【新刊速递】《国际评论研究》(RIS), Vol. 50, No. 3, 2024 ｜ 国政学人

期刊简介 《国际研究评论》（Review of International Studies）是由剑桥大学出版社代表英国国际研究协会出版且同行评审的国际关系学术期刊，其前身为British Journal of International Studies (1975 - 1980)。该期刊致力于反映全球政治的性质变化和新兴的政治挑战，旨在为国际社会搭建一个可供辩论的平台用以讨论当下紧迫的全球议题。过去五年综合影响因子为3。 本期目录 1 展望：国际关系学的未来 On the horizon: The futures of IR 2 未来只是另一个过去 The future is just another past 3 在自我解体中走向成熟 Coming of age within ‘implosion’ 4 国际政治中的种族和系统性危机：多元学术议程 Race and systemic crises in international politics: An agenda for pluralistic scholarship 5 侨民地缘政治、崛起的大国和国际秩序的未来 Diasporic geopolitics, rising powers, and the future of international order 6 国际关系中的后社会主义：方法与批判 Postsocialism in International Relations: Method and critique 7 从底层重构社会生态生活：走向全球多数人的地球政治经济学 Reproducing socio-ecological life from below: Towards a planetary political economy of the global majority 8 人工智能与国际关系的未来：厘清世界政治中有血有肉的、制度性的和人工合成的道德能动性 AI and the future of IR: Disentangling flesh-and-blood, institutional, and synthetic moral agency in world politics 9 控制的未来/未来的控制：2074年全球（失序）秩序与无处不在的武器化 The future of control/The control of the future: Global (dis)order and the weaponisation of everywhere in 2074 10 与自然和平共处：生态外交的愿景与挑战 On making peace with nature: Visions and challenges towards an ecological diplomacy 11 地球陷阱：地球以外的国际关系 The terrestrial trap: International Relations beyond Earth 内容摘要 展望：国际关系学的未来 题 目：On the horizon: The futures of IR 作 者：Martin Coward，英国伦敦玛丽女王大学政治与国际关系学院教授、院长，研究兴趣是战争与安全；Matthew Paterson，曼彻斯特大学国际政治学教授、主任，研究兴趣为环境政治，气候变化；Richard Devetak，昆士兰大学政治学与国际研究学院教授，研究领域为国际关系理论、政治思想史、人道主义干预等；Carolina Moulin，巴西米纳斯联邦大学经济科学系；Nisha Shah，渥太华大学政治研究系副教授，研究兴趣为国际关系与战争；Maja Zehfuss，哥本哈根大学政治学系教授，研究兴趣为移民政治；Andreja Zevnik，曼彻斯特大学国际政治系讲师，研究兴趣为政治哲学与心理学。 摘 要：本期特刊旨在纪念《国际研究评论》创刊 50 周年。自 1975 年以来，《国际研究评论》已出版了 200 多期，发表了 1300 多篇文章，并且在塑造国际关系（IR）学科方面发挥了关键作用，引领或批判性地介入了许多重要辩论。为纪念创刊50周年，本期特刊将探讨在未来 50 年全球政治或将面临的挑战。不同于国际关系学常将目光转向历史根源，此次我们着眼于未来。在本导言中，我们首先概述了着眼未来的四种思维传统：实证主义、现实主义预测；规划、预测和情景构建；对理想政治未来的乌托邦式梦想；以及积极政治中的前瞻性思维。从这些传统中，我们了解到对未来的思考始终是对现在的反思。然后，我们在特刊文章中概述了四个主题：我们如何思考未来？如何思考帝国的过去以及当前持续存在的殖民化和种族化问题？技术变革将如何调解和产生地缘政治变革？社会生态危机，尤其是气候变化，如何日益影响我们对全球政治未来的思考？总之，本次特刊提供了一组关于全球政治未来的多样化、激励性和发人深省的文章，既包括学科讨论，也包括实证问题。 This Special Issue celebrates the 50th anniversary of Review of International Studies. Since 1975, the Review has published over 200 issues and over 1300 articles. The journal has played a key role in shaping the discipline of International Relations (IR), leading, or critically intervening in, key debates. To celebrate 50 years of Review of International Studies, we have curated a Special Issue examining the challenges facing global politics for the next 50 years. IR has regularly turned its attention backwards towards its historical origins. Instead, we look to the future. In this Introduction, we start by outlining four traditions of future-oriented thinking: positivist, realist prediction; planning, forecasting, and scenario-building; utopian dreams of an ideal political future; and prefigurative thinking in activist politics. From these traditions, we learn that thinking about the future is always thinking about the present. We then outline four themes in the Special Issue articles: How do we think about the future at all? How do we think about imperial pasts and the ongoing questions of colonization and racialization in the present? How will technological change mediate and generates geopolitical change? How are socioecological crises, and in particular climate change, increasingly shaping how we think about the future of global politics? Overall, these provide us with a diverse, stimulating, and thought-provoking set of essays about the future of global politics, as both discipline and set of empirical problems. 未来只是另一个过去 题 目：The future is just another past 作 者：Oliver Kessler，埃尔福特大学国际关系教授，主要研究兴趣是国际政治经济学，国际关系中的社会理论，以及国际法和政治理论的交叉。Halvard Leira，挪威国际事务研究所教授，主要研究领域是外交政策与话语分析。 摘 要：在面对未来前，国际研究需先深入了解自身的过去与现在。这一领域不仅在名称上缺乏共识，更重要的是描述现象的关键概念在不断变化：19世纪（以来）产生的概念都有过改变，也没有过去所设想的未来能真正预见当下。旧概念被抛弃，新概念被采用，现有概念被修改。这意味着任何“未来学”研究都必须对概念变革保持开放态度，国际研究今后将面临的主要挑战之一是确保我们的概念工具箱与日新月异的世界保持一致。然而，直到最近，全球政治研究对概念变革的重要性都未给予足够重视。因此，本文首先通过阐明国际领域过去与现在的主要概念变化，为纳入概念变革提供了实证案例。接着，本文介绍了概念史及其为我们提供的分析工具，以更好理解概念变革，最后讨论在思考全球政治的未来时如何应对概念的发展。 Before International Studies can confront the future, it needs to get a better grip on its past and present. The discipline lacks agreement on both its own name and the name of its object of study. More importantly, key concepts used to describe phenomena have changed continuously: no concept emerging in the 19th century has remained untouched, no envisioned future of the past could have prepared us for the present. Old concepts have been discarded, new ones adopted, and existing ones modified. This implies that any exercise in ‘futurology’ must necessarily come with an openness towards conceptual change, and that a key challenge for International Studies going forward will consist in matching our conceptual toolbox to an ever-changing world. The importance of conceptual change has until recently been neglected in the study of global politics. Thus, in this paper we start by presenting the empirical case for incorporating conceptual change by laying out key past and present conceptual changes in the international realm. We then move on to a presentation of conceptual history and the tools it provides us for grasping conceptual change, before discussing how to tackle conceptual developments when thinking about the future of global politics. 在“自我解体”中走向成熟 题 目：Coming of age within ‘implosion’ 作 者：Luise Bendfeldt，乌普萨拉大学政府学系博士生，研究兴趣包括性别、恐怖主义、后现代安全研究、女权主义理论和国际关系，目前关注男性至上、厌女症和性别暴力等问题；Emily Clifford，英国伦敦大学皇家霍洛威学院讲师；Hannah Richards，卡迪夫大学政治与国际关系博士生，研究兴趣为英国退伍军人与人权。 摘 要：在最近一篇文章中，玛丽亚·埃里克森·巴兹与斯瓦蒂·帕拉夏探讨了欧洲中心主义在批判性国际关系学中依然盛行的现象，揭示了“操控者视点”（master’s outlook）如何继续阻碍全球政治的研究，最终助长了学科的紊乱甚至自我解体。本文基于对批判性国际关系学“自我解体”的设想，反思了本文作者——两名全球政治学博士生和一名早期职业研究者对未来教学的期望。本文首先审视了作者自身在再现这门学科的西方中心主义时的共谋行为，并探讨如何有效地利用这种不适感。进而考察了课堂激进性的潜力，以及共情与合作探究对全球政治学未来的必要性。本文倡导一种具有想象力、关联性、复杂性和脆弱性的国际关系学，并对其如何实现有意义且可持续的“自我解体”充满希望。我们接受不适与失败的可能性，希望以新兴女权主义学者和充满希望的青年教师的视角，为识别学术界不断的“紊乱”做出贡献。 In a recent article, Maria Eriksson Baaz and Swati Parashar1 trace the continued salience of Eurocentrism in critical International Relations (IR), demonstrating how the ‘master’s outlook’ continues to stifle the study of global politics; they ultimately encourage an unsettling and even implosion of the discipline. Starting from this proposed ‘implosion’ of critical IR, this article reflects on our hopes, as two current PhD candidates and one early career researcher in global politics, for teaching and learning in this future world. We begin by reflecting on our own complicity in reproducing the Western-centrism of the discipline and consider how this discomfort can be used productively. The article then considers the radical potential of the classroom and the necessity of empathetic, collaborative inquiry to the future of the discipline of global politics. We advocate for an IR which is imaginative, relational, messy, and vulnerable – and are hopeful about how this may animate a meaningful and sustainable implosion. Embracing our discomfort and the possibility of failure, we hope to contribute to the ongoing ‘unsettling’ of academia from the standpoint of incipient feminist scholars and hopeful early-career teachers. 国际政治中的种族和系统性危机：多元学术议程 题 目：Race and systemic crises in international politics: An agenda for pluralistic scholarship 作 者：Andrew S. Rosenberg，佛罗里达大学政治学助理教授，研究兴趣包括国际政治中的种族主义、全球不平等、移民政策以及国际秩序等。 摘 要：近年来，全球政治学者表明，种族和白人至上问题在国际历史、国际关系领域的形成以及当代理论中都占据核心位置。本文认为，种族问题同样在21世纪当前和未来的系统性危机中扮演关键角色：这些危机包括愈发严重的气候变化、日益加深的不平等、资本主义的固有不稳定性以及移民问题。为支撑这一观点，本文描述了当前危机的轮廓，并揭示了种族主义如何加剧其影响。简而言之，资本主义的赢家和输家以及气候变化的影响都沿着种族界限划分，进一步加剧对全球南部非白人移民与国家的直接和间接种族歧视。这些相互关联的危机会深刻影响未来50年的国际政治，并可能永久固化全球种族不平等的恶性循环。因此，本文提出了一项研究议程，号召所有国际关系学者探讨种族在国际体系中的实证影响，将全球政治中被边缘化的历史与当代视角纳入研究，并解决21世纪最紧迫的政治问题。 In recent years, scholars of global politics have shown that issues of race and white supremacy lie at the centre of international history, the birth of the field of International Relations, and contemporary theory. In this article, I argue that race plays an equally central role in the 21st century’s current and future crises: the set of systemic risks that includes intensifying climate change, deepening inequality, the endemic instabilities of capitalism, and migration. To make this argument, I describe the contours of the current crisis and show how racism amplifies its effects. In short, capitalism’s winners and losers and the effects of climate change fall along racial lines, amplifying both direct and indirect racial discrimination against non-white migrants and states in the Global South. These interdependent crises will shape the next 50 years of international politics and will likely perpetuate the vicious cycle of global racial inequality. Accordingly, this article presents a research agenda for all IR scholars to explore the empirical implications of race in the international system, integrate marginalised perspectives on global politics from the past and present into their scholarship, and address the most pressing political issues of the 21st century. 侨民地缘政治、崛起的大国和国际秩序的未来 题 目：Diasporic geopolitics, rising powers, and the future of international order 作 者：Fiona B. Adamson，伦敦大学亚非学院教授，研究兴趣是移民与国际关系；Enze Han，香港大学政治与公共行政学系副教授，研究兴趣为中国与东南亚研究。 摘 要：本文将“侨民地缘政治”（diasporic geopolitics）视为未来全球政治的重要因素。国际关系领域关于全球秩序的讨论往往高度空间化，本文则强调世界各个地区通世界上哪些不同的地区通过正在进行的移民过程而纠缠在一起，及其以全球侨民的形式留下的遗产。本文通过聚焦崛起中的大国及其与现有国际秩序的关系，探讨这些联系的重要性。中国、印度和土耳其等主要移民输出国如今都在国际事务中寻求施加全球影响力。在此背景下，这些国家的侨民治理政策也发生了转变，侨民正被视为推进输出国地缘政治议程和大国雄心的重要资产。本文考察了这些国家通过其侨民参与政策在跨国上施加权力的三种机制。国家可以将其侨民视为促进贸易与外资的经济资产；作为有助于推广“文明”政治的软实力资产；以及作为可以战略性动员或抑制的外交资产。最后，本文讨论了这些机制对于未来50年全球秩序与强权政治性质的启示。 This article examines ‘diasporic geopolitics’ as a significant factor in the future of global politics. Whereas discussions of global order in IR have been highly spatialised, we instead highlight the extent to which different regions of the world are entangled via ongoing migration processes, and their legacies in the form of global diasporas. We examine the significance of these interconnections by focusing on rising powers and their relations with the existing international order. Major migration-sending states such as China, India, and Turkey are now aspiring great powers that seek to exert global influence in international affairs. In this context, their diaspora governance policies are also undergoing a transformation, with diasporas increasingly understood as important assets for promoting sending states’ geopolitical agendas and great power ambitions. We examine three mechanisms by which such states exert power transnationally via their diaspora engagement policies. States can treat ‘their’ diasporas as economic assets that facilitate trade and foreign investment; as soft power assets that contribute to the promotion of ‘civilisational’ politics; and as diplomatic assets that can be strategically mobilised or repressed. We conclude by discussing the implications for thinking about the nature of global order and power politics in the coming 50 years. 国际关系中的后社会主义：方法与批判 题 目：Postsocialism in International Relations: Method and critique 作 者：Claudia Aradau，伦敦国王学院国际政治系教授，研究兴趣为国际政治社会学，国际关系中的批判方法。 摘 要：尽管国际关系的后殖民主义视角为全球政治提供了新的概念、方法和政治想象，但后社会主义（postsocialism）作为一种分析和政治方法却一直缺席。后社会主义主要是一个描述性术语，指第二世界向自由民主和市场经济的时间过渡，或指东欧和前苏联的地缘政治空间。本文借鉴在分析与政治角度上将后社会主义和后殖民主义相结合的文献，尤其是女权主义研究，通过重新诠释后社会主义来理解当代社会主义的全球遗产。本文建议将后社会主义的维度作为方法和批判进行剖析。在方法维度上，后社会主义关注社会主义遗产在当下如何延续和转变，同时包容矛盾与不确定性。在批判维度上，后社会主义是面向横向团结（transversal solidarities）和可以支撑这些斗争的认识词汇的。本文将这些方法与批判的维度置于边界和移民的相关辩论中进行实证分析。后社会主义并非旨在取代其他批判方法，而是为了丰富我们的词汇并增加政治干预。 While postcolonial approaches to International Relations have offered new concepts, methods, and political imaginaries of global politics, postsocialism has been absent as an analytical and political approach. Postsocialism has been mainly a descriptive term naming the temporal transition of the Second World to liberal democracy and market economy or the geopolitical space of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Building on literature that has connected postsocialism and postcolonialism analytically and politically, particularly feminist work that has reclaimed postsocialism to understand the global legacies of socialism in the present, this article proposes to unpack dimensions of postsocialism as method and critique. Postsocialism as method attends to how socialist legacies endure and are transformed in the present while holding together contradictions and ambivalences. Postsocialism as critique is oriented to transversal solidarities and the epistemic vocabularies that can undergird these struggles. To trace these dimensions of method and critique, the article is situated empirically within debates about borders and migration. Postsocialism is not intended to replace or displace other critical approaches but to pluralise our vocabularies and multiply political interventions. 从底层重构社会生态生活：走向全球多数人的地球政治经济学 题 目：Reproducing socio-ecological life from below: Towards a planetary political economy of the global majority 作 者：Cemal Burak Tansel，纽卡斯尔大学地理、政治和社会学学院国际政治经济和全球发展政治学高级讲师，研究涉及国家和非国家行为体如何参与中东与北非事务；Lisa Tilley，伦敦大学亚非学院发展研究系高级讲师，研究立足于政治生态学和政治经济学。 摘 要：面对未来50年的危机——套用安东尼奥·葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)的名言——既需要批判性的悲观主义，也需要一种任性的希望政治。本文以必要的批判性悲观主义探讨气候危机的政治问题，并应对更广泛的社会生态危机。具体来说，我们面临着金融资本对绿色转型的迫切需求，以及围绕电气化消费社会的愿景建立新的积累结构的令人不安的转型方向。未来几十年，全球资产阶级的财富将继续增长，以及快速侵占大气公域。面对这种财富集中的反乌托邦图景、企业过剩和土地危机，本文关注全球各地顽强重构社会生态生活的实际项目，并与那些通过城市共建、粮食主权、原住民组织和照护经济来自下往上再现生活的社区合作。这些社区都在通过另类国际组织扩大其愿景。本文认为，这些项目展示了一种全球化的多层次政治经济学，将具体经验与对抗国家、企业和跨国资本主义的力量相结合。鉴于这些社区的经验教训，本文呼吁建立“全球多数人的地球政治经济学”，优先考虑立足现实的反系统项目的社会生态生活再生产愿景。 Confronting the coming five decades from our present conjuncture demands – to paraphrase Antonio Gramsci’s famous mantra – both critical pessimism and a wilful politics of hope. In this article, we engage with the politics of climate breakdown and the responses to wider socio-ecological crises with a necessary critical pessimism. Specifically, we confront the capture of green transition imperatives by finance capital, as well as the troubling orientation of transition towards building new structures of accumulation around the vision of an electrified consumer society. We also see the coming decades being marked by the ever-increasing wealth of global asset-owning classes – who, by definition, enclose the atmospheric commons faster than any other community. Against this dystopian picture of increasingly concentrated wealth, corporate excess, and terrestrial crisis, we focus on the stubborn reproduction of socio-ecological life through various grounded projects across the world. We engage with communities who work against structural constraints to reproduce life from below through urban commoning, food sovereignty, Indigenous organising, and caretaking economies – all of which are scaling out their visions through alternative internationals. All of these projects, we argue, present a planetary and multiscalar political economy in practice, which connects grounded experience with resistance to the dynamics of capitalism at the state, corporate, and transnational levels. With lessons from these communities in mind, we call for a ‘planetary political economy of the global majority’, which prioritises the reproduction of socio-ecological life according to the visions of grounded anti-systemic projects. 人工智能与国际关系的未来：厘清世界政治中有血有肉的、制度性的和人工合成的道德能动性 题 目：AI and the future of IR: Disentangling flesh-and-blood, institutional, and synthetic moral agency in world politics 作 者：Toni Erskine，澳洲国立大学珊瑚钟亚太事务研究院，国际政治学主任兼教授，研究兴趣包括：世界政治中的道德代理、正式机构的责任；战争伦理；国家保护责任（R2P）；联合目的行动和非正式联盟；新技术对有组织暴力的影响。 摘 要：智能机器——从自动化机器人到算法系统——可以创造图像和诗歌、引导我们的偏好、辅助决策甚至杀人。我们对其能力、相对自主性和道德地位的看法，不仅将深刻影响我们如何解释和解决未来50年世界政治中的实际问题，还将影响我们如何制定和评估个人和国家的应对措施。本文主张必须对这一新兴的合成代理展开分析，以便有效引导并对世界政治的未来进行理论化。首先，本文概述了国际关系学科如何对“能动性”理论化不足，并指出人工智能颠覆了现有观念。其次，本文考察了人类个体和正式组织（国际关系已熟悉的有目的的行为体）如何具备作为道德行为体或义务承担者的资格，并探讨智能机器需要满足哪些标准才能具备该资格。在证明了合成智能体目前缺乏道德能动性所需的“反思自主性”之后，本文转向战争背景，说明从这种比较分析中得出的见解如何反驳我们倾向于淡化道德行为体的不同表现方式的做法，这种做法侵蚀了世界政治中关键的责任观念。 Intelligent machines – from automated robots to algorithmic systems – can create images and poetry, steer our preferences, aid decision making, and kill. Our perception of their capacities, relative autonomy, and moral status will profoundly affect not only how we interpret and address practical problems in world politics over the next 50 years but also how we prescribe and evaluate individual and state responses. In this article, I argue that we must analyse this emerging synthetic agency in order to effectively navigate – and theorise – the future of world politics. I begin by outlining the ways that agency has been under-theorised within the discipline of International Relations (IR) and suggest that artificial intelligence (AI) disrupts prevailing conceptions. I then examine how individual human beings and formal organisations – purposive actors with which IR is already familiar – qualify as moral agents, or bearers of duties, and explore what criteria intelligent machines would need to meet to also qualify. After demonstrating that synthetic agents currently lack the ‘reflexive autonomy’ required for moral agency, I turn to the context of war to illustrate how insights drawn from this comparative analysis counter our tendency to elide different manifestations of moral agency in ways that erode crucial notions of responsibility in world politics. 控制的未来/未来的控制：2074年全球（失序）秩序与无处不在的武器化 题 目：The future of control/The control of the future: Global (dis)order and the weaponisation of everywhere in 2074 作 者：Mark Lacy，兰卡斯特大学政治与国际关系高级讲师，研究兴趣为全球政治与安全。 摘 要：本文提出，未来50年人类面临的主要挑战将围绕社会与政治控制问题。这是现代性政治与社会问题的延续，并将在多样的政治背景和各种技术“工具”下展开。安全技术专家将尝试管理由“万物武器化”和“无处不在的武器化”（借用马克·加莱奥蒂的用语）所导致的混乱与不安状态，届时各国将努力控制新兴领域与地域。然而，到2074年，各社会可能面临现代政治问题日益加剧的局面，气候紧急情况和其他生态/技术危险的影响可能导致全球性混乱，其程度将远超现代性时期的经验，根本性改变（或破坏）国际政治的“物质”基础，呈现出前所未有的问题。在这个节点上，正如布鲁诺·拉图尔所言，为了我们自身与他人的生存，可能不得不抛弃从现代性“继承”下来的政治与经济观念。 In this article, I am going to suggest that questions of societal and political control will be fundamental to the challenges humanity faces in the next 50 years, a continuation of the political and social problems of modernity but playing out in a range of political contexts and with a range of technological ‘tools’. Technicians of security will attempt to manage the disorder and insecurity that results from the potential weaponisation of everything, to use a phrase from Mark Galeotti, and the weaponisation of everywhere, a condition where the state will be seeking to control a range of emerging terrains and domains. But at the same time, while societies in 2074 might be confronting conditions that are an intensification of modern political problems, there is the possibility that the impact of climate emergencies and other ecological/technological dangers might produce global disorder unlike anything experienced in modernity, radically transforming (or mutilating) the ‘material’ foundations of international politics, presenting us with problems unlike anything encountered before. At this point, as Bruno Latour suggested, we might have to depart (for our own survival and the survival of others) from the ideas about politics and economy that we have ‘inherited’ from modernity. 与自然和平共处：生态外交的愿景与挑战 题 目：On making peace with nature: Visions and challenges towards an ecological diplomacy 作 者：Costas M. Constantinou，塞浦路斯大学国际关系学教授，研究兴趣包括外交、冲突、国际政治理论以及国际关系的法律和规范方面; Eleni Christodoulou, 塞浦路斯大学，研究兴趣为和平与冲突，暴力极端主义，以及恐怖主义。 摘 要：联合国呼吁“与自然和平相处”应成为21世纪的关键使命，本文对此进行了探讨。文章研究了为了实现这种和解生态所设想的外交模式。它借鉴了联合国系统中最有前景却鲜为人知的项目之一——“与自然和谐相处”（HwN）计划。该计划率先倡导以地球为基础的法理学与自然权利概念，并对这种外交转变进行了理论化，评估了21世纪生态外交在政府间议程之外如何高效运行。基于土著思想和万物有灵论的认识论，HwN等项目提倡与地球建立一种新的关系，并使探索“自然”作为外交对话者成为可能。本文认为，现有的和平建设范式未能充分捕捉人与自然关系中的外交层面与复杂的地方动态，建议基于生态外交进行重新构思，这种外交既具有扩张性又具变革性，并将这种关系视为一种困难的共存关系。 This article interrogates United Nations (UN) calls that ‘making peace with nature’ should become the crucial mission of the 21st century. It ponders the kind of diplomacy envisioned for such a reconciliation ecology to be credible. Drawing on one of the most promising and less known programmes of the UN system – namely, Harmony with Nature (HwN), which pioneers Earth-based jurisprudence and rights of nature – it conceptualises this diplomatic shift and assesses the conditions under which ecological diplomacy can be productively operationalised in the 21st century vis-à-vis a mere rhetorical appropriation and co-optation by intergovernmental agendas. Building on Indigenous thought and animist epistemologies, programmes such as HwN espouse a new relationship with Planet Earth and make it possible to explore ‘nature’ as diplomatic interlocutor. We argue that existing paradigms of peacebuilding fail to sufficiently capture the diplomatic aspects and complex local dynamics of the human–nature relationship and suggest a reconceptualisation based on an ecological diplomacy that is both expansive and transformative and views this relationship as one of troubled coexistence. 地球陷阱：地球以外的国际关系 题 目：The terrestrial trap: International Relations beyond Earth 作 者：Enrike van Wingerden，鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯大学的研究员和讲师，研究兴趣集中在（后）殖民世界中社会、环境和技术之间的国际关系; Darshan Vigneswaran，阿姆斯特丹大学政治学系副教授，研究兴趣包括政治地理学、移民、国家与城市研究。 摘 要：未来50年，人类探索和塑造外太空的能力将显著提升。然而，国际关系理论仍然将外太空视为一个孤立、独特或无足轻重的政治领域。本文通过理论化行星政治（planetary politics），将国际关系从其“地球陷阱”中解放出来，使其与地球之外的环境与行为者建立内在联系。面对从太空军事化到太空殖民化的深刻且令人不安的政治变革，本文对国际关系理论的两个地球偏见提出挑战。首先，质疑国际关系的发展只发生在地球上或主要发生在地球上的假设。本文展示了历史上形成的殖民与统治的意识形态和政治经济如何延伸到太空探索与定居，同时也在其中发生转变。其次，质疑外层空间的发展是地球上政治逻辑的直接延伸。本文超越人类栖息区，探索太空的物质条件如何与政治治理与控制的特定历史相互交织。通过分析地球之外的政治，本文重新调整了国际关系理论来应对未来的太空政治。 Human capacity to explore and shape outer space will increase substantially over the next 50 years. Yet, International Relations (IR) theory still treats outer space as an isolated, unique, or inconsequential realm of political life. This paper moves IR beyond its ‘terrestrial trap’ by theorising planetary politics as inherently embedded in relations with environments and actors that are located beyond Earth. To face the momentous and often alarming political developments taking place in outer space, from space militarisation to space colonisation, we challenge two of IR’s terrestrial biases. First, we confront the assumption that developments in international relations take place only or primarily on Earth. We show how the historically constituted ideologies and political economies of colonisation and domination are extended to – but also transformed within – outer space exploration and settlement. Second, we challenge the notion that developments in outer space form a logical extension of politics as it has emerged on the habitable surface of our planet. We move beyond zones of human habitation and explore how the material conditions of space intersect with situated histories of political governance and control. By analysing politics beyond Earth, we retool IR theory to confront an extraterrestrial political future. 编译 | 杨鲁华 审校 | 林怡娉 排版 | 赵小娟 本文源于《国际研究评论》2024年第3期，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。