东京审判:中国学界的观察与思考

东京审判作为与中国近代史、中国人民的民族感情和历史记忆息息相关的重要事件,引起中国学界的广泛关注和高度重视。无论与纽伦堡审判的对比研究,还是兼及盟国境内其他审判的综合性研究;无论东京审判相关史料收集、整理与出版,还是从历史学与国际法角度的学术探讨,都反映了不同时期国际关系、时代环境对东京审判研究的影响与制约。随着东京审判外文史料的公开与出版,如何充分利用这些丰富的外文史料,进一步拓宽研究思路和研究领域,不断汲取外国学者的既有研究成果,加强中外学者的对话和开展"共同研究",或将是东京审判研究的一个发展方向。     

学术自由与制度保障——以中央研究院为例

民国时期的中央研究院,从创制思想、机构设置到制度运行,逐步形成了一套较为完备和运行良好的学术自由制度体系.这样的安排,使中央研究院成为近代中国充分尊重学术自由,并予以制度保障的典范.但是,由于国民政府的干预,加上各种因素的影响,中央研究院事实上所能维护和保障的,也只能是院内的一片"自由"的天空.     

Academic boycotts, activism and the academy

Recent media controversy surrounding the acceptance and publication of an article from Israeli-based academics in Political Geography raises serious questions concerning academic boycotts and ideas of academic freedom. This short article provides some brief background at efforts to boycott Israeli academic institutions and outlines some of the issues surrounding the appropriateness of such boycotts in general and of Israel in particular. More specifically it examines the issues of academic freedom, and the equity, effectiveness and flexibility of academic boycotts.     

An Autobiographical Sketch of a Practitioner–Neurohistorian

In 1929, at the age of 82, the Swedish neurologist Salomon Henschen (1847–1930) planned an Academia Neurologica Internationalis. The exchanged letters with Cécile and Oskar Vogt suggest that there was a great number of neuroscientists internationally who approved of the project. However, during three months of preparation, the initial skepticism increased and, although the invitation to the conference had already been printed, it had to be revoked. The endeavors to revive the Brain Commission failed. Two other projects nonetheless did take shape: the founding of one of the largest and most modern brain research institutes in 1931 by the Vogts and the first International Neurological Congress in Berne that same year. For decades, the Brain Commission remained without successors until the International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) was founded in 1961.     

Policy relevance: a sceptical view

The academic international relations community has come under fire, both in Australia and overseas, for its supposed irrelevance to real-world issues. Recommendations have been made for ‘bridging’ this ‘gap’ between the scholarly and policy worlds. This article takes a sceptical look at some of these recommendations. While this article argues that international affairs academics should be judged on their ability to provide value to society, it also notes that the best way to do so is to capitalise on the academy’s comparative advantages in order to produce high-quality inputs to the public debate. This article expresses concern that some of the recommendations put forward to bridge the gap may, by compromising impartiality, excessively curtailing the time frames for good research, and neglecting theoretical and methodological rigour, run the risk of reducing academia’s value to society.