经调整了现存的理论去适应新的现实，而不是进行彻底的改革。Has this approach succeeded? Doesinternational relations theory still havesomethingtotellpolicymakers?采取这样的途径能够成功吗？那些国际关系理论还依然能够为那些策略者提供某些提示吗？Sixyearsago,politicalscientistStephenM.Waltpublishedamuch-citedsurveyofthefieldinthesepages(“OneWorld,ManyTheories,”Spring1998).六年前，政治科学家StephenM.Walt发表了关于这个领域的一个调查。（该调查收录于1998春发表的《一个世界，多种理论》里）He sketched out three dominantapproaches: realism, liberalism, and anupdated form of idealism called“constructivism.”他拟定了三个占有主导性的途径：现实主义，自由主义和一个现实主义适时的形式，并被称之为“构成主义”。Waltarguedthatthesetheoriesshapebothpublicdiscourseandpolicyanalysis.Walt坚持认为这些理论形成了公共论述和政策分析。Realism focuses on the shiftingdistribution of power amongstates.现实主义将焦点放在国与国之间力量的转移分布的问题上。Liberalism

highlights

the

rising

number

ofdemocracies

and

the

turbulence

ofdemocratic

transitions. 自由主义强调的是日益俱增的民主国家和民主转变的动荡。Idealismilluminatesthechangingnormsofsovereignty,humanrights,andinternationaljustice,aswellastheincreasedpotencyofreligiousideasinpolitics.理想主义阐明了主权变化的规范与标准，人权，和国际公正，还阐明了在政治中的宗教思想的不断增加的权力。Theinfluenceoftheseintellectual constructsextendsfarbeyonduniversity classroomsandtenure committees. 这些知识构图的影响延伸到了大学教室和决定教授职权委员会之外。Policymakersandpublic commentators invokeelementsofallthesetheorieswhenarticulatingsolutionstoglobalsecuritydilemmas.当涉及到关于全球安全困境解决问题的时候，政策制定者和大众评论员援引了所有这些理论的因素。President GeorgeW.BushpromisestofightterrorMiddle

byspreadingliberalEastandclaimsthat

democracytotheskeptics“whocallthemselves‘realists.have’⋯lostcontactwithafundamentalreality”that“Americaisalwaysmoresecurewhenfreedomisonthemarch.”乔治布什总统承诺通过向中东传播自由民主这种方式打击恐怖主义，并且宣称那些将自己称之为“现实主义者”的怀疑论者已经与那个基本的现实（当自由在进行中的时候，美国总是更加安全的）脱节了。Strikingamoreeclectictone,NationalSecurityAdvisorCondoleezzaRice,aformerStanfordUniversitypoliticalscienceprofessor,explainsthatthenewBushdoctrineisanamalgamofpragmaticrealismandWilsonianliberaltheory.打出一个更加折中的语气，国际安全顾问，前斯坦福大学政治学教授，CondoleezzaRice解释到新的布什信条是实用现实主义和威尔逊自由理论的结合体。During

therecentpresidential

campaign,Sen.John

Kerry

sounded

remarkably

similar:“Ourforeignpolicyhasachievedgreatness,”hesaid,

“onlywhen

it

hascombined

realism”在最近的总统竞选活动期间，Sen.JohnKerry的话听起来非常地相似：“我们的外交政策已经取得伟大成就，”他还说到：“只有当我们的外交政策和现实主义和理想主义相联系的时候，（才能取得这样的成就）”International relationstheoryalsoshapesandinforms thethinking ofthepublicintellectualswhotranslate anddisseminateacademicideas.国际关系理论也在形成，并且将其思想告知那些解释和传播学术思想民众的知识分子。Duringthesummerof 2004,forexample,twoinfluential framers of neoconservativethought,columnistCharlesKrauthammerandpoliticalscientistFrancisFukuyama,collidedovertheimplicationsoftheseconceptualparadigms

forU.S.policyin

Iraq.例如，在2004年的夏天期间，两个具有影响力的新保守主义思想的准则的策划者，专栏作家CharlesKrauthammer和政治学家FrancisFukuyama，与这些美国对伊概念模范的内涵所相抵触。Backing

the

Bush

administration

’s

MiddleEast

policy,

Krauthammer

argued

for

anassertiveamalgamofliberalismandrealism,whichhecalled“democraticrealism.”Krauthammer支持布什政府中东政策，他还反对他称之为民主现实主义的自由主义和现实主义那自信的混合体。FukuyamaclaimedthatKrauthammer’sfaithintheuseofforceandthefeasibilityofdemocraticchangeinIraqblindshimtothewar’slackoflegitimacy,afailingthat“hurtsboththerealistpartofouragenda,bydiminishingouractualpower,andtheidealistportionofit,byundercuttingourappealastheembodiment

ofcertain

ideasandvalues.

”Fukuyama

宣称Krautham

mer’s对武力上的使用和对伊拉克民主变化的可行性上的信奉，使得他无法解释战争缺乏合法性这个问题，而且让他也无法解释这样的一个失败：以通过减少我们实在的力量和减少现实主义的比重，并且通过削减我们作为某种思想和价值的具体形式的呼吁的这样一种方式，同时伤害了现实主义的作用和我们的议事日程。Indeed,whenrealism,liberalism,and idealismenter the policymaking arena and publicdebate,theycansometimesbecomeintellectualwindowdressingforsimplisticworldviews.的确，当现实主义，自由主义和理想主义进入了决策制定的竞技场和公共的争论的时候，这些理论有时候能够成为为过于简单化的世界观增添了一丝活力的知识窗口。Properlyunderstood,however,theirpolicyimplicationsaresubtleandmultifaceted.虽然能够被正常理解，然而，他们的政策的含义是微妙的，多层面的。Realisminstillsapragmaticappreciationoftheroleofpowerbutalsowarnsthatstateswillsufferiftheyoverreach.现实主义渐渐灌输一种国家作用实用主义的评价，但现实主义同时也警告国家，如果这些国家做得过火的话，他们也将会遭受痛苦。Liberalismhighlightsthecooperativepotentialofmaturedemocracies,especiallywhenworkingtogetherthrougheffectiveinstitutions,butitalsonotesdemocracies’tendencytocrusadeagainsttyranniesandthepropensityofemergingdemocraciestocollapseintoviolentethnicturmoil.自由主义强调成熟民主国家间合作的潜力，特别当它一起完成有效的体系，不过自由主义也指出了这种与暴政做斗争，并且瓦解于暴力种族骚乱日益显现的民主国家的倾向的民主趋势。Idealismstressesthataconsensusonvaluesmustunderpinanystablepoliticalorder,yetitalsorecognizesthatforgingsuchaconsensusoftenrequiresanideologicalstrugglewiththepotentialforconflict.理想主义强调，在价值观方面上的共识必须支持任何一种稳定的政治秩序，然而它也应该意识到锻造这样的一个共识经常需要和潜在冲突做意识上的斗争。Eachtheory offersafilter for looking atacomplicated picture.每一个理论都为了解复杂的情况提供了清晰的说法。Assuch,theyhelpexplaintheassumptionsbehindpoliticalrhetoricaboutforeignpolicy.就这点而论，他们有助于解释那些隐藏在关于外交政策政治的华丽修饰语背后的假设。Evenmoreimportant, thetheoriesactasapowerfulcheck是，这些理论力的阻碍。

oneachother.更加重要的在相互之间充当了强而有Deployedeffectively,theyrevealtheweaknessesin arguments that can lead to misguidedpolicies.由于得到有效的部署，这些理论揭露在争论中的弱点，这些弱点可能会导致做出错误的决策。ISREALISM STILL REALISTIC?At realism’s coreinternational affairsamongself-interested

is the belief thatareastruggleforpowerstates.在以自我为本位的国家中，国际事务是一种权力的斗争，这样的一个信念是现实主义的核心。Although

some

of

realism’s

leading

lights,notablythe

lateUniversity

ofChicago

politicalscientist

Hans

J.

Morgenthau,

are

deeplypessimistic

about

human

nature,

it

is

not

atheoryofdespair.虽然现实主义中一些重要的主导人物，特别是最近的芝加哥大学政治学家Hans J.Morgenthau ，对人的本性的态度是非常悲观的，但是这并不是一个让人感到绝望的理论。Clear-sighted

statescanmitigate

thecausesofposetoeachother.那些精明的国家可以通过采取这种寻找途径从而降低那些国家相互之间构成的威胁的方式，来缓和战争的起因。Norisrealismnecessarilyamoral;itsadvocatesemphasizethataruthlesspragmatismaboutpowercanactuallyyieldamorepeacefulworld,ifnotanidealone.现实主义必然和道德是有关联的；其倡导者强调，如果不是一个理想化的实用主义的话，关于权力的无情的实用主义实际上能够获得一个更加和平的世界。Inliberaldemocracies,realismisthetheorythateveryonelovestohate.在自由的民主国家中，现实主义是这样一个理论：每一个人都爱憎恨。DevelopedlargelybyEuropeanémigrésattheendofWorldWarii,realismclaimedtobeanantidotetothenaivebeliefthatinternationalinstitutionsandlawalonecanpreservepeace,amisconceptionthatthisnewgenerationofscholarsbelievedhadpavedthewaytowar.在二战末，很大程度上是由欧洲的émigrés发展着理想主义，对于这样幼稚的一个信念：单单是国际体系和法律就能够维护和平，新一代学者所相信的这样的一个信念是错误的概念已经为战争铺平了道路，理想主义自称为是一种对抗手段。In

recent

decades,the

realist

approach

hasbeenmostfully

articulated

byU.S.theorists,butitstillhas broad appealoutsidetheUnitedStatesaswell.Theinfluential writerarticulately commentsrealisttraditions.

andon

editor JosefJoffeGermany’sstrong颇有影响力的作家兼编辑

Josef

Joffe对德国激进的现实主义传统做出了明确的评论。Thatstates,nottheUnitedNationsorHumanRightsWatch,haveledthefightagainstterrorism.Evenifrealistsacknowledgetheimportanceofnon-stateactorsasachallengetotheirassumptions,thetheorystillhasimportantthingstosayaboutthebehaviorandmotivationsofthesegroups.虽然现实主义者承认非国家成员的重要性作为对这些现实主义者假设的一个质疑，但是那样的一个理论在涉及关于这些组织的行为和动机的时候，依然有很多重要的事情要说。TherealistscholarRobertA.Pape,forexample,hasarguedthatsuicideterrorismcanbearational,realisticstrategyfortheleadershipofnationalliberation(MindfuloftheoverwhelmingimportanceofU.S.powertoEurope’sdevelopment,JoffeoncecalledtheUnitedStates“Europes’pacifier.”)China’scur-rentforeignpolicyisgroundedinrealistideasthatdatebackmillennia.现实主义者RobertA.Pape坚持宣称：“例如，对于国家自由的领导来说，自杀式恐怖主义可能是一种合理的，现实的范畴。”AsChinamodernizesitseconomyandentersinternationalinstitutionssuchastheWorldTradeOrganization,itbehavesinawaythatrealistsunderstandwell:developingitsmilitaryslowlybutsurelyasitseconomicpowergrows,andavoidingaconfrontationwithsuperiorU.S.forces.Realismgetssomethingsrightaboutthepost-9/11world.Thecontinuedcentralityofmilitarystrengthandthepersistenceofconflict,eveninthisageofglobaleconomicinterdependence,doesnotsurpriserealists.Thetheory’smostobvioussuccessisitsabilitytoexplaintheUnitedStates’forcefulmilitaryresponsetotheSeptember11terroristattacks.Whenastategrowsvastlymorepowerfulthananyopponent,realistsexpectthatitwilleventuallyusethatpowertoexpanditssphereofdomination,whetherforsecurity,wealth,orothermotives.TheUnitedStatesemployeditsmilitarypowerinwhatsomedeemedanimperialfashioninlargepartbecauseitcould.美国在一些人认为很大部分是帝国的潮流里使用了其军事力量，因为美国具备这样的实力。Itisharderforthenormallystate-centricrealiststoexplainwhytheworld’sonlysuperpowerannouncedawaragainstalQaeda,anon-stateterroristorganization.对于正规的以国家为中心现实主义者来说，去解释为什么世界上唯一超级大国对阿凯达，这样的一个非国家基地组织宣战，无疑是更加困难的。How can realist theory account for theimportance of powerful and violentindividualsinaworld ofstates?现实主义的理论怎样才能在多个国家并存的世界里解释强大而极端的个人的重要性呢？Realistspointoutthat thecentralbattlesinthe“waronterror”havebeenfoughtagainsttwostates(AfghanistanandIraq),andmovementsseekingtoexpeldemocraticpowersthatoccupytheirhomelands.Otherscholarsapplystandardtheoriesofconflictinanarchytoexplainethnicconflictincollapsedstates.Insightsfrompoliticalrealism—aprofoundandwide-rangingintellectualtraditionrootedintheenduringphilosophyofThucydides,NiccolMachiavelli,òandThomasHobbes—arehardlyrenderedobsoletebecausesomenon-stategroupsarenowabletoresorttoviolence.Post-9/11developmentsseemtoundercutoneofrealism’scoreconcepts:thebalanceofpower.StandardrealistdoctrinepredictsthatweakerstateswillallytoprotectthemselvesfromstrongeronesandtherebyformandSo,whenGermanyunifiedinthelate19thcenturyandbecameEurope’sleadingmilitaryandindustrialpower,RussiaandFrance(andlater,Britain)soonalignedtocounteritspower.YetnocombinationofstatesorotherpowerscanchallengetheUnitedStatesmilitarily,andnobalancingcoalitionisimminent.Realistsarescramblingtofindawaytofillthisholeinthecenteroftheirtheory.Some theorists speculate that the UnitedStates’geographicdistanceanditsrelativelybenignintentionshavetemperedthebalancinginstinct.Second-tierpowerstendtoworrymore abouttheirimmediateneighborsandevenseetheUnitedStatesasahelpfulsourceofstabilityinregionssuchasEastAsia.U.S.foesinIraq,Afghanistan,andelsewhere,andfoot-draggingbyitsformalalliesactuallyconstitutethebeginningsofbalancingagainstU.S.hegemony.TheUnitedStates’strainedrelationswithEuropeofferambiguousevidence:FrenchandGermanoppositiontorecentU.S.policiescouldbeseenasclassicbalancing,buttheydonotresistU.S.dominancemilitarily.Instead,thesestateshavetriedtoundermineU.S. moral legitimacy and constrain thesuperpower in a web of multilateralinstitutions and treaty regimes—not whatstandard realisttheorypredicts.Theseconceptualdifficultiesnotwithstanding,realismisalive,well,andcreativelyreassessinghowitsrootprinciplesrelatetothepost-9/11world.Despite changing configurations of power,realistsremainsteadfastinstressingthat policymustbebasedonpositionsofrealstrength,notoneitheremptybravadoorhopefulillusionsaboutaworldwithoutconflict.Intherun-up totherecentIraq war,severalprominent realists signed a public lettercriticizingwhattheyperceivedasan exerciseinAmericanhubris.Andinthecontinuingaftermathofthatwar,manyprominentthinkerscalledforareturntorealism.Agroupofscholarsandpublicintellectuals(myself included)evenapproach.Itsstatement ofprinci- plesarguesthat“themovetowardempiremustbehaltedimmediately.”Thecoalition,thoughpoliticallydiverse,islargelyinspiredbyrealisttheory.Itsmembershipofseeminglyoddbedfellows—includingfor-merDemocraticSen.GaryHartandScottMcConnell,theexecutiveeditoroftheAmericanConservativemagazine—illus-tratesthepowerofinternationalrelationstheorytocutthroughoftenephemeralpoliticallabelsandcarrydebatetotheunderlyingassumptions.THE DIVIDED HOUSE OF LIBERALISMTheliberalschoolofinternationalrelationstheory,whosemostfamousproponentswereGermanphilosopherImmanuelKantandU.S.PresidentWoodrowWilson,contendsthatrealismhasastuntedvisionthatcannotaccountforprogressinrelationsbetweennations.Liberalsforeseeaslowbutinexorablejourneyawayfromtheanarchicworldtherealistsenvision,astradeandfinanceforgetiesbetweennations,anddemocraticnormsspread.Becauseelectedleadersareaccountabletothepeople(whobeartheburdensofwar),liberalsexpectthatdemocracieswillnotattackeachotherandwillregardeachother’sregimesaslegitimateandnonthreatening.因为当选的领导者们对人们（那些肩负起战争的人们）负责，自由派期望民主国将不会相互攻击对方，并且将相互之间的政体看作是一种合法和对其不构成威胁的政体。Many

liberals

also

believe

that

the

rule

oflawand

transparency

ofdemocratic

processesmake

it

easier

to

sustain

internationalcooperation,especiallywhenthesepracticesareenshrinedinmultilateralinstitutions.很多自由主派也相信法律的统治和民主进程的透明使得维持国际间的合作变得更加容易，尤其是当这些实践庄严地载入了多边体系中，LiberalismhassuchapowerfulpresencethattheentireU.S.politicalspectrum,fromneoconservativestohumanrightsadvocates,assumesitaslargelyself-evident.自由主义拥有这样一个颇具影响力的范畴，以致整个美国政治范围内，从新保守主义者到人权倡导者，很大程度上都认为它是显而易见的。OutsidetheUnitedStates,aswell,theliberalviewthatonlyelectedgovernmentsarelegitimateandpoliticallyreliablehastakenhold.同样地，除了美国之外，这样一个自由的观点：只有当选的政府才是合法的，并且在政治上才是可靠的，已经站稳了脚跟了。Soit isnosurprise that liberal themesareconstantlyinvokedasaresponsetotoday’ssecuritydilemmas.因此，自由的主题不断地被引用作为对于当今的安全困境的回应，这并不会让人感到惊讶。Butthelastseveralyearshavealsoproducedafiercetug-of-warbetweendisparatestrainsofliberal thought. 但是在过去的几年里，在不同的自由思想的紧张之间也产生了一个激烈的竞争。SupportersandcriticsoftheBushadministration,inparticular,haveemphasizedverydifferentelementsoftheliberalcanon.支持者们和布什政府的批评家们尤其强调自由准则的不同因素。For

its

part,

the

Bush

administrationhighlights

democracy

promotion

while

largelyturning

its

back

on

the

internationalinstitutions that most liberal theoristschampion.对其来说，当很大程度上抛弃了绝大多数自由主义理论者拥护的国际机构的时候，布什政府强调民主提升了。TheU.S.NationalSecurityStrategyofSeptember2002,famousforitssupportofpreventivewar,alsodwellsontheneedtopromotedemocracyasameansoffightingterrorism andpromoting peace.美国国家2002年九月份的安全策略，以其对预防战争的支持而闻名，也详述了促进民主作为促进和平和打击恐怖主义的一种方法的需要。TheMillennium Challenge program allocatespartofU.S.foreignaidaccordingtohowwellcountriesimprove

their

performance

onseveralmeasuresof

democratization

andthe

rule

oflaw.千年挑战计划根据国家关于民主化和法规的几个措施改善其表现的程度， 分派部分美国国外帮助。TheWhiteHouse’ssteadfastsupportforpromotingdemocracyintheMiddleEast—evenwithturmoilinIraqandrisinganti-AmericanismintheArabworld—demonstratesliberalism’semotionalandrhetoricalpower.美国白宫对于中东地区提倡民主坚定的支持—甚至在伊拉克地区还处于骚乱状态， 并且在阿拉伯存在日益增长的反美主义—证明了自由主义令人动情的，用词华丽的力量。Inmanyrespects,liberalism’sclaimtobeawisepolicyguidehasplentyofharddatabehindit.很多方面，自由主义宣称是一个明智的政策引导在其背后已经有很多确切的数据支持着这么一个理论了。Duringthelasttwodecades,thepropositionthatdemocraticinstitutionsandvalueshelpstatescooperatewitheachotherisamongthemostintensivelystudiedinallofinternationalrelations,andithasheldupreasonablywell.在过去的二十年期间，民主的机构和价值帮助国与国之间相互合作这样的一个提议在所有的国际关系中，是最值得集中研究的，而且这样的一个提议已经相当合理地被搁置。Indeed,thebeliefthatdemocraciesneverfightwarsagainsteachotheristheclosestthingwehavetoanironlawinsocialscience.的确，民主国家相互之间永远不会发动战争这样的一个信念是一件我们所拥有的，并且离我们最近的事情，这件事情是相对于一个在社会科学中的刚强的法律而言的。Butthetheoryhassomeveryimportantcorollaries,whichtheBushadministrationglossesoverasitdrawsuponthedemocracy-promotionelementofliberalthought.但是，那个理论有一些非常重要的推论，布什政府一直掩饰着这样的一个理论，因为布什政府利用了了自由思想促进民主的因素。ColumbiaUniversitypoliticalscientistMichaelW.Doyle’sarticlesondemocraticpeacewarnedthat,thoughdemocraciesneverfighteachother,theyarepronetolaunchmessianicstrugglesagainstwarlikeauthoritarianregimesto“maketheworldsafefordemocracy.”哥伦比亚大学政治学家MichaelW.Doyle在关于民主和平的文章警告说：“虽然民主国家相互之间没有战争，但是这些民主国家倾向于与那些喜好战争的独裁主义政权做救世主般的斗争，从而让这个世界在对于民主这个范畴来讲的时候，是安全的。”ItwaspreciselyAmericandemocracy’stendencytooscillatebetweenself-righteouscrusadingandjadedisolationismthatpromptedearlyColdWarrealists’callforamorecalculated,prudentforeignpolicy.精确来讲，正是在伪善的改革运动和疲惫不堪的孤立主义之间的美国民主主义犹豫不决的趋势促使了早期冷战现实主义者呼吁一个更有计划的，有远见的外交政策。Countriestransitioningtodemocracy,withweakpoliticalinstitutions,aremorelikelythanotherstatestogetintointernationalandcivilwars.Inthelast15years,warsorlarge-scalecivilviolencefollowedexperimentswithmasselectoraldemocracyincountriesincludingArmenia,Burundi,Ethiopia,Indonesia,Russia,andtheformerYugoslavia.Nor isscholarsliberalism

itcleartocontemporaryliberalthatnascentdemocracyandeconomiccanalwayscohabitate.Freetradeandthemultifacetedglobalizationthatadvanceddemocraciespromoteoftenbuffettransitional societies.Worldmarkets’penetrationofsocietiesthatrunonpatronageandprotectionismcandisruptsocialrelationsandspurstrifebetweenpotentialwinnersandlosers.Inothercases,universalfreetradecanmakeseparatismlookattractive,assmallregionssuchasAcehinIndonesiacanlayclaimtolucrativenaturalresources.Sofar,thetrade-fueledboominChinahascreatedincentivesforimprovedrelationswiththeadvanceddemocracies,butithasalsosetthestageforapossibleshowdownbetweentherelativelywealthycoastalentrepreneursandthestillimpoverishedruralmasses.Whileaggressivelyadvocatingthevirtuesofdemocracy,theBushadministrationhasshownlittlepatienceforthesecomplexitiesinliberal thought—orforliberalism’semphasisontheimportanceofinternationalinstitutions.Morefundamental,emergingdemocraciesoftenhavenascentpoliticalinstitutionsthatcannotchannelpopulardemandsinconstructivedirectionsorcrediblyenforcecompromisesamongrivalgroups.Inthissetting,democraticaccountabilityworksimperfectly,andnationalistpoliticianscanhijackpublicdebate.TheviolencethatisvexingtheexperimentwithdemocracyinIraqthatbeganwiththeFrenchRevolution.Contemporaryliberaltheoryalsopointsoutthattherisingdemocratictidecreatesthepresumptionthatallnationsoughttoenjoythebenefitsofself-determination.当代的自由主义理论也指出，日益剧增的民主趋势创造了这样的一个可能性：所有的国家应该享受民族自决的利益。Thoseleftoutmayundertakeviolentcampaignstosecuredemocraticrights.这些被忽略了的国家可能采取暴力行动，从而保护了民主权利。Someofthesemovementsdirecttheirstrugglesagainstdemocraticorsemi-democraticstatesthattheyconsideroccupyingpowers—suchasinAlgeriainthe1950s,orChechnya,Palestine,andtheTamilregionofSriLankatoday.其中一些运动直接于民主国家或者半民主国家做斗争，他们认为这些民主或者半民主国家一直持有权力—例如二十世纪50年代的阿尔及利亚，或者车臣，巴勒斯坦和当今的斯里兰卡的坦米尔地区。Violencemayalsobedirected atdemocraticsupporters ofoppressiveregimes,muchliketheU.S.backingofthegovernmentsofSaudiArabiaandEgypt.暴力也可能被用来作为那些暴政民主的支持者，就很像美国对沙特阿拉伯和埃及政府的支持那样。Democraticregimesmakeattractivetargetsforterroristviolencebynationalliberationmovementspreciselybecausetheyareaccountabletoacost-consciouselectorate.之所以民主政体使那些通过国家自由运动而获取的，针对恐怖主义暴力的目标变得非常吸引人，准确来说，那是因为这些政体对这些有价值意识的选民负责。tryingtoassureotherpowersthattheUnitedStateswouldadheretoaconstitutionalorder,Bush“unsigned”theInternationalCriminalCourtstatute,rejectedtheKyotoenvironmentalagreement,dictatedtake-it-or-leave-itarmscontrolchangestoRussia,andinvadedIraqdespiteoppositionattheUnitedNations andamongcloseallies.试图安慰其他别的一些国家说美国将会坚持宪法秩序，布什“未签署的”国际犯罪法庭法令，驳回了京都环境协议，规定对俄国不容讨价还价的军队控制变化，并且不管联合国和一些同盟国的反对，侵略伊拉克Recentliberaltheoryoffersathoughtfulchallengetotheadministration’spolicychoices.最近，自由主义给政府决策选择提供了让人值得深思的质疑。ShortlybeforeSeptember11,politicalscientistG.JohnIkenberrystudiedattemptstoestablishinternationalorderbythevictorsofhegemonicstrugglesin1815,1919,1945,and1989.在911前不久，政治学家G.JohnIkenberry借助了那些于1815年，1919年，1945年和1989年支配斗争的胜利者研究了建立国际秩序的企图。Hearguedthateventhemostpowerfulvictorneededtogainthewilling cooperation ofthevanquishedandotherweakstatesbyofferingamutuallyattractivebargain,codifiedinaninternationalconstitutionalorder.他坚持认为正是最强大的胜利者需要通过提供一个编纂在国际宪法秩序里面，相互吸引的契约，从而获得那些战败国和别的一些弱小国家的自愿的合作。Democraticvictors,hefound,havethebestchanceofcreatingaworkingconstitutionalorder,suchastheBrettonWoodssystemafterWorldWarii,becausetheirtransparencyandlegalismmaketheirpromisescredible.他发现，民主胜利者拥有一个创造工作宪法秩序的最好机遇，例如二战后的BrettonWoods系统，因为他们的透明度和一成不变使得其诺言十分可信。DoestheBushadministration’sresistancetoinstitutionbuildingrefuteIkenberry’sversionofliberaltheory?布什政府对 机构体制的反对驳斥了自由主义Ikenberry’s的这个版本的说法吗？Somerealistssayitdoes,andthatrecenteventsdemonstratethatinternationalpowerifitspreferenceschange.一些现实主义者认为这个说法的确如此，并且他们认为最近的一些事件证明了：如果这个掌握霸权的国家的偏爱改变的话，国际体制遏制不了它。Butinternationalinstitutionscannonethelesshelpcoordinateoutcomesthatareinthelong-termmutualinterestofboththehegemonandtheweakerstates.但是国际机构仍然能够帮助协调这些结果，这些结果是处在强国和弱国长期，相互的利益之中。Ikenberrydidnotcontendthathegemonicdemocraciesareimmunefrommistakes.Ikenberry并没有坚持认为强大的民主国家不会犯错。Statescanactindefianceoftheincentivesestablished by their position in theinternational system,buttheywill suffertheconsequencesandprobably learn tocorrectcourse.国与国之间能够在违抗某些激励中起作用，这些激励是他们所出于国际体系中的位置而建立的。InresponsetoBush’sunilateralist stance,Ikenberry wrote that theincentivesfortheUnitedStatestotaketheleadinestablishingamultilateralconstitutionalorderremainpowerful.Soonerorlater,thependulumwillswingback.为了回应布什片面的立场态度，Ikenberry写到，那些能够让美国在建立一个多边的宪法秩序中处于领先地位的刺激依然很强大。这种摇摆不定的情况迟早会稳定下来的。IDEALISM’S NEW CLOTHINGIdealism, thebeliefthat foreign policyisandshouldbeguidedbyethicalandlegalstandards,alsohasalongpedigree.理想主义，是这样的一个信念：外交政策是并且应该是由道德与合法的标准来引导，外交政策也应该拥有一个悠长的传统。BeforeWorld WariiforcedtheUnitedStatestoacknowledgealesspristinereality,SecretaryofStateHenryStimsondenigratedespionageonthegroundsthat“gentlemendonotreadeachother’smail.”在二战迫使美国承认一个不是那么纯洁的现实之前，国务卿HenryStimson基于“绅士是不会窥探相互之间的邮件”的理由而贬低了间谍活动。During

the

Cold

War,

such

naive

idealismacquired

a bad

name

in

the

Kissingeriancorridors

of

power

and

among

hardheadedacademics.在冷战期间，如此幼稚的理想主义在Kissingerian权力走廊和顽固的学术界里获得了一个坏名。Recently, a new version of idealism—calledconstructivism by its scholarlyadherents—returnedtoaprominentplaceindebatesoninternationalrelationstheory.最近一个理想主义新的版本—被其学术遗民称之为建构主义—在关于国际关系理论的争论中回归到了一个突出的地位。Constructivism,whichholdsthatsocialrealityiscreatedthroughdebateaboutvalues,oftenechoesthethemesthathumanrightsandinternationaljusticeactivistssound.建构主义认为社会现实是通过关于价值观的争论而产生，建构主义通常认同那个人权和国际公正积极分子所探索的主题。Recenteventsseemto vindicate thetheory’sresurgence;atheorythatemphasizestheroleofideologies,identities,persuasion,andtransnationalnetworksishighlyrelevanttounderstanding thepost-9/11world.最近发生的事情似乎让这样的理论又重新有了活力。这个强调意思形态，统一性，信仰和跨国网络作用的理论和911事件后的世界紧密相关。ThemostprominentvoicesinthedevelopmentofconstructivisttheoryhavebeenAmerican,butEurope’sroleissignificant.在建构主义理论的发展中，最突出的意见一直是美国的方面的，但是欧洲的作用也很重要。European philosophical currents helpedestablishconstructivisttheory,andtheEuropeanJournalofInternationalRelationsisoneoftheprincipaloutletsforconstructivistwork.欧洲哲学趋势帮助建立了建构主义理论，而且对于建构主义的作品说，《国际关系欧洲杂志》是其中一个最重要的发表的地方。Perhapsmostimportant,Europe’sincreasinglylegalisticapproachtointernationalrelations,reflectedintheprocessofformingtheEuropeanUnionoutofacollectionofsovereignstates,providesfertilesoilforidealistandconstructivistconceptionsofinternationalpolitics.也许最重要的，欧洲日益尊重法律的国际关系途径，这些日益尊重法律的国际关系途径在主权国云集形成的欧盟的过程中也有所反映，他们为理想中有着和建构主义者的国际政治理念提供了丰富的理论基础。Whereasrealistsdwellonthebalanceofpowerandliberalsonthepowerofinternationaltradeanddemocracy,constructivistsbelievethatdebatesaboutideasarethefundamentalbuildingblocksofinternationallife.然而现实主义者在思考着关于国际贸易者民主力量的力量和自由的平衡，建构主义者相信关于这些思想的争论是那些国际生命重要根基的障碍Individualsandgroupsbecomepowerfuliftheycanconvinceotherstoadopttheirideas.如果他们可以说服别人采取他们的思想和意见的话，个人和团体的力量将会变得很强大。People’sunderstandingoftheirinterestsdependsontheideastheyhold.人们对于他们利益的理解是基于他们所持有的那种思想。Constructivists find absurdtheideaofsomeidentifiable and immutable “nationalinterest,”whichsomerealistscherish.建构主义认为一些可辨认的和不可辨认的“国际利益”的想法很荒唐，而这些想法是一些现实主义者所持有的。Especiallyinliberalsocieties,thereis overlapbetweenconstructivistandliberalapproaches,butthetwoaredistinct.尤其是在自由的社会中，在建构主义和自由主义的途径之间，有那么一个重叠处，但是这两个理论是截然不同的。Constructivists contend that their theoryis

deeper

than

realism

and

liberalismbecause

it

explains

the

origins

of

theforces

that

drivethosecompeting

theories.建构主义坚持认为他们的理论比现实主义者自于主义更加深入，因为建构主义理论解释那些力量的来源，这些力量能够驱使这些相互矛盾的理论。For

constructivists,

international

changeresults

from

the

work

of

intellectualentrepreneurs

who

proselytize

newideasand“nameandshame”actorswhosebehaviordeviatesfromaccepted standards.对于建构主义者来说，国际变化时由于这些知识企业家的工作所导致的，这些知识企业家诱导这些思想和“”Consequently,constructivistsroleoftransnationalactivistCampaigntoBanLandmines

oftenstudythenetworks—such—inpromotingchange.Suchgroups typically uncover andpublicizeinformation about violationsoflegalormoralstandards atleastrhetorically supported bypowerful democracies,including“disappearances”duringtheArgentinemilitary’sruleinthelate1970s, concentrationcampsin Bosnia, and the hugenumber ofciviliandeathsfromlandmines.Thispublicityisthenusedtopressgovernmentstoadoptspecificremedies,suchastheestablishmentofawarcrimestribunalortheadoptionofalandminetreaty.Thes