国际关系的演化变迁与中印"兄弟"情谊的大起大落

中印"兄弟"情谊的大起大落,是尼赫鲁时代中印双边关系最引人注目的特征。尼赫鲁时代中印"兄弟"情谊的大起大落与许多因素相关,国际关系的演化变迁即是其中的重要因素。全球冷战背景下的印巴敌视、中美对抗、中苏友好、美巴结盟催生了中印兄弟情谊的到来;而中苏分歧、印苏友好、中美敌对、印美接近、印巴对抗、中巴联合则加剧了中印关系的恶化与破裂。尼赫鲁时代中印"兄弟"情谊的大起大落,从国际关系演化变迁的视角,为当代和未来中印关系提供了值得反思和借鉴的经验与教训。     

Philosophy and International Relations

In recent years, International Relations theorists have turned to philosophy in search of new ontological and epistemological foundations or to clarify their existing commitments. Scientific Realism and International Relations, edited by Jonathan Joseph and Colin Wight, is a good example of the former: editors and contributors make the case for Scientific Realism—a leading philosophy of science—in International Relations. Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, author of The conduct of inquiry in International Relations, is motivated by the latter concern, and devises a typology based on two key fissures among social scientists: the relationships between the knower and the known, and between knowledge and observation. The Joseph and Wight volume, while containing some thoughtful essays, does not convince the reviewer that assumptions that might apply in the physical world are relevant to its social counterpart. The Jackson book is an intellectual tour de force and a compelling plea for pluralism.     

The Gorbachev Interlude and International Relations Theory

Richard Ned Lebow and Thomas W. Risse–Kappen, eds. International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War     

Halliday's revenge: revolutions and International Relations

Fred Halliday saw revolution and war as the dual motors of modern international order. However, while war occupies a prominent place in International Relations (IR), revolutions inhabit a more residual location. For Halliday, this is out of keeping with their impact—in particular, revolutions offer a systemic challenge to existing patterns of international order in their capacity to generate alternative orders founded on novel forms of political rule, economic organization and symbolic authority. In this way, dynamics of revolution and counter‐revolution are closely associated with processes of international conflict, intervention and war. It may be that one of the reasons for Halliday's failure to make apparent the importance of revolutions to IR audiences was that, for all his empirical illustrations of how revolutions affected the international realm, he did not formulate a coherent theoretical schema which spoke systematically to the discipline. This article assesses Halliday's contribution to the study of revolutions, and sets out an approach which both recognizes and extends his work. By formulating ideal‐typical ‘anatomies of revolution’, it is possible to generate insights that clarify the ways in which revolutions shape international order.