110
不僅限于學(xué)術(shù)辯論，還塑造了關(guān)于 LIO 種族平等制度化的政治和規(guī)范斗爭(zhēng)。采用以對(duì)象為的方法，本文認(rèn)為種族的認(rèn)識(shí)論模糊性產(chǎn)生了政治影響，既允許在 LIO 中重現(xiàn)殖民邏輯，也為抵抗策略提供了空間。筆者未采用線性因果關(guān)系，而是從經(jīng)驗(yàn)層面上來描繪認(rèn)知模糊性在本世紀(jì)中葉國際秩序的建立中所發(fā)揮的作用。
【 原 文 】 There is increasing interest in how anticolonial actors advanced a norm of racial equalityinmid-century formations of liberal international order (LIO). Less attention, however, is affordedtosimultaneous epistemic conflicts over the scientific object of ‘race’ and their political effects. Duringpostwar order-building and alongside political struggles for racial equality, there was wide anddeepscientific debate on the analytical utility of race as a means to categorize human diversity. Race, I
demonstrate, was rendered as epistemically ambiguous, caught between social scientists and philosopherswho understood it as a social construct akin to ethnicity and natural scientists who maintained a biological
basis. This split was not confined to academic debate but shaped political and normative struggles over theinstitutionalization of racial equality in LIO. Adopting an object-oriented approach, I argue that theepistemic ambiguity of race generated political effects, at once permitting the reproduction of colonial logicsin LIO as well as providing latitude for strategies of resistance. Rather than a linear causal effect, I
empirically map the work that epistemic ambiguity performed in the creation of mid-century international
order. 5. 技術(shù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的地緣政治：美國、歐盟和中國做法的歷史背景（The geopolitics of
technology standards: historical context for US, EU and Chinese approaches）Nicholas Zú?iga
【摘要】人們?cè)絹碓疥P(guān)注反殖民主義行為者如何在本世紀(jì)中葉的自由國際秩序(LIO) 形成過程中推進(jìn)種族平等規(guī)范。然而，人們較少關(guān)注同時(shí)發(fā)生的關(guān)于“種族”科學(xué)對(duì)象的認(rèn)識(shí)論沖突及其政治影響。在戰(zhàn)后秩序建設(shè)期間以及種族平等的政治斗爭(zhēng)中，科學(xué)界對(duì)種族作為人類多樣性分類手段的分析效用進(jìn)行了廣泛而深入的辯論。我認(rèn)為，種族在認(rèn)識(shí)論上是模棱兩可的，夾在社會(huì)科學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家（他們將種族理解為類似于種族的社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)）與自然科學(xué)家（他們認(rèn)為種族是生物學(xué)基礎(chǔ)）之間。這種分裂不僅限于學(xué)術(shù)辯論，還塑造了關(guān)于 LIO 種族平等制度化的政治和規(guī)范斗爭(zhēng)。采用以對(duì)象為的方法，本文認(rèn)為種族的認(rèn)識(shí)論模糊性產(chǎn)生了政治影響，既允許在 LIO 中重現(xiàn)殖民邏輯，也為抵抗策略提供了空間。筆者未采用線性因果關(guān)系，而是從經(jīng)驗(yàn)層面上來描繪認(rèn)知模糊性在本世紀(jì)中葉國際秩序的建立中所發(fā)揮的作用。
【原 文】This article provides a review of the historical trends that are shaping global competitionfor
standard setting in emerging technologies. Specifically, it explores how the traditional rule-makers of
international standardization, namely the United States and Europe, are responding to the rise of Chinainstandard-setting. The article argues that three polities are adapting their standard-setting strategies to shiftingpower dynamics in the international technology order. To preserve its competitive advantage, the USisbecoming more interventionist and proactive in setting technology standards. China has developedalong-term standardization strategy to bolster its domestic industrial development, increase its influenceand
