Getting hedging right: a small-state perspective
Getting hedging right: a small-state perspective
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s42533-021-00089-5
复制
发表时间：
2021-11-23
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kuik CC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kuik CC
对冲是国际关系中最常用但研究最少的概念之一。本文将模糊限制的概念化，并将其运用到东南亚小国的结盟选择中。我将对冲定义为在高度不确定性和高风险的情况下寻求保险的行为，理性的国家避免偏袒任何一方，并采取与竞争大国相反的措施，以获得后备地位。我认为，尽管华盛顿和北京不喜欢小国对冲可以理解，但它们都忽视了，正是它们的行动带来的不确定性促使弱国进行对冲。随着不确定性的加深，东南亚的非大国和其他地区一样，被迫以这样或那样的方式进行对冲，即使对冲的空间正在缩小。套期保值不是万灵药，它本身也有问题。但出于生存本能，较小的国家选择在条件允许的情况下对冲。除非美中竞争升级为直接冲突，或者除非战略确定性占上风，如果华盛顿退缩或减少其对亚洲的长期承诺--增加了缺乏可靠的一致支持的确定性--那么各国将停止对冲，开始跟随中国;或者如果北京的行动直接威胁到所有主要领域的大多数参与者--增加了即将发生的全面冲突的确定性--那么对冲将被平衡中国所取代。除此之外，对冲可能会继续存在，使模糊性成为我们这个时代的一个决定性主题。
Hedging is one of the more commonly used but least studied concepts in international relations. This essay conceptualizes hedging and operationalizes it to the alignment choices of Southeast Asian smaller states. I define hedging as insurance-seeking behavior under situations of high uncertainty and high stakes, where a rational state avoids taking sides and pursues opposite measures vis-à-vis competing powers to have a fallback position. I argue that while Washington and Beijing understandably dislike small-state hedging, they both overlook that it is the uncertainties stemming from their actions that push the weak to hedge. As uncertainties deepen, the non-great powers in Southeast Asia—as elsewhere—are compelled to hedge one way or another, even as the space to hedge is shrinking. Hedging is not a panacea and it entails its own problems. But acting out of their survival instincts, smaller states opt to hedge for as long as conditions compel. Unless US–China rivalry escalates into a direct conflict, or unless strategic certainty prevails, e.g., if Washington retreats or reduces its long-term commitment to Asia—raising certainty about the absence of a reliable aligned support—then states will stop hedging and start bandwagoning with China; or if Beijing’s actions directly threaten most actors on all major fronts—heightening certainty about an imminent, across-the-board danger—then hedging will be replaced by balancing against China. Short of that, hedging is likely to persist, making ambiguities a defining theme of our time.