2024 年第 2 期（總第 14 期）
113
【摘要】從越南到阿富汗，美國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人在擺脫遠程軍事干預(yù)方面一直存在巨大困難。威廉·麥金利在
1898 年吞并菲律賓的決定揭示了原因：這源于一個“干預(yù)者陷阱”的現(xiàn)象。干預(yù)者陷阱指的是一種自我
糾纏的情況，即領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人通過軍事干預(yù)無意中制造了問題，并認為自己可以解決，且因為最初干預(yù)的緣
故，從而更加重視解決新問題。這種過度的評估是由于一種被稱作稟賦效應(yīng)的認知偏差：個體傾向于
高估他們自己擁有的物品。軍事干預(yù)會導(dǎo)致對他國領(lǐng)土的所有權(quán)感，這就觸發(fā)了稟賦效應(yīng)。1809 年，
美國在馬尼拉的戰(zhàn)爭中取得勝利后，麥金利懷疑菲律賓的自治能力，相信美國從菲律賓撤出將會導(dǎo)致
混亂和大國戰(zhàn)爭，同時他相信美國的治理可以阻止這種局面的產(chǎn)生。因為麥金利已經(jīng)在菲律賓部署了
軍隊，他會對這些軍隊產(chǎn)生所有權(quán)，同時這種稟賦效應(yīng)會助漲他對菲律賓群島的評估。這些相互強化
的信念產(chǎn)生了干預(yù)者陷阱，成為美國在西半球之外最大規(guī)模的吞并。
【原文】From Vietnam to Afghanistan, U.S. leaders have had great difficulty disentangling the United States
from faraway military interventions. William McKinley's 1898 decision to annex the Philippines reveals why,
through a phenomenon called the “meddler's trap.” The meddler's trap denotes a situation of self-entanglement,
whereby a leader inadvertently creates a problem through military intervention, feels they can solve it, and
values solving the new problem more because of the initial intervention. The inflated valuation is driven by a
cognitive bias called the endowment effect, according to which individuals tend to overvalue goods they feel
they own. A military intervention causes a feeling of ownership of the foreign territory, triggering the
endowment effect. Following the U.S. victory in Manila during the War of 1898, McKinley doubted Filipino
civilizational capacity to self-govern, believed that a U.S. departure from the Philippines would cause chaos
and great power war, and believed that U.S. governance could forestall that outcome. Because he had already
deployed troops to the Philippines, McKinley also felt ownership over them, and this endowment effect
inflated his valuation of the archipelago. Together, these mutually reinforcing beliefs produced the meddler's
trap and the United States’ largest annexation outside its hemisphere.
3. 種族化和國際安全（Racialization and International Security）
Richard W. Maass，美國歐道明大學(xué)政治學(xué)教授
【摘要】種族化—即將種族身份和影響融入社會和政治現(xiàn)象的過程；是一種權(quán)力的主張，一種對所謂
固有差異的主張，這種差異已經(jīng)滲透到現(xiàn)代外交、秩序和暴力中。盡管該領(lǐng)域一直對權(quán)力保持興趣，
但美國的國際安全研究在長達數(shù)十年對國際沖突和合作、核擴散、權(quán)力轉(zhuǎn)移、單極化、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)、恐怖主
義、國際秩序、大戰(zhàn)略等的辯論中，很大程度上遺漏了種族這一元素。一個新的框架奠定了概念基礎(chǔ)，
將相關(guān)的文獻和在國際安全的主要研究聯(lián)系起來，培養(yǎng)跨學(xué)科對話，同時為考慮公開的和內(nèi)嵌的種族
化如何塑造國際安全的研究和實踐開辟了有前景的道路。對整合種族化到現(xiàn)有和新的研究議程中的若
干研究設(shè)計挑戰(zhàn)的討論幫助學(xué)者重新思考他們?nèi)绾螌ΥN族與安全問題。除了使教學(xué)本身多樣化之外，
揭示和反擊固有的偏見對確定可替代的觀點是如何被邊緣化以及最終發(fā)展更好的理論是至關(guān)重要的。
【原文】Racialization—the processes that infuse social and political phenomena with racial identities and
implications—is an assertion of power, a claim of purportedly inherent differences that has saturated modern
diplomacy, order, and violence. Despite the field's consistent interest in power, international security studies
in the United States largely omitted racial dynamics from decades of debates about international conflict and
cooperation, nuclear proliferation, power transitions, unipolarity, civil wars, terrorism, international order,
grand strategy, and other subjects. A new framework lays conceptual bedrock, links relevant literatures to
major research agendas in international security, cultivates interdisciplinary dialogues, and charts promising
paths to consider how overt and embedded racialization shape the study and practice of international security.
A discussion of several research design challenges for integrating racialization into existing and new research
