文章摘要
薄燕.安理会气候变化与安全辩论:共识、分歧及其逻辑[J].国际安全研究,2023,(2):110-133
安理会气候变化与安全辩论:共识、分歧及其逻辑
Debates on Climate Change and Security in the UN Security Council: Convergence, Divergence and the Underlying Logic
  修订日期:2022-10-10
DOI:10.14093/j.cnki.cn10-1132/d.2023.02.005
中文关键词: 安理会  气候变化与安全辩论  安全化  发展与气候变化
英文关键词: Security Council, debates on climate change and security, securitization, development and climate change
基金项目:
作者单位
薄燕 复旦大学国际关系与公共事务学院 上海 200433 
摘要点击次数: 658
全文下载次数: 481
中文摘要:
      联合国安理会内气候变化与安全的辩论已经持续十几年之久,但是这些辩论并未达成有关气候变化与安全的普遍性决议。既有的研究文献大多利用安全化理论来描述和解释这个过程,但是缺乏解释力和叙事的完整性。安全化理论的一个重要局限是忽视安全化进程中听众的能动性,因此无法对安理会气候变化与安全辩论的整个进程和结果提供令人信服的解释。作者建立了一个新的比较分析框架,据此对这些辩论的逐字会议记录进行了较为完整的分析,并提出辩论中其实存在着两种话语实践,代表着对气候变化的安全风险和应对途径的两种认知和逻辑,而不仅仅是安全化的途径和逻辑。从政策的角度看,安理会内气候变化与安全辩论虽然存在有限的共识,但面临着巨大的认知差异、话语竞争和逻辑分歧,通过具有约束力的普遍性决议的政治可行性较低,以《联合国气候变化框架公约》为基础的全球气候变化治理机制是应对气候变化问题的最具权威性、合法性、普遍性和专业性的治理安排。中国作为安理会常任理事国,不仅应维护该机制的主渠道地位,也应在安理会气候变化与安全辩论中发挥更大作用。
英文摘要:
      Although the debates on climate change and security in the UN Security Council have lasted for more than a decade, no universal resolution on climate change and security has been reached so far. Most of the existing research literature tends to use the securitization theory to describe and explain this process, which lacks both explanatory power and narrative integrity. This paper points out that the securitization theory cannot provide a convincing explanation for the process and results of the Security Council’s debates on climate change and security due to its ignoring of the initiative of the “audience” in the securitization process. Therefore, this paper attempts to establish a new framework for comparative analysis, in which a more complete analysis could be made via the verbatim proceedings of these debates. It argues that there are actually two discourse practices in the debates representing two kinds of cognition and logic concerning security risks and countermeasures against climate change rather than just the pathway and logic of securitization. From the perspective of policy, although there exists limited consensus in this prolonged debate, deep divergences on climate change and security and different logic behind them as well as discourse competition, especially among the permanent members of the Security Council, lead to the low political feasibility of adopting a binding universal resolution. The global climate change governance regime based on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change remains to be the most authoritative, legitimate, universal, and professional international institutional response to the issue of climate change. As a permanent member of the Security Council, China should not only maintain the regime’s status as the main channel, but also play a greater role in the debates on climate change and security in the Security Council.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭