一带一路战略研究外文文献翻译

文献信息

标题：Bridge of international exchanges and cooperation："One Belt And One Road" strategic

作者：Jenney B

期刊：American Political Science Review，第1卷，第2期，页码：41-51.

年份：2016

原文

Bridge of international exchanges and cooperation："One Belt And One Road"

strategic

Jenney B

Abstract

"One Belt And One Road" strategy is the recent hot topic, practice and theory are expressed high level of interest. Browse the various discussions, but is found mostly in practical level. “One Belt And One Road " as a national strategy, if cannot ascend to a historical height to understand, to show its significance to real out - the so-called ascend to the height of the history, does not mean that dates back to the history of the silk road starting point, but at the historical philosophy level, the "area" strategy may be associated with the evolution of the world order logic, make internal analysis. This article is to discuss in such a kind of Angle. Article tries to analyze the inner mechanism of the today's world order, as well as its weakness, on this basis, the present strategy of "area" is likely to have the world historical significance.

Key words: One Belt And One Road; The international cooperation; Theory of practice

1 Introduction

The discussion of the strategy of "area" all the way from the world order, because any strategy is not without foundation, but in an external governing the environment, do not understand the external environment, and difficult to understand the strategy itself. One Belt And One Road strategy is an economic solution first, must be in the midst of Marx in the sense of the world market to implement its feasibility. Karl, once one of the main characteristics of the modern world, is "embedded". This reality

makes all political solutions to adapt to the economic logic, otherwise cannot implement. So the political - legal authority in the sense of the world order also must have homogeneity with the logic of the world market. This is what the United States dominated the fundamental characteristics of the modern world order, also we discuss the strategy of "area", is not open around the constraint conditions. Contemporary global order is dominated by the United States, but it is not only in the United States, but beyond the above any individual countries, including the United States, the general order. To the world market as its most basic constraint conditions, it needs to provide the fundamental guarantee to international security. With several major global economic organizations is the world market provides the basic legal framework, constraints, led the international trade order and the international financial order, and the architecture of law with the reality of the international process of the flow of goods, capital and slowly adjust it.

2.1 The political space in a non-row

A concept of space is the continent to sovereign state as the basic unit, diversity of discontinuous political space. Westphalia system first established the principle of sovereign equality, sovereign states as the main body of international law. Grau Theseus (Hugo Grotius) in its guidance on the treaty of Westphalia magnum opus is put forward, in the act of war and peace "to make war with the form required by the law of nations, must have two requirements: first, it must be based on national sovereignty power between the two sides, the second, it must be attached to certain forms." Grau Theseus tries to through the demonstration of the legitimacy of war, to overcome the disorder state since the Middle Ages, to establish rules for war, to find the premise for peace. In this system, a sovereign state and war is symbiotic, or each other, the main body of law for sovereign states, the world is composed of multiple confrontation entity, forming a fragmented space. The laws “are from the domestic power. Power is refers to domestic sovereign power of the country." The rights of the individual are on the premise of sovereign power. This and previous European thinkers, matching the constructed out of sovereignty theory is the continental many sovereign entity of legal recognition and standardize the existing fact.

2.2 Continuous political space

Another space view is the ocean to the continuity of individual natural rights as the basic unit of political space. Outside the sovereign state relations, Grau Theseus also suggests another important aspects, namely sovereignty is not a global coverage." According to the nature, sea seems to be a boycott of ownership. "Because different from land and sea cannot be possessed, and possession is the premise of sovereignty. Ocean separates with the continent, country and country, put forward further Grau Theseus, "we call it the first important rule or the first principle, the spirit is self-evident and eternal, each people all can with another people associate freely, and the freedom to engage in trade with them. "Then, as a necessary channel of ocean, global trade cannot obey the sovereign state of management principles, and should be managed in accordance with the laws of nature." Natural law is just as rational order, indicating any consistent with the nature of the rational behavior is the behavior of moral justice, on the other hand, is morally evil behavior." Sovereign power made by the domestic law in the failure. Human is on the ocean have natural rights, including for natural rationality rather than the sovereign will of liberty, property, etc., the main body of these rights is undifferentiated human individual. So, ocean order and indiscriminate (right) is a natural combination of human freedom, the freedom nature of ocean at the same time also means that the order of individuality. This is a sovereign state different from land order sea free order. Its structure is a continuous, indiscriminate homogeneous space, in the world, the international law on individuals and on the combination of community and individual freedom.

3 The plight of fault state

U.S. strategic scientist Thomas Barnett puts forward a new perspective of the understanding of the world order. Barnett will be divided into two countries in the world, one kind is by fully participate in the globalization process of the "core" of composition, including Western Europe, North America, Japan and other core "Old country", and "Bric", eastern European countries, such as "new core countries", the internal rules in these countries and emerging global democratic rule, rule of law as well as the free market, which can guarantee product, capital, information, and orderly

flow of population, etc. Another country by failing to participate in the "fault" of the globalization process, they are concentrated in the Middle East, central Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, Central America, and countries in the Andes, where almost everything is contrary to the core. Whether a country belongs to the core or fault has nothing to do with ideology or political system, only to the participation of globalization. By himself to the world of the new division, Barnett has established the new strategy in radically different from the principle of the cold war. He thought: the future real threat is hidden in the fault state extremist and terrorist groups, they want to make fault always insulated from the world of globalization, countries method is to hit the core countries, through a variety of terrorist activities and intimidate the residents of the fault state. So, America's strategy should be to help fault state into the globalization process. Its method is to help establish an effective government, fault countries to integrate with the global order, form a clear, internal rule, attract capital inflows, realize fault countries and globalization in the aspects of political, economic and security order comprehensive fusion.

4 One Belt And One Road strategic and world order

Barnett, the enemy of the United States the post-cold war era is no longer visible, but scattered in invisible extremist and terrorist organizations, they through the war "fourth generation" to fight the power of the core. So the future military arrangement should be divided into two parts: part used to beat war of extremism of rogue states support. The other part is after the end of the war in iron, used to help the construction of new country, lead it into the globalization forces of peace. Part after the power is still the basis of military power, but it's actually more similar to a police force. Then, including the brick countries, the importance of the "new core countries" is displayed. Barnett says the United States has enough power to win the war, but do not have enough power to build peace. "We must understand the geographical situation in the fault zone decided the fate of the country.”Core countries should work together old and new, are provided by the iron army beat the rogue states, provided by the new core countries to authority or force, support for its transformation. "Old core countries begin to promoting new core countries and the future is likely to be a new begins to

push the fault of the core countries. Extremism can not provides any workable solutions to real problems, but it reveals a fact that is a kind cannot be effectively solves the present within the framework of the existence of widespread resentment. Why a universal world order, but can be in fault state induced unable to dissolve the widespread resentment? The reason is that the United States generally dominated order, is a form of justice as its basic pursuit, because only the formal justice to make the basis of different faith community fined coexistence. But due to the exclusive monopoly for enforcement of the formal justice order -- includes it in a safe level of unilateral behavior, including its monopoly in economic terms such as the IMF's veto - this monopoly makes it can have some of the self-interest behavior mixed in, leading to formal justice contains a series of substantial justice. Under this is a kind of institutional contradictions, is one of the reasons caused widespread resentment. So, how to overcome this substance is not justice, makes the form of formal justice truly be justice, or, let the form justice and substance justice eventually form a closed question?

This need through the balance of international politics can be implemented. The question is what sense of balance? In the 19th century had a balance of power between European powers structure, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and other countries by constantly transformation alliance to look for the balance of power. For them, look for the balance of power structure is its ultimate purpose; there is nothing beyond can pursue from the balance of the order. But in the middle of the 20th century, especially after the cold war, we also see the possibility of another kind of balance of power, that is, on the basis of acknowledging the common order, form a kind of balance in its execution mechanism level. At this time of the balance of power is only instrumental, it exists for common order, and this is the basic difference with the balance of the 19th century. But the new balance of power must also be based on the strength of hedge. It is the same as the 19th century. Although the United States in the present monopoly for the enforcement of order in general, but we have already seen, on the one hand, due to its survival logic, the executive power in some Fang Li depth. On the other hand, more importantly, the executive power monopoly cannot avoid the

self-interest behavior, which in turn will make it’s driven the commonality of the general order of the injury. If on the level of enforcement mechanism to form the balance of power, the self-interest behavior of any single country can effective constraint in this structure, it is likely to make all these powers of self-interest behavior was reached similar to Adam Smith said: every country in the process of the pursuit of self-interest maximization to enhance the welfare of the international community.

译文

跨国交流与合作的桥梁:“一带一路”战略研究

Jenney B

摘要

“一带一路”战略是近期的热门话题，实务界和理论界对此都表示了高度的兴趣。但是浏览一下各种讨论，会发现多数是在就事论事的层面上展开的。“一带一路”作为一个国家战略，倘不能提升到一个历史的高度来理解的话，其意义便难以真正地呈现出来——所谓提升到历史的高度，并不是指回溯到丝绸之路的历史起点，而是要在历史哲学的层面上，对“一带一路”战略与世界秩序的演化逻辑之间的可能关联，作出内在分析。本文便是要在这样一种角度展开讨论。文章会尝试分析当今世界秩序的内在机理，以及其软肋所在，在此基础上，呈现出“一带一路”战略可能具有的世界历史意义。

关键词：一带一路；国际合作；理论实践

1 引言

对“一带一路”战略的讨论要从世界秩序谈起，因为任何战略都不是凭空、而是要在一个外部约束环境当中来展开的，不理解外部环境，便难以理解该战略本身。一带一路战略首先是个经济方案，必须在马克思意义上的世界市场当中落实其可行性。卡尔·波兰尼曾经提到现代世界的一大特征，就是“脱嵌”。这一现实使得一切政治方案都要顺应经济的逻辑，否则便无法落实；所以政治—法权意义上的世界秩序也必须得与世界市场的逻辑有同构性。这正是美国所主导的当代世界秩序的根本特征，也是我们讨论“一带一路”战略时，绕不开的约束条件。当代全球秩序是由美国所主导的，但它却不仅仅是美国的，而是超越于包括

美国在内的任何单个国家之上的普遍秩序。它以世界市场作为其最基本的约束条件；以国际安全秩序提供最根本的保障；以全球几大经济组织为世界市场提供基本的法权架构，约束、引导着国际贸易秩序和国际金融秩序，这些法权架构又伴随着现实的国际商品、资本的流动过程而缓慢地调整着自己；国际价值观体系则为前述所有这些提正当性的辩护，以及作为外在的衡量标准，国际舆论依此对于现实状况加以评判。

2 两种政治空间观

2.1 非连续政治空间

一种空间观是欧陆以主权国家为基本单位、多元并立的非连续政治空间。威斯特伐利亚体系第一次确立了国家主权平等的原则，主权国家成为国际法的主体。格劳修斯（Hugo Grotius）在其指导着威斯特伐利亚诸条约的巨著《战争与和平法》中提出，“为了使战争具备万国法所要求的形式，必须具备两个要件：第一，它必须是双方基于国家主权权力进行的，第二，它必须附带一定的形式。”格劳修斯力图通过对战争之正当性的论证，来克服中世纪以来的无序混乱状态，要为战争确立规则，从而为和平找到前提。在这个体系中，主权国家与战争是共生的，或者说是相互规定的，法权主体为主权国家，世界由多个对峙的实体构成，形成一种割裂的空间。各国的法律“是来自国内权力的。国内权力就是指国家的主权权力。”个体的权利以主权权力为前提。这与此前欧陆思想家所构造出来的主权学说相匹配，是对于欧陆诸多主权实体这一现成事实的法权认可与规范。2.2 连续性政治空间

另一种空间观是海洋上以个体自然权利为基本单位的连续性政治空间。在主权国家关系之外，格劳修斯还提示出另外一个重要的面向，即主权并不是覆盖全球的。“根据自然，海洋似乎是抵制所有权的。”因为不同于陆地，海洋无法被占有，而占有是主权存在的前提。海洋分隔开了大陆与大陆、国家与国家，格劳修斯进一步提出，“我们称之为头等重要的法则或首要的原则，其精神不证自明且永恒不变，即每个民族均可与另一民族自由地交往，并可自由地与之从事贸易。”那么，作为全球贸易所必需之通道的海洋，就不能服从主权国家的管理原则，而应依照自然法来进行管理。“自然法是正当理性的命令，它指示任何与合乎本性的理性相一致的行为就是道义上公正的行为，（完整译文百度文库）反之，就是