Studying the International,Serving the Nation: The Origins of International Relations (IR) Scholarship in Germany, 1912–33

This paper examines the dynamics of internationalist and nationalist political thought in the formation of International Relations (IR) scholarship in Germany during the early twentieth century. It argues that while liberal internationalism played a significant role in shaping the discipline, IR scholars were often devout nationalists and worked for their government rather than for international peace. German institutions for the study of IR, like their Anglo-American counterparts, were founded in the aftermath of the First World War. Celebrated during the 1920s as ‘bulwarks of democracy’, they were nationalised by the Nazi government, lost their academic profile and since then have been largely forgotten. This paper explains the origins of IR research at the Institut für Auswärtige Politik, based in Hamburg and directed by Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy, as well as at the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik, led by Ernst Jäckh in Berlin. Formally inaugurated in 1923 and 1920 respectively, both institutions drew on pre-war intellectual traditions as well as wartime networks. In light of recent re-appraisals of inter-war IR scholarship in other countries, the German case offers new and important insights into the complex intellectual traditions of what has traditionally been oversimplified as a first ‘great debate’ between ‘idealists’ and ‘realists’.     

Indigenous Bioregionalisms (Love Mother Earth) Relationship,Creation, Ethics,Love

Indigenous Bioregionalisms (Love Mother Earth) are identities, methods, and philosophies defining our relationships between beloved Home Land Place and all Living Beings (written here as Home/Land/Place). Indigenous Bioregionalisms actively creates, maintains, and ensures the continuance and thrive‐ance of all Beings. It proposes a way to understand Indigenous belonging to and with Home/Land/Place—the expansive physical, natural, and SuperNatural source of life, transformance, and regeneration—of every Being.     

华沙渠道与中美关系解冻:华盛顿决策内幕

在冷战的国际大背景下,尼克松政府对苏实施的“缓和”战略使得华盛顿打出“中国牌”,致力于改善同北京的关系。而1969年3月中苏边界武装冲突则为美提供了一个契机。在寻求同中国对话的渠道上,华盛顿首先想到的是华沙渠道,即第135次和136次中美大使级会谈,并为此做了充分的准备。尽管史实证明:华沙渠道的进展不像华盛顿期望的那样顺利,但基本上完成了预期的任务:表达了改善对华关系的愿望,并阐明了不会同苏联合作主宰东亚事务的立场。在华沙渠道完成了既定任务之后,华盛顿又将同北京的联络转为巴基斯坦渠道。     

安全需求大于经贸需求——冷战时期中美共同利益汇合点分析

冷战时期,无论安全领域的利益汇合点还是经贸领域的利益汇合点,都在解冻、维系和推动中美关系中发挥着重要作用,但是这两个利益汇合点的作用并不是等同的,彼此间的安全需求大于经贸需求,而且社会制度和意识形态的根本对立并没有因安全利益汇合点而消失,其对中美两国关系的消极影响一直存在。     

中国俄国史研究百年检视与思考

中俄交往始于蒙古西征和金帐汗国时代(1238-1480年),中国学人撰写俄国史自1878年刊印的鹭江奇迹人的《俄国志略》,到今天已经有整整140年的历史。中国的俄国史学科伴随民族命运、国家危机以及世界形势的变化而生,自诞生之日起即负有学人情怀、民族重任和学术职责三重使命。因此,俄国史学科在中国一直发挥着“知夷”和“盗火”的两大作用。中华人民共和国成立后,俄国史(包括苏联时期和俄罗斯联邦时期)研究获得了70年的巨大发展,主要成就有:1985年中国苏联东欧史研究会成立(1992年英文更名为中国俄罗斯东欧中亚史研究会),高等院校、社会科学院、党校、国家有关部委及党政机构纷纷设立俄国史或俄罗斯问题研究机构,建立了从历史学学士、俄国史硕士到俄国史博士的三级专业人才培养体系,俄国史和俄罗斯问题研究的专业期刊创立并连续出版,大量的俄国通史、中俄(中苏)关系史、专题著作、各类教科书、翻译著作(来自俄文、英法、法文、德文、波兰文等)出版,中国俄国史学者积极参与国际学术会议和国际合作研究,具有中国特色的中国“俄罗斯学”新学科正在建立过程中。     

论英美在承认新中国问题上的分歧与协调

英美在是否承认新中国问题上的立场明显不同:英国主张尽早承认,尽管其决策取向经历了一个从事实承认到法律承认的递进过程;美国则始终坚持反对过早承认和主张有条件承认,具有不承认的实质性内容,并注定了不承认的结局。1949年1～5月,英美分歧凸显;1949年7月至1950年初,英美就承认问题不断磋商,但整个协商过程表明双方各执己见,最终各行其是,英国于1950年1月6日正式承认新中国,而早在1950年初美国在近期内承认新中国的可能性已不存在。     

胡适与太平洋国际学会——兼论现代中国自由主义的两难处境

中国太平洋国际学会从1925年成立到1950年解散前后存在了25年.它是太平洋国际学会在中国的分会,同时又有一定的独立性.胡适曾于1931-1938,1946-1950年间两度出任中国太平洋国际学会执行委员会委员长,是中国太平洋国际学会的灵魂人物.在他的影响下,一批自由主义知识分子加入了学会,使中国太平洋国际学会从一个松散的、具有基督教色彩的组织转变为一个具有强烈自由主义色彩的知识分子团体.胡适在太平洋国际学会中的言论、思想和行动典型地反映了现代中国自由主义知识分子在面对民族危机时所遭遇的两难选择.     

我国政府角色归位的对策和建议——以湖南省情为研究背景

我国政府角色归位应该从影响政府定位因素的诸多关系出发。从处理政府与社会关系来看,要落实好以人为本;从处理政府与市场关系来看,要谋划好市场规划;从处理好政府与社会关系来看,要培育好公民社会;从处理好政府与政党关系看,要调整好权力格局;从处理好政府与自然关系来看,要坚持科学发展观。     

马士及其中国近代对外关系史研究

马士是西方公认的汉学先驱之一。在中国海关任职长达30余年的时间里,撰写了一系列有关中国问题的著作,它们对20世纪前半期西方的中国历史学著作产生了深刻的影响。他的许多有关中国近代对外关系的著作,不仅开启了国外中国近代史研究的先声,为国外中国近代史研究奠定了坚实的基础,而且拓宽了西方汉学的研究领域,对西方现代汉学的发展起了重要的推逐作用。     

What You See Is (Not) What You Get? The Taiwan Question,Geo‐economic Realities,and the “China Threat” Imaginary

Abstract: Despite emergent trends of geo‐economic integration between nation‐states, the role of realist‐driven geopolitical calculation appears highly enduring. This paper explores the potential contradictions between state‐centric geopolitical concerns and transnational geo‐economic formation through an exploration of China–US tensions over Taiwan, a territory of indeterminate geo‐legal status and which China regards as its own province. I consider how the Taiwan Relations Act, a domestic public law of the US that frames US–Taiwan relations and has a major influence on East Asian geopolitics, could contradict emergent “China region”, and possibly even China–US, geo‐economic integration. This is because the US‐sustained arms sales to Taiwan rest on imagining and containing China as a “threat”, while geo‐economic integration entails enrolling China as a strategic partner, if not an ally. Consequently, the Taiwan issue could stifle the enhancement of Sino‐American relations at a historical juncture when the Chinese and American economies are more intertwined than ever.