| 王瑞领.供应链俱乐部化的权力生成机制与安全风险[J].国际安全研究,2025,(6):3-24 |
| 供应链俱乐部化的权力生成机制与安全风险 |
| Mechanisms of Power Formation and Security Risks of Supply Chain Clubization |
| 投稿时间：2025-06-16 修订日期：2025-07-26 |
| DOI：10.14093/j.cnki.cn10-1132/d.2025.06.001 |
| 中文关键词: 供应链俱乐部化 技术—制度—地缘 霸权闭环路径 安全化叙事 |
| 英文关键词: supply chain clubization, technology-institutions-geopolitics, hegemonic closed-loop trajectory, securitized narratives |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 821 |
| 全文下载次数: 282 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 基于“技术—制度—地缘”三维嵌套视角，供应链俱乐部化因技术代差分化为两种安全博弈路径。霸权闭环路径表现为技术主导国凭借显著技术代差，出于维护技术霸权和遏制竞争对手的核心安全关切，通过构建排他性制度与渲染生存性威胁叙事，强化地缘对抗，形成技术封锁—制度围堵—地缘对抗的垄断性权力逻辑。区域协同路径则表现为技术追赶国出于防范代差扩大与增强供应链韧性的考量，依托包容性制度与韧性叙事推动多边协作，呈现技术补偿—制度创新—地缘协作的扩散式权力逻辑。美国与欧盟的案例为此提供了鲜明对比：美国通过垄断高端芯片技术、实施出口管制与组建排他联盟，将技术竞争安全化以巩固霸权；欧盟作为追赶者，通过引领全链条规则制定与多边合作，推动绿色转型与战略自主。两种路径均通过安全化叙事重塑地缘联盟，加剧全球供应链碎片化，引发技术垄断、规则霸权与阵营对抗等安全风险。美欧案例对比表明，技术权力与地缘安全经由技术代差—制度设计—地缘策略实现联动，为理解非传统安全领域的权力重构提供了新的解释范式。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Driven by technological generational divides, the club-like restructuring of global supply chains bifurcates into two security trajectories under the nested perspective of technology, institutions, and geopolitics. The hegemonic closed-loop trajectory manifests as follows: Technologically leading countries, driven by the core security concern of maintaining technological hegemony and containing competitors, leverage significant technological generation gaps to strengthen geopolitical confrontation by establishing exclusive institutions and propagating narratives of existential threats. This constitutes a monopolistic power logic characterized by technological blockade, institutional encirclement, and intensified geopolitical confrontation. In contrast, the regional coordination trajectory is observed in technology-catching-up countries that, driven by the goal of preventing the widening of technological gaps and enhancing supply chain resilience, promote multilateral cooperation through inclusive institutions and resilience narratives, ultimately presenting a diffused power logic of technological compensation, institutional innovation and geopolitical collaboration. The cases of the United States and the European Union provide a striking contrast: The United States dominates advanced chip technologies, imposes export controls, and forges exclusive alliances, securitizing technological competition to consolidate its hegemony, while the European Union, as a catching-up player, advances green transformation and strategic autonomy by leading the formulation of integrated regulatory frameworks and fostering multilateral cooperation. Both trajectories intensify the fragmentation of global supply chains and reshape geopolitical alliances through securitized narratives, thereby generating security risks such as technological monopolization, regulatory hegemony, and bloc-based confrontation. The comparative analysis of the U.S. and EU cases underscores that technological power and geopolitical security are inextricably linked through a dynamic interplay of technological generation gaps, institutional design, and geopolitical strategies, offering a novel analytical framework for understanding power restructuring in the field of non-traditional security. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|