With the deepening of globalization,geographically speaking,East Asian countries have proceeded from their respective realist positions and tried to promote the successful practice of economic cooperation between coun...With the deepening of globalization,geographically speaking,East Asian countries have proceeded from their respective realist positions and tried to promote the successful practice of economic cooperation between countries after the Cold War into a discussion of new regionalism in East Asia and Asia-Pacificism.Although the prototype of the“East Asia Community”led by Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)gradually emerged,the successful practice of the East Asia Summit proved that the low-binding regional integration model led by ASEAN has a high probability of becoming a classic sample of the“East Asia Community”.It not only maintains regional stability,promotes regional cooperation,shapes regional norms,but also builds a collective identity within the region.However,in today’s world,isolationism which takes the supremacy of national interests as the supremacy has risen.It is difficult to internalize the value identity into a super-national model that breaks through the principles of realism,breakthroughs in interests,and the power framework.The thorny issues pose various challenges to the nation-states in the region trying to integrate into regional integration.The openness of East Asian regionalism has led to the persistent illness of its generalization.In the context of insufficient political mutual trust among regional countries,intensified competition among major powers,and continued weakening of ASEAN leadership,it is often prone to controversy and doubt when proposing new cooperation initiatives or ideas.The idea of the“East Asia Community”that once guided East Asian cooperation and was temporarily ignored now is still the most realistic choice.Although the theoretical construction and practical roads of East Asian regionalism are full of thorns,difficulties coexist with opportunities.With the extensive participation of countries in the region,the optimization and reconstruction of the East Asian cooperation model will be worth looking forward to.展开更多
From the mid 1800s,modern Lebanon began to emerge as a state.Lebanon,as“the eternal homeland”,had been accepted by the Maronites,the Sunnis and the Druze as a general principle and the foundation of nation-state con...From the mid 1800s,modern Lebanon began to emerge as a state.Lebanon,as“the eternal homeland”,had been accepted by the Maronites,the Sunnis and the Druze as a general principle and the foundation of nation-state construction.The Shi'ite sectarian identity based on the leading role of the traditional feudal zu'ama was challenged by Arab nationalism in the mid 1900s,and was replaced by a new sectarian identity,based on the Shi'ite political organizations and sectarian militias.This new Lebanese Shi'ite collective identity is featured by a pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian position,and has become a big challenge to the nation-state construction of Lebanon.展开更多
约翰·密尔(John Stuart Mill)的民族理论是西方民族理论的重要流派,长期被视为“一族一国论”的渊源。传统观点认为,密尔是自由民族主义的理论先驱,其民族理论的核心是自由民族主义。但进一步研究发现,自由民族主义并不足以全面准...约翰·密尔(John Stuart Mill)的民族理论是西方民族理论的重要流派,长期被视为“一族一国论”的渊源。传统观点认为,密尔是自由民族主义的理论先驱,其民族理论的核心是自由民族主义。但进一步研究发现,自由民族主义并不足以全面准确概括密尔民族理论,其功利主义的政治哲学属性不应被忽视。本文重新讨论了密尔民族理论,提出“自由-功利民族主义”的新表述,并进而揭示其与“一族一国论”的耦合性。密尔自由-功利民族主义体现了自由主义、功利主义与民族主义的思想融通。其核心原则“政府的范围与国家的范围一致”和“最大多数人的最大幸福”,分别体现了密尔民族理论的自由主义向度与功利主义向度。密尔自由-功利民族主义可作为透视西方民族理论与实践的窗口,其政治思想和理论范式在产生广泛影响的同时,也面临诸多理论紧张与实践困境,可谓是“一族一国论”备受诟病的“原罪”。揭示“一族一国论”的自由-功利民族主义实质具有重要的政治哲学溯源和理论批判意义,有助于避免对“一族一国论”作简单化的理解。展开更多
文摘With the deepening of globalization,geographically speaking,East Asian countries have proceeded from their respective realist positions and tried to promote the successful practice of economic cooperation between countries after the Cold War into a discussion of new regionalism in East Asia and Asia-Pacificism.Although the prototype of the“East Asia Community”led by Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN)gradually emerged,the successful practice of the East Asia Summit proved that the low-binding regional integration model led by ASEAN has a high probability of becoming a classic sample of the“East Asia Community”.It not only maintains regional stability,promotes regional cooperation,shapes regional norms,but also builds a collective identity within the region.However,in today’s world,isolationism which takes the supremacy of national interests as the supremacy has risen.It is difficult to internalize the value identity into a super-national model that breaks through the principles of realism,breakthroughs in interests,and the power framework.The thorny issues pose various challenges to the nation-states in the region trying to integrate into regional integration.The openness of East Asian regionalism has led to the persistent illness of its generalization.In the context of insufficient political mutual trust among regional countries,intensified competition among major powers,and continued weakening of ASEAN leadership,it is often prone to controversy and doubt when proposing new cooperation initiatives or ideas.The idea of the“East Asia Community”that once guided East Asian cooperation and was temporarily ignored now is still the most realistic choice.Although the theoretical construction and practical roads of East Asian regionalism are full of thorns,difficulties coexist with opportunities.With the extensive participation of countries in the region,the optimization and reconstruction of the East Asian cooperation model will be worth looking forward to.
文摘From the mid 1800s,modern Lebanon began to emerge as a state.Lebanon,as“the eternal homeland”,had been accepted by the Maronites,the Sunnis and the Druze as a general principle and the foundation of nation-state construction.The Shi'ite sectarian identity based on the leading role of the traditional feudal zu'ama was challenged by Arab nationalism in the mid 1900s,and was replaced by a new sectarian identity,based on the Shi'ite political organizations and sectarian militias.This new Lebanese Shi'ite collective identity is featured by a pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian position,and has become a big challenge to the nation-state construction of Lebanon.
文摘约翰·密尔(John Stuart Mill)的民族理论是西方民族理论的重要流派,长期被视为“一族一国论”的渊源。传统观点认为,密尔是自由民族主义的理论先驱,其民族理论的核心是自由民族主义。但进一步研究发现,自由民族主义并不足以全面准确概括密尔民族理论,其功利主义的政治哲学属性不应被忽视。本文重新讨论了密尔民族理论,提出“自由-功利民族主义”的新表述,并进而揭示其与“一族一国论”的耦合性。密尔自由-功利民族主义体现了自由主义、功利主义与民族主义的思想融通。其核心原则“政府的范围与国家的范围一致”和“最大多数人的最大幸福”,分别体现了密尔民族理论的自由主义向度与功利主义向度。密尔自由-功利民族主义可作为透视西方民族理论与实践的窗口,其政治思想和理论范式在产生广泛影响的同时,也面临诸多理论紧张与实践困境,可谓是“一族一国论”备受诟病的“原罪”。揭示“一族一国论”的自由-功利民族主义实质具有重要的政治哲学溯源和理论批判意义,有助于避免对“一族一国论”作简单化的理解。
