1947-1948年关于对日和约程序问题的讨论——以美国外交文件为中心所作的探讨

1947年至1948年间,美、英、苏、中围绕对日和约的程序问题进行了讨论.美国主张召开由远东委员会十一国代表组成的对日和会,会议采取三分之二多数决定的投票程序;英国支持美国的主张;苏联坚持对日和会先由美、英、苏、中四国外长会议讨论,对日和约由四国外长会议起草;中国起初基本赞同美国的主张,后来提出三分之二多数中应包括美、英、苏、中四国的同意.美、苏、英、中关于程序问题的讨论,焦点在是否坚持大国一致同意原则,四国在对日和约程序问题上的分歧,直接导致单独对日媾和的局面.     

对日和约与朝鲜停战谈判

朝鲜战争的爆发迫使美国最终确定了单独媾和的对日和约新方针,并且期待战局好转而实现对日媾和;美国为了阻止中国出席旧金山会议,在对日和约签订之前采取了拖延谈判的策略;旧金山会议后美国急于停战,而因对日和约在远东陷入困境和被动局面的苏联和中国却决心在停战谈判中坚持强硬的和不妥协的立场,以便在朝鲜战场吸引和消耗美国的力量。这就是在冷战大背景下对日和约与朝鲜停战谈判之间的微妙关系。     

《中日和平友好条约》的签订

《中日和平友好条约》的签订经历了曲折的过程。中日双方于1974年11月开始缔约的预备谈判,后因日本政局变动使国内政治力量重组,自民党亲台势力掌控党政大权,在反霸问题上态度变化,导致谈判受阻;与此同时,中国也因文化大革命在缔约问题上回旋余地有限,致使缔约谈判一度中断。20世纪70年代末,日本国内政治环境和国际形势的变化为恢复中日谈判创造了有利条件,在邓小平的推动下,中日于1978年5月恢复了谈判,并于8月正式签署了《中日和平友好条约》,条约的签署对中日来说都具有重大意义。     

The 1985 Supplementary Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the United Kingdom: an exercise in soft power

The relationship between the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland during the years of conflict in Northern Ireland has been the topic of significant scholarly literature, but rarely has this literature examined the statecraft behind US interventions in Northern Ireland in the years before the election of President Bill Clinton. In this article, I will use a range of recently declassified state papers and a series of personal interviews to examine the introduction of the 1985 Supplementary Extradition Treaty between the United States and United Kingdom and show how the British government successfully manoeuvred their American counterparts, in both the Executive and Legislative branches, towards ratification of both the extradition treaty and the Anglo-Irish Agreement Support Act of 1986.     

The Treaty of Peace with Japan and the Korean truce negotiations

The outbreak of the Korean War caused the U.S.A. to become determined in excluding the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from the Treaty of Peace with Japan, the signing of which is hoped to be hastened by winning the Korean War. Before the signing of the treaty, the U.S.A. intentionally delayed the Korean truce negotiations in order to prevent the PRC from attending the San Francisco Peace Conference. After the signing, the U.S.A. preferred an immediate cessation of hostilities in Korea, whereas the Soviet Union and the PRC, bogged down in the Far East by the terms of the treaty, were determined to take a hard-line stance, hoping that the U.S.A. would become tied down and drained on the Korean battlefield. Thus, there was a subtle relationship between the treaty and the negotiations in the context of the Cold War. Translated by Chen Dan from Shixue Jikan 史学集刊 (Collected Papers of History Studies) 2006, (1): 66–75     

美国为何归还巴拿马运河 --1977年美巴运河条约评析

经过13年的谈判,美巴于1977年9月7日签署了关于归还运河主权和保持运河永久中立的两项条约。美国政府同意,经过23年过渡期,于1999年12月归还运河区主权,但将永远保有以武力维护运河中立的权力。1977年美巴运河条约改善了美国的国际处境,标志着美国对拉美政策的新阶段,其实质是以放弃对运河的直接占领来换取对运河的永久控制。本文利用美国国会记录等原始资料,探讨了美国为何以间接控制取代对运河的直接占领,分析了美国在这一问题上的战略思考和利弊权衡,有助于理解美国的拉美政策及美国霸权的性质和特点。     

From Zero-Sum to Value-Added Strategies: The Emergence of Knowledge-Based Industrial Policy in the States of the United States

State science policy is industrial policy, shaped by local research and industrial strengths or, conversely, lack of same. States with research strengths relevant to local declining industries attempt to link them in an effort to revive the latter; states lacking research strengths attempt to develop them, especially in areas relevant to local natural resources that have the potential to be the basis of new high-tech industries. Such knowledge-based industrial policies supplement, even if they do not replace, traditional strategies focused upon: (a) creating economic activity based upon natural resources such as harbors or mineral deposits, (b) improving the business climate by lowering taxes, or (c) attracting industry to relocate by offering subsidies. The role of the federal government in science-based industrial policy is still controversial even as it is widely accepted in the states as part of traditional responsibilities for their citizen's economic welfare.