Page 137 - 《国际安全研究》2022年第5期
P. 137

2022 年第 5 期


               果报告。这些事实使得非国家行为体在该议题领域扮演的角色及可能发挥的影响
               力越来越难以被忽略。
                   这种对于互联网企业及非政府组织推动规范生成的期待,与有关规范生成和扩

               散的理论研究相呼应。在国际规范理论研究中,不少文献都将非国家行为体,特别
                                                                                   ①
               是由非政府组织组建的跨国倡议网络,视作规范生成与扩散的核心驱动力。   在这
               一理论模型中,非政府组织往往出于道义上的责任感而提出某种尚未能够为国家政

               府所接受的规范倡议。   为了使更多的国家接受其规范倡议,非政府组织可以在搜
                                   ②
               集相关信息的基础上对相关国家的行为方式展开批评,  也可以对其规范倡议进行
                                                                ③
               话语上的包装,使之更符合目标听众的偏好,   还可以组织大规模的集会活动或其
                                                        ④
               他类型的活动,吸引舆论关注。
                                            ⑤
                   但这种理论模型与网络安全议题领域的现实状况却无法完全对接。在这种理论
               模型中,国家要么被成功说服,要么以拒绝的姿态站在一个正在形成的规范共同体
               之外。而无论作出何种选择,国家的角色在民间的规范倡导者面前都显得有些被动。

               然而在网络安全领域,政府间的规范制定机制不仅早于“自下而上”的规范倡议出
               现,而且在十数年的持续运转中,已推出了一些得到广泛认可的规范成果。在这种


                  ①  Margaret E. Keck and Kathryn Sikkink,  Activists beyond  Borders:  Advocacy Networks in
               International Politics, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1998; R. Charli Carpenter, “Setting
               the Advocacy  Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy
               Networks,”  International Studies  Quarterly, Vol.  51, No.  1,  2007; Galina Nelaeva, “The Impact of
               Transnational Advocacy Networks on the Prosecution of Wartime Rape and Sexual Violence: The Case
               of the ICTR,” International Social Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 1/2, 2010; Maria Martin de Almagro,
               “Lost Boomerangs, the Rebound Effect and Transnational Advocacy Networks: A Discursive Approach
               to Norm Diffusion,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2018.
                  ②  Joshua William Busby, “Bono Made Jesse Helms Cry: Jubilee 2000, Debt Relief, and Moral
               Action in International Politics,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2007.
                  ③  James Ron, Howard Ramos and Kathleen Rodgers, “Transnational Information Politics: NGO
               Human Rights Reporting, 1986-2000,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3, 2005; Amanda
               M. Murdie and David R. Davis, “Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of
               Human Rights INGOs,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2012.
                  ④  R. Charli Carpenter, “‘Women, Children and Other Vulnerable Groups’: Gender, Strategic
               Frames and the Protection of Civilians as a Transnational Issue,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol.
               49, No. 2, 2005.
                  ⑤   Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Teale N.  Phelps Bondaroff, “From  Advocacy to
               Confrontation: Direct Enforcement by Environmental NGOs,” International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58,
               No. 2, 2014; Nina Hall, “Norm Contestation in the Digital  Era:  Campaigning for Refugee Rights,”
               International Affairs, Vol. 95, No. 3, 2019.

                                                                                    · 135 ·
   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142