Pivot to East Strategy is an important foreign strategy of Russia. From the perspective of international order,this article analyzes the important impact of the transformation of international order on Pivot to East Strategy. The international order is a concept composed of material and conceptual elements,which mainly consists of power pattern,dominant norms,and institutional arrangements. The current transformation of the international order is characterized by the emergence of "complex bipolar" in terms of power patterns,the rise of the concept of integration of politics and economy and the emerging concept of governance in terms of dominant norms,and the emergence of a pluralistic and competitive multilateral system in terms of institutional arrangements. These changes have prompted Russia to seek to build an international order favorable to its own interests through the Pivot to East Strategy,to strengthen cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries in the monetary,financial and high-tech fields,and to further strengthen the multilateral cooperation mechanisms that support Pivot to East Strategy. At the same time,Russia also needs to face the security risks arising from the transition of power patterns in the Far East,the changes in energy cooperation arising from the transition of dominant norms,and the dovetailing of multilateral cooperation arising from the transition of institutional arrangements. In the context of the transformation of the international order,China and Russia can interact in regional security cooperation,financial and high-tech cooperation,green development and multilateral cooperation platform construction,thus maintaining the new type of major-country relationship between China and Russia and building a community with a shared future for mankind.
Building a global high-standard FTA network is not only an inherent requirement for China to deepen reform,but also an important way for China to respond to the deterioration of global economic and trade environment and improve its institutional discourse in global economic governance. Although China has made significant progress in building a global high-standard FTA network,there is still much room for development in terms of FTA coverage,negotiation progress,content and negotiation standards,and it is still limited to obtaining "traditional benefits" mainly,and there is a serious shortage of obtaining "non-traditional benefits" and "benefits from restructuring international economic and trade rules",and it has not yet become a wheeling country for global high-standard FTA network. Therefore,in strategic positioning,we should take the construction of global highstandard FTA network as China’s rapid integration into the global FTA network development trend,break the "siege" of the United States,Europe and Japan on China,take the initiative to participate in and lead the reconstruction of international economic and trade rules,build a value chain system dominated by China,effectively hedge against the impact of protectionism and maintain China’s economic and political security. In terms of path innovation,China should strengthen top-level design and scientifically outline the roadmap for building a global high-standard FTA network to build a regional or even global value chain system,and at the same time promote "Dual FTA Linkage" and further promote domestic reform and opening-up to provide institutional support for building a global high-standard FTA network.
Since President Yoon Suk-yeol took office,the ROK-U.S. economic relationship has been accelerating toward globalization and securitization due to the common strategic needs of both sides. They focus on promoting cooperation in key supply chains and technologies,Indo-Pacific economic policies and third-party markets. These actions will probably facilitate US decoupling with China in key technologies and supply chains,increase the bargaining leverages of the United States and South Korea against China in the Indo-Pacific region,and assist the US Build Back Better World initiative to compete with China’s Belt and Road initiative. However,there are still profound interest conflicts between ROK and the US,and China shares lots of common interests with ROK. China should adopt a more positive strategy towards ROK to stabilize and shape the bilateral economic relationship and create more common interests.
Traditional geopolitics has a set of theoretical assumptions on the issue of space. The alienation leads to spatial exclusion,which leads to competition. Endless contention gradually turns space into closed,and competitors want to control closed space alone. The control of closed space has become an effective way to guarantee national security and power growth. This simple logic was rigid in theory and fails in practice,and has been criticized by postmodernism as an instrument of imperialist policy. It is theoretically appropriate to explore the opening and sharing of space. First of all,rethinking the meaning of "space" and constructing a new knowledge system of "space",then analyzing the geopolitical path of space opening and sharing.Finally,the space community of shared future is used to realize the protection of space opening and sharing.
The development of the China-U.S.-Russia-Europe relations has an important impact on the once-in-a-century changes. The United States builds a coalition to compete with China. The United States and Europe are in serious confrontation with Russia due to the Ukraine issue. And Sino-Russian relations remain stable. These trends showing the differentiation and coalition-driven competition of great powers are not conducive to the stability of the international order. In order to prevent coalition-driven competition,it is necessary to find an effective path on the basis of grasping the interaction logic of the four-parties. This article builds an unified framework that incorporates the two dimensions of autonomy and coordination. Based on the level of autonomy and the strength of coordination,this framework divides the great powers into four situations :independent with assistance,independent without assistance,subordinate/follow,and subordinate/isolated. With the most favorable situation which is independent with assistance,the great power has maintained a high degree of autonomy while developing strong coordination with others. The decline or absence of any dimension may prompt great powers to adjust their policies. The EU,who is lack of capabilities,will not only continue to enhance its overall strategic autonomy,but will also strengthen external cooperation with other great powers. The United States is not only continuing to enhance its competitiveness,but also revitalizing alliances and returning coordination. Autonomy is a sensitive source of China-Russia strategic partnership of coordination,but the way to reduce vulnerability and sensitivity is still to respect each other’s autonomy and enhance the positive effect of autonomy on coordination. Autonomy and coordination are the core logic of the strategic interaction among China,the United States,Russia,and Europe. The two dimensions are inseparable. The differentiation and coalition-driven competition of great powers will damage autonomy and rigidify coordination,which is not in line with the interests of all parties. Valuing autonomy and developing diverse and openly coordination will help prevent coalition building.
Since Trump proposed and implemented the so-called "Indo-Pacific Strategy",India’s strategic position has been elevated to an unprecedented level. In this context,India’s conception of "Indo-Pacific" strategy has gone through the evolution process from vagueness to clarity,from controversy to consensus. Of course,India does not fully endorse and cooperate with the US Indo-Pacific Strategy and its policies towards China. Instead,the Modi government has its own demands and expectations in promoting the "Indo-Pacific Strategy". From the theoretical perspective of critical geopolitics,this article aims to examine the three major appeals of India’s participation in the "Indo-Pacific Strategy". It also attempts to dig into the cognition and geopolitical imagination behind India’s implementation of the "Indo-Pacific Strategy",and compare it with the US to reveal the main driving force and basic logic of the two countries’ different actions. The study reveals that there are major cognitive differences between India and the US in such major aspects as national role positioning,self-other relations and strategic regional division;The Indian and American governments’ visions of the "IndoPacific" region are similar to the "W-shaped sphere of operations" and the "half-mouth shaped encirclement" respectively;India’s strategic appeals to be a leading power,build a multi-dimensional identity,and manage the "Indo-Pacific" waters run counter to the US medium and long term interests in the region. The differences in the perception and imagination of India and the United States on the "Indo-Pacific strategy" will directly affect the direction of their respective strategies and the mode of cooperation between the two countries.
Since the post-Cold War era,the main target of the U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateral cooperation has always been the "North Korean nuclear threat". However,after Biden was elected as the U.S. president,the trilateral cooperation began to "contain China",that is,its trend began to shift from confronting the "North Korea nuclear threat" to responding to the "China challenge" :the attitudes of the U.S.,Japan,and South Korea’s intervention in Taiwan and the South China Sea issues gradually became public,the willingness to form economic and technological alliances against China grew,the practical cooperation under the "Quad+" framework increased,and the Indo-Pacific strategies of the three countries also demonstrate a certain degree of convergence. The reasons for "containing China" include the U.S. diplomatic agenda resetting and strategic means adjustment,as well as the domestic political changes and policy adjustment in Japan and ROK. In the near future,under the context of the Biden Administration’s continuous enrichment of the "Indo-Pacific strategy",the trend of "containing China" in the U. S.-Japan-ROK trilateral cooperation may continue to be maintained or even strengthened. However,constrained by factors such as lacking consensus in ROK,the Japan-ROK contradictions,the deadlock in the Korean peninsula,and vacuousness of the "Indo-Pacific Economic Framework",the trilateral cooperation will not succeed in "containing China". Therefore,China should take communication as its priority,reduce the US strategic misjudgment and improve China-Japan-ROK relations,so as to find a path of coexistence with the trilateral cooperation.
Nowadays,the international society is in unrest,with mutual distrust among states increasing. Therefore,the construction of international credibility has become a state’s priority and a challenge in its international cooperation. As a form of economic diplomacy,foreign aid is an effective way to establish such credibility. In this research,a theoretical framework is constructed to explain how international credibility is generated in foreign aid. The framework is composed of an exchange structure,an attribution mechanism and commitment fulfillment. The exchange structure can be sub-divided into a negotiated exchange structure and a reciprocal exchange structure. A donor state can obtain different types of international credibility by honoring its commitments in different exchange structures. In the negotiated exchange structure,a recipient state tends to attribute the donor state’s aid behavior to situational factors and perceives the relationship between them as a transactional one. As a result,the donor state acquires commodity-style credibility. In a reciprocal exchange structure,a recipient state tends to attribute the donor state’s aid to dispositions and regards their relationship as a social one. In this case,the donor state gains identity-style credibility. The level of international credibility depends on which exchange structure is chosen. This article provides empirical proof for this theoretical framework by analyzing the cases of Chinese and the European Union’s aids to Africa since the 1970s. It could be found that we should uphold justice while pursuing interests in our foreign aid and make efforts to establish a reciprocal exchange structure,so as to gain and maintain a high level of international credibility.
拜登政府上台后,大力推动"印太战略"小多边机制落地,加强对华围堵.本文基于小多边主义理论视角,发现拜登政府利用"印太战略"在基础设施、供应链和技术领域打造排他性的小多边倡议,在军事协调、军事技术转让和军事情报共享层面创设竞争性的小多边机制,在价值观层面构建功能性的全球民主国家联盟,意图整合"印太"盟友和伙伴,编织以美国为中心的对华遏制"集团"网络.机制化是集团化的手段,集团化是机制化的目的.拜登政府"印太战略"的集团化既有扩大"印太"地区"朋友圈"的战略考量,也有掌握引领关键领域标准和规则的制度诉求,更有围堵和遏制中国崛起的权力诉求.尽管拜登政府"印太战略"的集团化面临着美国与"印太"盟友和伙伴政策诉求差异、战略平衡困境和成本支付能力不足等因素掣肘,但其在一定程度上将弱化中国经济影响力,增加中国安全风险,损害中国国家形象.
美国提出"印太战略"后,韩国对"印太战略"的态度经历了文在寅政府时期"谨慎且有限地参与"以及尹锡悦政府时期"积极地调适型参与"两个阶段.尹锡悦政府执政后转变对"印太战略"的态度,主要包含对朝鲜实施安全威慑以推动朝鲜半岛无核化进程、以加入"印太战略"为杠杆重塑中韩关系从而缓解安全困境、推广"韩式民主价值观外交"以提升韩国在地区秩序中的地位以及推进"东盟政策"以寻求经济新增长点四大考量.从短期看,这一转变将激化朝韩矛盾,加剧地区紧张;提升"印太战略"的经济吸引力,对"一带一路"倡议形成挤出效应;强化"印太战略"的"去中心化"特征,在地区秩序构建上增大对中国的压力.但从长期看,由于尹锡悦政府并未脱离"立足国家利益制定外交战略"的原则,仍具备"底线理性",加之"印太战略"无法有效满足韩国的经济、安全与战略诉求,韩国缺乏持续参与"印太战略"的动力,其负面影响总体可控.
拜登执政初期,美国对俄政策出现新变化,呈现明显的双轨特征.一方面,拜登政府以价值观为引领继续对俄保持强硬;另一方面,美国一度寻求构建"稳定且可预期"的双边关系,积极推动美俄战略稳定对话.然而,乌克兰危机迫使拜登政府不得不二次调整对俄政策,联合盟友通过全面制裁和政治孤立实现"弱俄"以"遏俄"的战略目标.传统建制派回归及两党执政理念差异,对俄战略"三观"的延续与调整以及中国、欧洲等第三方因素是拜登政府对俄政策演进的主要动因.乌克兰危机长期延宕导致美国战略界逐步出现对俄政策反思,国内民众也更不愿承受对俄强硬的代价,美国对俄政策存在一定回调空间.但由于美俄面临地缘政治和战略认知冲突、结构性矛盾以及美国国内政治束缚,美国对俄政策演进有其限度,美俄关系难以本质逆转.同时,乌克兰危机引发美俄欧新一轮剧烈互动与博弈,深刻塑造大国关系格局,中国应在变局中抢抓机遇,为 自身发展塑造良好的外部战略环境.
中国、日本、韩国作为东北亚地区的核心大国分别提出了到本世纪中叶实现碳中和的目标,并制定了各自的清洁能源发展与绿色产业经济振兴的国家战略,这为三国清洁能源合作与区域能源转型提供了重要契机.中日韩在环境保护与绿色能源领域有着长达三十余年的合作基础,其过程呈现出"多层多元并进"和"新多边共治"的演进路径特点.但目前东北亚清洁能源互动呈现出 日益复杂化的态势,体现为政治互信缺乏与区域能源机制建设滞后并存、高碳能源路径依赖与区域绿色竞争并存、域外国家干预与新能源地缘风险攀升并存的复合性挑战.在绿色竞合背景下,中国应发挥作为全球清洁能源生产大国的结构性优势,以碳中和态势为契机从机制创新、竞争管理、区域凝合和张力缓释等维度推进区域包容性、务实性和可持续性的清洁能源合作,从而在东亚区域能源治理新秩序建构中发挥积极能动性角色.
全球安全倡议是中国为全球安全提供的重大国际公共产品,是中国在全球安全治理领域的重大观念变革.全球安全倡议的落实不仅需要共同安全观念的确立,同时还需要逐步制度化,从制度层面进行有效设计和构建.现实结构论倡导权力逻辑下的构建路径,理性设计论倡导利益逻辑下的构建路径,制度话语论倡导话语逻辑下的构建路径,这些为全球安全倡议的国际制度构建提供了启示.本文基于"从观念变革到制度建设"的一般理论逻辑,认为全球安全倡议的制度构建路径可尝试建立在空间维度、关系维度和演进维度基础之上.具体而言,可以从全球—地区的空间维度、安全—发展的关系维度、非正式—正式的演进维度出发,构建出倡议制度化的三维分析框架,实现上下联动、内外统筹、三维并举.在空间维度,要坚持联合国核心地位,加强地区层面、跨国界次区域层面制度建设;在关系维度,要统筹安全与发展,关注国家安全与个人安全,并协调传统安全与非传统安全;在演进维度,要推动全面提升制度综合能力的制度建设进程.最终形成"三端支撑、三足鼎立"的国际安全制度体系,共建人类命运共同体.
2022年5月,美国总统拜登在 日本东京宣布与印太地区的13个国家启动"印太经济框架"的谈判进程."印太经济框架"作为美国开展印太区域经济合作新的制度体系,从本质上讲,是一份以美国利益优先的印太区域制度整合方案,是美国在印太地区开展对华竞争的行动纲领,其未来必将会对我国的海外市场、供应链稳定、区域数字经贸规则制定话语权以及区域各国制度整合等方面带来不确定性的影响.为应对"印太经济框架"的可能影响和挑战,我国应加快构建新发展格局,整合"一带一路"倡议和RCEP,推出区域数字规则的"中国方案",构建我国跨国企业主导的区域供应链,以RCEP为抓手,推动区域制度整合.
百年未有之大变局下世界政治经济与生产格局深度调整,触发国际投资规则的变化与重构.国际投资规则的变化主要集中在五大领域:大型区域协定规则制定、投资争端解决机制、外资安全审查、数字领域投资治理以及可持续发展.国际投资规则的变化有着深层次的政治经济动因,全球经济治理体系重组、国际投资格局变化、西方技术民族主义盛行、数字经济治理挑战、新冠肺炎疫情冲击都影响着国际投资规则的发展变革.参与国际投资规则构建是维护国家利益的重要内容,中国需要加强国内规制建设、扩大内外投资市场空间、构筑投资协定伙伴网络、提高议题设置能力以争取规则制定话语权,在争端解决机制改革、外资安全审查协调、数字经济领域投资治理、可持续发展导向方面积极作为,为百年未有之大变局下的全球投资治理提出具有"全球价值"的"中国方案".
在对华"脱钩"政策难以奏效的情况下,美国开始推进"集体韧性"战略,即纠集所谓的志同道合国家构筑排除中国的技术联盟和供应链联盟.日本在这一新的联盟网络中处于关键地位.美日两国在出口管制、外资审查、半导体制造、移动通信网络和数字贸易规则等一系列经济安全政策领域启动了双边及多边合作,迈出了走向经济安全同盟的步伐.但美国的政策服务于本国优先的国内政治和遏制中国的地缘战略,与日本等盟友的立场存在分歧.日本则试图在美国与中国之间、在安全与经济之间保持平衡.面对经济安全政策、经济民族主义和经济全球化这三股相互竞争的潮流,美 日两国都提升了经济安全的重要性,有可能形成"联手制华"的格局.对此,中国应坚持竞争与合作并重的战略方向,在加强自身竞争力和韧性的同时,深化产业链供应链的国际合作.
二战后 日本不得不放弃武力扩张的国家战略,但伴随形势变化,日本不同当政者的治国方略则不相同.围绕是维护宪法、优先发展经济、重视国际协调,还是修改宪法、增强军事力量、成为政治军事大国等,存在两种不同国家战略倾向.其背后则是两种不同的历史观.战后,日本在《日本国宪法》下走和平发展道路,经济、科技取得令世界瞩目的成就,但外交则受制于美国而缺乏自主性.日本成为经济大国后,开始借助美国,努力成为亚洲领导国家和联合国常任理事国,而非所谓摆脱美国的"正常国家".21世纪以来,安倍晋三的国家战略目标是对内推动修宪,使 日本成为"能战国家";对外构筑"自由开放的印太",制衡中国.菅义伟内阁继承了安倍的国家战略.岸田文雄执政后在延续同一国家战略的同时,会展现何种特色,值得关注.
推进亚太区域经济一体化是大多数亚太经济体长久以来共同的意愿与目标,CPTPP和RCEP的相继签署与生效为这一 目标的实现提供了不同的路径方案.CPTPP与RCEP在制度主导力量、规则水平、规则制定模式等方面存在明显差异,二者之间互动关系的变化可能使得未来亚太区域经济一体化呈现出制度替代、制度竞争、制度融合三种不同的潜在图景.长期来看,CPTPP和RCEP具备了能够实现制度融合的有利条件,二者不仅在高标准规则目标上具有一致性,诸多制度重叠成员国还为两大制度搭建了融合的桥梁,而且新冠肺炎疫情客观上也为制度融合提供了时机.在推动地区制度融合、加速亚太区域经济一体化进程中,中国也将基于本国经济实力及地区网络地位等情况,发挥更加积极的作用并主动作出更大贡献.
全球化的深入推进和全球价值链的深度关联,以及全球政治经济关系的深刻调整,正在促使国际经济政策协调的核心议题和主要原则从贸易平衡向市场准入、从边境到边境后发生着根本性改变,对全球经济治理中的规则规范与主权国家内部经济政策协调都提出了新的要求和挑战.自贸试验区是我国改革开放新时期制度创新探索高地,是我国对接引领国际规则的试验田.目前,我国以要素有效流动为重点的政策制度改革和创新探索,正在推动形成覆盖市场准入前、准入后全过程的开放型经济制度规则体系.由于兼顾了国际国内市场规则高效对接的开放发展需求,也顾及维护国家经济安全的底线原则,我国 自贸试验区的制度性改革创新与国际经济政策的变迁不谋而合.自贸试验区的相关探索对我国准确定位自身在国际经济政策新体系中的作用、有效对接和积极参与引领转型时期国际经济规则变迁,正在形成极其重要的制度性支撑.
全球海洋治理制度象征着全球海洋治理秩序化和规范化的发展方向,关注制度体系的建构和完善是研究全球海洋治理不容忽视的重要议题.在复杂多变的国际环境下,制度建构的结果往往与治理的预期目标偏离,全球海洋治理制度亟需再建构.对此,为更好地理解制度是如何建构的,未来又如何再建构和优化,本文从建构主义的理论视角出发,提出了 一个全球海洋治理制度建构的过程逻辑分析框架,并充分运用大量的事实案例说明全球海洋治理制度建构过程是如何影响制度建构结果的.研究发现:在全球海洋治理制度建构过程中,领导型制度倡议者理念偏差、观念性共识凝聚梗阻、海权干扰观念制度化进程、战略竞争思维主导制度变革等观念性因素阻碍,是造成制度供给失衡、制度议而不决、制度"非中性"、制度碎片化等制度建构结果不理想的根源.本文在理论上扩展和深化了全球海洋治理制度建构的解释框架,有助于深入理解全球海洋治理是如何围绕着国际制度运行的.从制度建构过程中溯源制度建构负向结果的成因,对进一步提出优化全球海洋治理制度建构的可行路径,完善全球海洋治理制度体系有所裨益.
