Diplomatic Theory of International Relations
Diplomatic Theory of International Relations
复制标题
国际关系外交理论
DOI：
10.5860/choice.47-5911
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
I. Venzke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
I. Venzke
时间和地点。在一个点或一个地方，什么是生死和荣誉的问题，在另一个点或地方几乎不值得注意。被视为一个重大而紧迫的问题，需要在某一点或某处立即采取行动，但在另一点或另一处却变得无关紧要。这并不是说什么都不重要。相反，在很大程度上由我们如何构成的社会世界中，问题是一切，即使是简单而无辜的喂养饥饿婴儿的努力，都涉及成为集体参与者的人，他们获得了一种能够与其他集体参与者产生差异的身份和利益，并需要这样的代表。而且，一次又一次，寻求解决这些分歧的成本似乎比仅仅与他们生活在一起，甚至让另一个家伙为所欲为的成本要糟糕得多。这可以被解读为一种谦虚的说法，表明我们对人们处理国际关系的问题几乎不能确定，因此，我们应该始终谨慎行事。然而，由于外交传统对认识论谦逊的呼吁有其普遍的含义，它也可以被视为一种傲慢。它声称要给每个人蒙上疑云，特别是那些不同意它的人，并想要对国际关系说一些足够确定的话，以便为在国际关系中采取行动提供一个基础。这是因为人们不喜欢这样，很难接受外交、外交官和外交思维在国际关系中仍然是一股薄弱力量。外交距离的魔力是以高昂的代价换来的，那就是各国人民渴望世界变成什么样，希望世界变成什么样。这一代价在从事外交理论或外交实践的任何人都必须遵循的三条禁令中清晰可见：慢下判断；准备安抚；怀疑大多数普遍性。如果外交要在国际关系中成为一股更强大的力量，那么它的倡导者就必须有效地回应那些人，这些人说，这些禁令将把我们引向黑暗和危险的道路，进入我们不想去的地方，并把我们留在那里。
time and by place. What is a matter of life, death and honor at one point or place barely merits attention at another. What is seen as a great and pressing problem requiring immediate action at one point or place fades into insignificance at another. It is not that nothing really matters. Rather, in social worlds, constituted largely by what we make of them, the problem is that everything, even a simple and innocent effort to feed starving babies, for example, involves people who become a collective actor acquiring an identity and interests capable of generating differences with other collective actors and needing representation as such. And, time and again, the costs of seeking to resolve such differences seem to be so much worse than the costs of merely living with them or even letting the other fellow have his way. This can be read as a modest claim suggesting that we are able to be certain about very little regarding the issues over which people conduct their international relations and, hence, that we should always proceed with caution. Since the diplomatic tradition’s call for epistemological modesty has its own universal implications, however, it can also be seen as an arrogant one. It purports to cast its blanket of doubt over everyone, especially those who disagree with it and want to say something with sufficient certainty about international relations as to provide a basis of for action within them. It is because people do not like this and find it difficult to accept that diplomacy, diplomats and diplomatic thinking together remain a weak force in international relations. The magic of diplomatic distance comes at a high price in terms of peoples’ aspirations for how they would like the world to be and what they want from it. This price is clearly visible in three injunctions with which anyone engaged in diplomatic theorizing or diplomatic practice has to follow: be slow to judge; be ready to appease; and doubt most universals. If diplomacy is to be a stronger force in international relations, then its advocates have to respond effectively to those who say these injunctions will lead down dark and dangerous roads to places where we do not want to be and keep us there.