2024 年第6 期(總第18期)133
在關(guān)系。理解過去、現(xiàn)在及未來潛在的社會技術(shù)秩序形式的內(nèi)在關(guān)系,對于重新思考國際關(guān)系中技術(shù)設(shè)計政治具有重要意義。
【 原 文 】 Infrastructures are central to processes of state formation. The revival of materialisminInternational Relations has made an important contribution to our understanding of states through careful
analysis of the politics of infrastructure and state building. Yet, to date, engagement with the state-theoretical
tradition associated with the work of Antonio Gramsci, Nicos Poulantzas, and Bob Jessop has been absent. Through comparison with the external-relational ontology of Bruno Latour and actor-network theory (ANT), this article argues that state theory and its internal-relational ontology avoids reifying the state whileproviding an analysis of infrastructure and state formation sensitive to the historical reproduction of social
orders over time. Developing Gramsci’s concept of the ‘integral state’, it emphasises the necessaryinterpenetration between civil society, the state apparatus, and the creation of infrastructure. Theseconceptual arguments are illustrated through an analysis of the United States’ development of nuclear
infrastructures during the early Cold War period, in the internal relations between infrastructure andtheintegral state are explored through Civil Defense Education programmes. Clarifying the internal relations of
past, present, and potential future forms of socio-technical order is an important task for rethinkingthepolitics of technological design in International Relations. 2. 內(nèi)戰(zhàn)中武裝團體的形成:“運動型”“叛亂型”和“國家分裂型”起源(Armedgroupformation in civil war: ‘Movement’, ‘insurgent’, and ‘state splinter’ origins)Anastasia Shesterinina,約克大學政治學系比較政治學教授、系主任
Michael Livesey,英國謝菲爾德大學政治與國際關(guān)系系博士生
【摘要】非國家武裝團體如何在國內(nèi)武裝沖突中形成?研究者們已開始將武裝團體細分,但我們對武裝團體如何以不同方式出現(xiàn)仍知之甚少。本文結(jié)合社會運動、內(nèi)戰(zhàn)和軍政關(guān)系領(lǐng)域的相關(guān)文獻,提出了一種將武裝團體的起源分為“運動型”、“叛亂型”和“國家分裂型”的類型學。我們認為,在廣泛動員、邊緣地區(qū)對國家的挑戰(zhàn)以及政權(quán)內(nèi)部碎片化的背景下,不同的沖突動態(tài)塑造了不同的武裝團體起源。在這些背景下出現(xiàn)的武裝團體在初始成員和領(lǐng)導層上通常存在差異,而這正是我們關(guān)注的基本組織維度。我們通過將不同起源的武裝團體映射到現(xiàn)有的跨國數(shù)據(jù)上,并結(jié)合實例案例繪制類型敘述,展示了這種類型學的有效性。這一討論通過超越單一的起源類型或高度細分的組織分析,關(guān)注更廣泛的沖突動態(tài),推動了對武裝團體形成在沖突研究中的重要性的理解。因此,這一進展也有助于深入探究武裝團體的形成過程,并揭示其行為模式與沖突動態(tài)之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。未來的研究應(yīng)通過深入分析武裝團體的復雜歷史,來比較和考察我們在本文中識別出的不同起源類型?!驹摹縃ow do non-state armed groups form in intra-state armed conflicts? Researchers have startedtodisaggregate armed groups, but we still know little about how armed groups emerge in different ways. Drawing on the literature on social movements, civil wars, and civil–military relations, we generateatypology of ‘movement’, ‘insurgent’, and ‘state splinter’ origins of armed groups. We argue that
fundamentally different dynamics of conflict shape armed group origins in the context of broad-basedmobilisation, peripheral challenges to the state, and intra-regime fragmentation. Armed groups that emerge