摘要：《中国国际政治季刊》（The Chinese Journal of International Politics）创刊于2006年，2012年进入SSCI，迄今仍是中国大陆主办的唯一一份政治学SSCI专业期刊。自创刊以来，CJIP坚持发表原创性学术研究成果，重

期刊简介

《中国国际政治季刊》（The Chinese Journal of International Politics）创刊于2006年，2012年进入SSCI，迄今仍是中国大陆主办的唯一一份政治学SSCI专业期刊。自创刊以来，CJIP坚持发表原创性学术研究成果，重点推动国际关系理论创新和中国对外关系方面的研究，发表了诸多国内外知名学者的文章。CJIP发表的文章在东亚、欧洲和北美三地学者间保持了较好的平衡，在促进国际关系理论多元化发展方面发挥了独特作用。2022年该刊影响因子为2.0，在96份国际关系类SSCI期刊中名列第39，是亚洲地区排名最高的国际关系类SSCI期刊。

本期目录

1 制衡以远离战争：中美如何避开修昔底德陷阱

Balancing Away from War: How the USA and China Can Side-step the Thucydides’ Trap

2 挑战大众叙事：权力转移进程与中美关系

Challenging Popular Narratives: The Course of Power Transition and Sino–US Relations

3 捆绑威胁：为什么欧洲对中国的主流看法发生了变化

Bundling Threats: Why Dominant Perceptions of China Changed in Europe

4 超越制衡：澳大利亚的双轨对华政策

Beyond Balancing: Australia’s Dual-track China Policy

5 对东亚历史秩序的再思考：中国-东南亚关系中的异构秩序

Rethinking East Asia’s Historical Order: Heterarchy in China–Southeast Asia Relations

内容摘要

以制衡远离战争：美国和中国如何避开修昔底德陷阱

题目：Balancing Away from War: How the USA and China Can Side-step the Thucydides’ Trap

作者：Michael C Desch，美国圣母大学国家安全中心创始主任；Packey J. Dee 国际关系讲席教授。

摘要：将修昔底德作为21世纪宏观战略指南的当代著作中，讨论最广泛的是格雷厄姆·艾利森（Graham Allison）的《注定一战：中美能避免修昔底德陷阱吗？》。艾莉森和其他人关注伯罗奔尼撒战争并不奇怪，因为随着中国相对于美国“崛起”，如今另一场权力转移正在进行中。而问题在于，从修昔底德的角度来看，中美作为主要参与者应如何应对这些不断变化的权力动态？在他的《伯罗奔尼撒战史》中，存在三种不同的路径来思考权力，这也让我们对这个问题的回答变得更加复杂。鉴于它们之间惊人的不一致，有必要重读修昔底德，以确保我们对权力的“正确”看法。此外，虽然少数现代读者认识到修昔底德最终呼吁在外交政策中保持温和和克制，但大多数人（如果不是全部）都对它是否来自对伯罗奔尼撒战争历史的现实主义解读持怀疑态度。具有讽刺意味的是，这样的解读将权力转移问题置于不那么棘手的境地。

The most widely discussed contemporary work using Thucydides as a guide for 21st century grand strategy is Graham Allison’s Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’ Trap? It is not surprising that Allison and others would look to the Peloponnesian War because another power transition is going on with China “rising” relative to the USA. The question is from a Thucydidean perspective how should major actors like China and the USA respond to these changing power dynamics? Complicating our answer to this question is that there are three ways one could think about power in the context of his History of the Peloponnesian War. Given the striking inconsistencies among them, it is necessary to read Thucydides again to ensure we get him “right” on power. Furthermore, while a few modern readers recognize that Thucydides ultimately offers a plea for moderation and restraint in foreign policy, most, if not all, are skeptical that it can come from a Realist reading of the History of the Peloponnesian War. Ironically, such a reading casts the problem of power transition in a less intractable light.

挑战大众叙事：权力转移进程与中美关系

题目：Challenging Popular Narratives: The Course of Power Transition and Sino–US Relations

作者：段啸林，香港中文大学人文及社会科学学院助理教授。

摘要：尽管学术界对权力转移理论（PTT）及其与当代中美关系的相关性有着浓厚的兴趣，但本文着重于阐述政策讨论的三个核心方面，这些方面在现有的权力转移理论学术著作中被很大程度上忽视或视为理所当然。本文首先建立了一个分析权力转移过程的分析框架，从而深入分析在这一过程中崛起国与主导国之间的战略互动。然后，它批判性地回顾了历史、理论和实证研究，重点关注三个关键方面：(1)权力转移过程中最容易发生战争的时刻的时间和规律性；(2)守成国在其挑战者崛起中的扮演的角色；(3)崛起国和守成国回避战略冲突的动机。它挑战了主流叙事，即随着相对权力动态的变化，中美将逐渐走向冲突和对抗，突出了两个大国之间战略互动的复杂性。

Despite intensive scholarly interest in power transition theory (PTT) and its relevance to contemporary Sino–US relations, this article addresses three aspects central to policy discussions that have been largely neglected or taken for granted in the existing scholarly works on PTT. This article first establishes an analytical framework to analyse the course of power transition, enabling an in-depth analysis of the strategic interactions between the rising power and the dominant power throughout this process. It then critically reviews the historical, theoretical, and empirical studies focusing on three key aspects: (1) the timing and regularity of most war-prone moments in the course of power transition; (2) the role of the established power in the rise of its challenger; and (3) the rising power and established power’s incentives for strategic conflict avoidance. It challenges the prevailing narratives that depict a gradual trajectory toward conflict and confrontation as relative power dynamics shift, highlighting the complexity of strategic interactions between the two powers.

捆绑威胁：为什么欧洲对中国的主流看法发生了变化

题目：Bundling Threats: Why Dominant Perceptions of China Changed in Europe

作者：Shaun Breslin，华威大学政治与国际研究教授；Mikael Mattlin，芬兰国际事务研究所全球秩序与中国研究中心研究员；图尔库大学国际政治副教授、高级讲师。

摘要：过去几年，欧洲民众对中国的普遍看法明显发生了转变。本文以评估中国叙事如何出现和变化，以及它们如何影响应对中国崛起的政策的文献为基础。本文构建了一个分析框架，在这个框架中，我们确定了主导观念变化的两种不同的原因，潜移默化的和催化性的，以及其传播过程（叙事扩散）。我们认为，四个潜移默化的原因和三个催化性的原因，以及一种特定的学术和政策叙事的积极传播，解释了为什么欧洲对中国的主流看法在相对较短的时间内转变为主要是负面的。我们探讨了这种主流叙事所依赖的基本假设，以及什么被视为证据（以及什么证据）。本文认为，对中国未来威胁性形象的预测解释了如何解读中国行动者的当前行动，而这种解读反过来又以循环逻辑强化了对中国未来形象的预测，具有明确的政策含义。有关能力和代理的相关假设、混淆、评估和信念将许多不同的问题捆绑在一起，而它们本该分开分析。这导致难以区分不同时间尺度上的各种风险和威胁，政策制定者往往选择谨慎行事。

Popular perceptions of China in Europe have clearly shifted over the past few years. This article builds on the literature that assesses how narratives of China emerge and change, and how they influence policy on how best to respond to China’s rise. We construct an analytical framework in which we identify two different types of reasons for change in dominant perceptions, underlying and precipitating, and a transmitting process (narrative diffusion). We argue that four underlying and three precipitating reasons together with active diffusion of a particular academic and policy narrative explain why dominant perceptions of China changed in Europe to predominantly negative within a relatively short time period. We explore what foundational assumptions this dominant narrative depends on, and what is considered as evidence (and evidence of what). We suggest that a projected threatening future image of China explains how current actions of Chinese actors are interpreted and that this interpretation in turn reinforces the projected future image in a circular logic, with clear policy implications. The associated assumptions, conflations, evaluation, and beliefs regarding ability and agency bundle together many different concerns that analytically should be kept separate. This leads to difficulties in discerning between diverse kinds of risks and threats on different timescales, with policymakers often opting for playing safe.

超越制衡：澳大利亚的双轨对华政策

题目：Beyond Balancing: Australia’s Dual-track China Policy

作者：Lisha Chen，岭南大学政府与国际事务学系博士研究生；张泊汇，岭南大学政府及国际事务学系教授。

摘要：本文反驳了一种流行的观点，即澳大利亚在放弃了之前的对冲政策后，对中国转而采取一种制衡的姿态。这是因为制衡的观点与澳大利亚仍在积极发展与中国的经济关系这一事实并不相符。相反，本文提出了一种新的双轨路径来解释澳大利亚的对华政策。它假设，即使在确立威胁性之后，各国也可以同时寻求对崛起国的制衡与合作。与新兴大国的贸易收益增强了它们的长期综合实力，这反过来又使它们能够更有效地平衡与新兴大国的关系。澳大利亚作为一个典型的贸易国，尤其有动力对中国采取这种双轨战略，以最大限度地提高其安全和实力。这种双轨路径虽然也表现出制衡与合作并存的特点，但与对冲路径有很大区别。对冲策略基于一个崛起国构成威胁的不确定性，而双轨策略则由这种确定性定义。相较于对冲战略追求的是有限制衡和克制制衡，以应对新兴大国的安全困境；“双轨”战略则是一种硬性制衡。相比于对冲策略利用经济接触来塑造崛起国的意图和行为，而双轨策略只从崛起大国的经济崛起中寻求利益。最后，虽然对冲方法允许基本不受限制的经济合作，但双轨方法结合了地缘经济学以限制安全敏感领域的合作。这种双轨视角不仅为国家如何应对权力转移提供了一个全新的视角，也解释了澳大利亚对华政策背后的“恐惧和贪婪”座右铭。

This paper disputes the popular view that Australia has embraced a balancing posture against China after ditching its previous hedging policy. This is because a balancing perspective does not reconcile with the fact that Australia still actively cultivates economic ties with China. Instead, this paper proposes a new dual-track approach to explain Australia’s China policy. It posits that states can simultaneously pursue balancing and cooperation toward rising powers even after the establishment of threat certainty. Gains from trade with rising powers enhance their long-term aggregate power, which in turn enables more effective balancing against rising powers. Australia, a typical trading state, is particularly motivated to pursue this dual-track strategy toward China to maximize both its security and power. Although this dual-track approach also exhibits the co-presence of balancing and cooperation, it is very different from the hedging approach. While the hedging approach rests on the uncertainty of threats posed by a rising power, the dual-track approach is defined by such certainty. Whereas the hedging approach pursues limited and restrained balancing to manage the security dilemma with rising powers, the dual-track approach practices hard balancing. While the hedging approach uses economic engagement to shape a rising power’s intentions and behaviors, the dual-track approach only seeks profit from a rising power’s economic ascent. Finally, while the hedging approach allows largely unrestrictive economic cooperation, the dual-track approach incorporates geoeconomics to restrict cooperation in security sensitive domains. This dual-track perspective not only offers a new and novel perspective on how states respond to power shifts but also explains the “fear and greed” motto that underlies Australia’s China policy.

对东亚历史秩序的再思考：中国-东南亚关系中的异构秩序

题目：Rethinking East Asia’s Historical Order: Heterarchy in China–Southeast Asia Relations

作者：Tommy S H Chai，澳大利亚国立大学战略与国防研究中心博士研究生。

摘要：本文从中、东南亚关系的角度重新审视了近代早期东亚秩序的本质，挑战国际关系学界的主流观点。传统上，这些关系要么被视为等级关系，即中国提供地区秩序，要么被视为不对称关系，即权力差距经常导致紧张局势，要求中国在尊重和自治的框架内实现关系正常化。我认为，这两种观点都忽视了中国有限的权力行使，以及东南亚、中国和更广阔世界之间的动态互动。通过研究东南亚政治如何将外部文明的思想和实践本土化以推进政治统治，本文证明了东南亚的特点是等级式的和多元主义秩序，以多重重叠的等级关系为特征，其最小目标是生存和共存。中国不是霸权，而是与东南亚几个主要国家并列的霸权竞争者，中国通过促进异构秩序的发展，参与了霸权竞争的稳定。这一分析对中国与东南亚的关系提供了细致入微的理解，并断言地区秩序的稳定取决于双方适应各自社会地位和等级差异的能力，而不是中国作为霸主的角色。

This paper re-examines the nature of order in early modern East Asia through the angle of China–Southeast Asia relations, challenging prevailing views in international relations scholarship. Traditionally, these relations are viewed either as hierarchical, with China providing regional order, or as asymmetric, where power disparities often generated tensions that required China to normalize relations within a framework of deference and autonomy. I argue that both views overlook China’s limited exercise of authority and the dynamic interactions involving Southeast Asia, China, and the wider world. By studying how Southeast Asian polities localized the ideas and practices of external civilizations to advance political rule, I demonstrate that Southeast Asia was marked by a heterarchical and pluralist order, characterized by multiple overlapping hierarchical relations with the minimal goals of survival and coexistence. China was not a hegemon but a hegemonic contender alongside several major Southeast Asian kingdoms, and China participated in stabilizing the hegemonic rivalries by facilitating the development of heterarchy. This analysis offers a nuanced understanding of China–Southeast Asia relations and asserts that the stability of the regional order hinged on both parties’ capacity to accommodate differences in social statuses and ranks, rather than on China’s role as the hegemon.

译者：任雨欣，国政学人编译员，中国人民大学国际政治专业，研究兴趣为亚太地区。

审校 | 张潇文

排版 | 韩雄柏

本文源于《中国国际政治季刊》（CJIP）Vol.18 , No.2 , 2025，本文为公益分享，服务于科研教学，不代表本平台观点。如有疏漏，欢迎指正。

来源：国政学人