【新刊速递】《剑桥国际事务评论》(CRIA)， Vol. 38， No. 2， 2025

摘要：《剑桥国际事务评论》（Cambridge Review of international Affairs）是一份同行评审期刊，发表关于国际事务的创新学术成果。其涵盖社会科学领域，包括国际关系、历史、法律、政治经济学、地区研究、发展研究和性别研究。它致力于采用多

期刊简介

《剑桥国际事务评论》（Cambridge Review of international Affairs）是一份同行评审期刊，发表关于国际事务的创新学术成果。其涵盖社会科学领域，包括国际关系、历史、法律、政治经济学、地区研究、发展研究和性别研究。它致力于采用多样化的方法和方法，并鼓励学术界和政策制定者提交多学科和跨学科的贡献。2023年该期刊的影响因子为1.7。

1 经济全球化、相对实力与后冷战时代的民主化

Economic globalisation, relative power, and post-cold war democratisation

2 嵌入式记忆战争：2019年意大利对亚美尼亚种族灭绝的承认

Embedded memory wars: Italy’s 2019 Armenian Genocide recognition

3 游牧民族与国际关系：后定居主义的对话

Nomads and international relations: post-sedentarist dialogues

内容摘要

经济全球化、相对实力与后冷战时代的民主化

题目：Economic globalisation, relative power, and post-cold war democratisation

作者：刘景南（Jingnan Liu）, 武汉大学政治学系讲师。

摘要：本文探讨了经济开放对冷战时期非民主国家（CWND）相对实力与国内政体的影响。研究指出，快速的经济增长增强了这些国家的国家竞争力，从而可能抵消来自西方的外部民主化压力。因此，经济全球化可能阻碍全球民主化进程。基于1992年至2022年的面板数据，本文通过双方程模型，证实经济开放对冷战非民主国家的实力具有微弱但显著的正向影响，而相对实力的提升则对这些国家的民主水平产生负面影响。因此，全球化并不必然推动民主进程。此外，当前的“民主衰退”本质上反映了西方国家实力的衰落，这使得非西方国家得以维持其现有政体。在此背景下，西方国家在政体推广上的差别化策略，可能进一步加剧西式民主的合法性危机。

This article discusses the effects of economic openness on the relative power and domestic regimes of the Cold War non-democracies (CWND). Rapid growth strengthens their national competitiveness, which may offset the external democratic pressure of the West. In this way, economic globalisation may obstruct worldwide democratisation. Based on panel data from 1992 to 2022, this study applies a two-equation model to prove that economic openness has mild but significantly positive effects on the power of the CWND and that the relative power has adverse effects on their democracy level. Thus, globalisation does not necessarily lead to democracy. Furthermore, the democratic recession reflects the decline of Western power in nature, which allows non-Western states to sustain their regimes. Under this condition, the inconsistent approach adopted by the West in regime imposition may exacerbate the delegitimation of Western democracy.

嵌入式记忆战争：2019年意大利对亚美尼亚种族灭绝的承认

题目：Embedded memory wars: Italy’s 2019 Armenian Genocide recognition

作者：Daniel Fittante，赫尔辛基大学博士后研究员。

摘要：学者们常将记忆的政治工具化与右翼民粹主义者联系起来。然而，这种关注在某种程度上掩盖了一个事实：各政治光谱上的当选官员都会利用记忆来塑造认知、影响行为。实际上，“记忆法”（memory laws）成功的关键往往依赖于不同政党的议员对同一项目的支持——这不仅为验证自身立场，也为否定他者的合法性。本文将这种因不同政治行为者支持同一记忆法而引发的冲突称为“嵌入式记忆战争”。基于文献分析和实地访谈，本文以2019年意大利众议院承认亚美尼亚种族灭绝案为例，考察“嵌入式记忆战争”。在支持承认该历史事件的过程中，意大利左右翼政党议员通过建构竞争性叙事，围绕欧洲一体化、多元文化主义及土耳其问题等当代议题展开了话语博弈。

Scholars often associate the political instrumentalisation of memory with right-wing populists. But this focus somewhat obscures the fact that elected officials across the political spectrum instrumentalise memory in their efforts to shape perceptions and influence behaviours. In fact, the success of memory laws often depends on the fact that MPs from diverse political parties support the same projects not only to validate their own views but also to delegitimise those of others. I refer to the conflicts resulting from different political actors’ support of the same memory laws as embedded memory wars. Based on documentary analysis and fieldwork interviews, this article examines embedded memory wars through the illustrative case of the 2019 recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Italy's Chamber of Deputies. In supporting Armenian Genocide recognition, Italian MPs from both right and left-wing parties developed competing narratives to debate contemporary topics related to European integration, multiculturalism, and Turkey.

游牧民族与国际关系：后定居主义的对话

题目：Nomads and international relations: post-sedentarist dialogues

作者：Jaakko Heiskanen, 伦敦大学玛丽女王学院；Joseph MacKay, 澳大利亚国立大学；Iver B. Neumann,弗里乔夫·南森研究所； Einar Wigen,Ingrid Eskild ,奥斯陆大学；Martin Hall, 隆德大学；Alice Engelhard ,伦敦政治经济学院；Hannah Owens,赫特福德大学； Jamie Levin，圣弗朗西斯泽维尔大学；Franca Kappes，日内瓦高级国际关系及发展学院。

摘要：国际关系学科的核心概念和参照框架植根于以领土国家为中心的“定居主义”世界观。因此，国际关系对其研究对象的理解在两种意义上都是“静态”的：以国家为中心，且缺乏流动性。这种定居主义认知导致学界长期忽视全球游牧民族：因其空间流动性特征，游牧者或被完全忽略，或沦为反衬“国家性”（statehood）与“领土性”（territoriality）的例外性“他者”。本论坛通过重新发掘古今游牧民族作为国际政治行为体的角色，对国际关系的定居主义范式发起挑战，从而拓宽国际关系理论构建所依赖的经验案例范围，并解构将国际体系史视为领土国家必然胜利的目的论叙事。同时，该论坛也警示应避免将“游牧民”的本质再次定义为国家“他者”，而是通过区分“游牧性”与“流动性”，进一步批判“定居主义/游牧主义”二元对立框架。本专题并非旨在提供研究游牧民族的标准化方案，而是推动学界对国际关系定居主义预设的批判性反思。

The key concepts and reference points of International Relations (IR) are informed by a sedentarist worldview anchored on the territorial state. IR’s conception of its subject-matter is thus ‘static’ in both senses of the word: state-centric and immobile. One of the consequences of this sedentarist worldview has been a neglect of the world’s nomads. Defined by their spatial mobility, nomads have been either ignored or, less frequently, brought in as an exceptional ‘Other’ against which concepts such as statehood and territoriality can be defined. The interventions in this forum challenge IR’s sedentarism by recovering the world’s nomads as international political actors past and present, thus enriching the range of empirical cases upon which IR scholars may build their theories and challenging teleological narratives that view the history of the international system as the inevitable triumph of the territorial state. At the same time, the forum cautions against the reification of the nomad as the ‘Other’ of the state by disaggregating nomadism from mobility and problematising the sedentarism/nomadism binary. The goal of the forum is not to provide a blueprint for how IR scholars should study nomads, but to promote a critical reflexivity about IR’s sedentarist assumptions.

译者：周子荷，国政学人编译员，上海外国语大学国际政治专业，研究兴趣为全球治理。

审校 | 张潇文赖永祯

排版 | 崔笑蓉

本文源于《剑桥国际事务评论》(CRIA), Vol. 38, 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。