国际顶刊 |《欧洲政治理论杂志》2021年第1期
让每一个人自由地理解政治
让世界各地的学人成果互联互通
让政治学人的核心关切得到传播
让闪烁的政治学人共享这片充满思考和情怀的天空
政治学人始终在路上
本期国际化部为大家带来了《欧洲政治理论杂志》2021年第20卷第1期文章编译。
编译属国际化部译者志愿提供，如有不妥欢迎指正；如对我们的工作有什么建议，欢迎到后台留言；如有转载请注明出处。学术公益是一条很长的路，我们诚邀您同行，欢迎留言您希望编译的政治学期刊，感谢您的支持。
PART 1
期刊简介
《欧洲政治理论杂志》为相关研究提供了备受瞩目的讨论空间。杂志内容广博、读者群国际化，虽以地理位置为名，但致力于推动政治理论中尽量广泛的原创性辩论——地缘的、历史的，以及意识形态的。本刊发表分析政治哲学、政治理论、比较政治思想，以及任何传统思想史方面的文章。本刊特别鼓励挑战正统观念、瓦解盖棺之论的作品。研究论文皆要经过国际知名学者的三重盲审，以确保至高的公正性与质量标准。
PART 2
期刊目录
The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state
人格性的两张面孔：霍布斯、公司代理人与国家的人格
The veil of philanthropy: Kant on the political benefits of dissimulation and simulation
人类之爱的面纱：康德论作伪与虚饰之于政治的好处
The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform
非理想情境下正义的自然义务：论体制建设与改革的道德诉求
Pierre Clastres as comparative political theorist: The democratic potential of the new political anthropology
作为比较政治理论家的皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯：新政治人类学的民主潜能
New territorial rights for sinking island states
沉没中岛国的新领土权利
Costs of refugee admission and the ethics of extraterritorial protection
接纳难民的负担与域外保护的伦理
The ethics of commercial human smuggling
商业性人口走私的伦理
Civil disobedience, and what else? Making space for uncivil forms of resistance
公民反抗之外？为非公民式抵抗留出空间
PART 3
精选译文
01 人格性的两张面孔：霍布斯、公司代理人与国家的人格
【题目】
The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state
【作者】
Sean Fleming
University of Cambridge, UK
【摘要】
在霍布斯（Hobbes）的人格性概念里，有一种重要却未被重视的歧义。在一种意义上，人格是代表者或演员/行动者。在另一种意义上，人格是被代表者或角色。地产代理人是第一种意义上的人（格）；她的客户是第二种意义上的人（格）。此种歧义对于理解霍布斯有关国家是一人格的主张至关重要。学者们多遵循第一种意义上的“人格”，即认为国家是一种演员/行动者——用现代的话说，就是“公司代理人”。我认为霍布斯的国家仅仅在第二种意义上是一个人格：一个角色，而非演员/行动者。如果说在霍布斯的政治思想里有任何原初的公司代理人，即是代表大会，而非国家或公司。当代政治理论家及哲学家往往倾向于忽略霍布斯国家人格观念的独特之处与可贵之处，因为他们把公司代理人的观念投射在了霍布斯的国家人格上。
There is an important but underappreciated ambiguity in Hobbes’ concept of personhood. In one sense, persons are representatives or actors. In the other sense, persons are representees or characters. An estate agent is a person in the first sense; her client is a person in the second. This ambiguity is crucial for understanding Hobbes’ claim that the state is a person. Most scholars follow the first sense of ‘person’, which suggests that the state is a kind of actor – in modern terms, a ‘corporate agent’. I argue that Hobbes’ state is a person only in the second sense: a character rather than an actor. If there are any primitive corporate agents in Hobbes’ political thought, they are representative assemblies, not states or corporations. Contemporary political theorists and philosophers tend to miss what is unique and valuable about Hobbes’ idea of state personality because they project the idea of corporate agency onto it.
02 人类之爱的面纱：康德论作伪与虚饰之于政治的好处
【题目】
The veil of philanthropy: Kant on the political benefits of dissimulation and simulation
【作者】
Jeffrey Church
University of Houston, USA
【摘要】
传统上对于康德的解读认为，他在其伦理学与政治学里对谎言持过度道德主义的批评态度。近代学者回应指出，于康德而言，我们有一种不应全然坦诚而应践行缄默、即便在我们没有美德的时候也要伪装它们的伦理责任。本文认为，康德将虚饰与伪装的价值扩展至人际关系之外的社会与政治。通过考察三个例子——社会之中的礼貌与礼节，以及政治之中富者与贫者、政府与人民之间的隐秘关系，本文进而挑战了将康德作为不计成本的卫道士的公认解读，揭示了他在虚言、矜持，以及表面功夫的需要上比通常理解的要在意得多。
Kant has traditionally been read as an excessively moralistic critic of lying in his ethics and politics. In response, recent scholars have noted that for Kant we have an ethical duty not to be completely candid, but rather we should practice reticence and simulate virtues even when we do not have them. This article argues that Kant extends the value of dissimulation and simulation beyond the interpersonal to society and politics. By examining three examples – politeness and decorum in society, and the veiled relationships between the rich and the poor and between government and the people in politics – this article further challenges the received reading of Kant as a defender of truth at all costs and reveals him to be much more attentive to the need for pretense, reserve, and appearance than is commonly understood.
03 非理想情境下正义的自然义务：论体制建设与改革的道德诉求
【题目】
The natural duty of justice in non-ideal circumstances: On the moral demands of institution building and reform
【作者】
Laura Valentini
London School of Economics, UK
【摘要】
分配正义的原则对宏观层面的制度性行动者——如国家——具有约束力。但是，在制度主体不正义甚或根本不存在的非理想情境下，正义要求什么？许多人的藉援引罗尔斯（Rawls）所谓“推进尤未建立的公正安排”、视之为非理想情境下分配正义的制度诉求与个人责任之间的“规范性桥梁”的自然义务以作答。我认为，此种回应策略是不成功的。我将表明，由不遵从导致的现状越不公正，正义的自然义务的要求就越低。我的结论是，在非理想情境下，大部分规范性工作是由另一类自然义务完成的：即行善义务。这一结论对于我们如何将我们在非理想情境下的政治义务概念化有重要意义，并告诫我们当心在正义的大纛之下回答一切重大规范性问题的倾向——这在当代政治理论里颇为常见。
Principles of distributive justice bind macro-level institutional agents, like the state. But what does justice require in non-ideal circumstances, where institutional agents are unjust or do not exist in the first place? Many answer by invoking Rawls’s natural duty ‘to further just arrangements not yet established’, treating it as a ‘normative bridge’ between institutional demands of distributive justice and individual responsibilities in non-ideal circumstances. I argue that this response strategy is unsuccessful. I show that the more unjust the status quo is due to non-compliance, the less demanding the natural duty of justice becomes. I conclude that, in non-ideal circumstances, the bulk of the normative work is done by another natural duty: that of beneficence. This conclusion has significant implications for how we conceptualize our political responsibilities in non-ideal circumstances, and cautions us against the tendency – common in contemporary political theory – to answer all high-stakes normative questions under the rubric of justice.
04 作为比较政治理论家的皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯：新政治人类学的民主潜能
【题目】
Pierre Clastres as comparative political theorist: The democratic potential of the new political anthropology
【作者】
Christopher Holman
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
【摘要】
在比较政治理论这一子领域的新潮下，本文研究了皮埃尔·克拉斯特雷斯（Pierre Clastres）的政治人类学著作。具体而言，文章认为，克拉斯特雷斯对各种亚马逊社会的政治哲学的重构，为接触所谓“西方社会”之历史外部的文本及传统提供了另一种模式。克拉斯特雷斯拒斥一切朝向总体化的——例如，体现在建立一种旨在实现相互理解的跨文化交流模式的对话潜力的主张里的——冲动：他呼吁关注社会形态根本的、社会—历史的相异性。对此种相异性的认识不但扩大了比较政治思想的视野，使之与那些抵制被西方对话同化的固有传统接触，而且揭示了一种以政治创造力为本的不定的民主潜能。
This article examines the political anthropological work of Pierre Clastres in light of the emergence of the subfield of comparative political theory. In particular, it argues that Clastres’ reconstruction of the political philosophy of various Amazonian societies offers an alternative model for the engagement with texts and traditions external to the history of so-called Western societies. Rejecting all impulses toward totalization – as represented, for example, in the assertion of a dialogical potential for establishing modes of intercultural exchange aimed at achieving mutual understanding – Clastres calls attention to the radical social-historical alterity of forms of society. Appreciation of this alterity not only enlarges the scope of comparative political thought to engage inherited traditions that resist assimilation into Western conversations, but also reveals an indeterminate democratic potential grounded in political creativity.
05 沉没中岛国的新领土权利
【题目】
New territorial rights for sinking island states
【作者】
Kim Angell
Department of Political Science, University of Oslo, Norway
【摘要】
人类活动造成的气候变化是对沉没中岛国的人民的生存威胁。当他们的领土正在不可避免地消失时，世界上剩余的领土国家是否亏欠了他们什么？主流的证成领土权利的“民族主义”路径，基于人们把特定领土纳入生活方式而产生的归属感来分配这种权利。从该方法出发，沉没中岛国的人民仅有权移民，而非重建领土主权。即便是温室气体排放者，也没有割让领土的赔偿义务，因为即使这些集体是不法者，也没有理由去破坏它们的领土归属关系。民族主义者辩称，只要它们允许气候难民移民，接收国就已经履行了职责。在本文中，我论证了民族主义者所谓的分配均衡是不稳定的。当岛民要求拥有新领土时，责任方集体有义务改变其生活方式——逐渐缩小其领土归属——以便让岛民能及时获得合适的新领土。重要的是，我自民族主义者自己的道德承诺衍生出这项责任，放弃了如下传统假定：民族主义的前提在我们对于气候难民的亏欠上持一种狭隘的观点。
Anthropogenic climate change is an existential threat to the people of sinking island states. When their territories inevitably disappear, what, if anything, do the world’s remaining territorial states owe them? According to a prominent ‘nationalist’ approach to territorial rights – which distributes such rights according to the patterns of attachment resulting from people’s incorporation of particular territories into their ways of life – the islanders are merely entitled to immigrate, not to reestablish territorial sovereignty. Even GHG-emitting collectives have no reparative duty to cede territory, as the costs of upsetting their territorial attachments are unreasonable to impose, even on wrongdoers. As long as they allow climate refugees to immigrate, receiving countries have done their duty, or so the nationalist argues. In this article, I demonstrate that the nationalist’s alleged distributive equilibrium is unstable. When the islanders lay claim to new territory, responsible collectives have a duty to modify their way of life – gradually downsizing their territorial attachments – such that the islanders, in time, may receive a new suitable territory. Importantly, by deriving this duty from the nationalist’s own moral commitments, I discard the traditional assumption that nationalist premises imply a restrictive view on what we owe climate refugees.
06 接纳难民的负担与域外保护的伦理
【题目】
Costs of refugee admission and the ethics of extraterritorial protection
【作者】
Clara Sandelind
Department of Political Science, University of Sheffield, UK The ethics of commercial human smuggling
【摘要】
许多富裕国家试图通过域外政策来履行对难民的责任，这些政策在限制了它们接纳的难民数量的同时，在第三国对难民提供保护。但这在道德上是可允许的吗？我认为，在非理想的情况下，当国家长期不履行对难民的义务，此政策可以被允许。然而，域外保护必须满足两个条件。首先，它必须通过双边或多边协议来实现。其次，所提供的保护必须允许难民在新社会中可以完全融入。我认为，一个国家接纳难民进入其领土的负担越低，其对域外保护的贡献就必须越高。为了说明此概念，我将例举接纳难民如何会给接纳国的自决和平等施加负担。
Many affluent states seek to discharge their responsibilities to refugees through extraterritorial policies, which limit the number of refugees that they admit whilst contributing to protection in a third country. Is this morally permissible? I argue that under non-ideal circumstances, where states’ non-compliance with their duties to refugees are persistent, such policies can be permissible. However, extraterritorial protection must satisfy two conditions. First, it must come about through bilateral or multilateral agreements. Second, the protection provided must allow for full integration in a new society. I argue that the lower the costs a state bears for admitting refugees to its territory, the higher its contribution to extraterritorial protection must be. This notion of costs is illustrated by exemplifying how refugee admission may impose costs to the self-determination and equality of the hosting state.
07 商业性人口走私的伦理
【题目】
Civil disobedience, and what else? Making space for uncivil forms of resistance
【作者】
Julian F. Müller
Political Theory Project, Brown University, USA
【摘要】
尽管人口走私是关于移民的政治争论的重要议题之一，它却几乎没有受到道德哲学的关注。本文旨在填补这一缺失，并提供对商业性人口走私的道德分析。本文着重分析，在欧洲难民危机期间，对走私者的道德义愤是否正当。为此，本文首先分析了（商业性）人口走私是否在本质上是错误的。在认为其实错误的同时，本文提问，在欧洲案例中，诉诸于民族国家所谓政治自决权的、对人口走私的全面谴责，是否仍然合理。
Even though human smuggling is one of the central topics of contention in the political discourse about immigration, it has received virtually no attention from moral philosophy. This article aims to fill this gap and provide a moral analysis of commercial human smuggling. The article accomplishes this by analyzing whether the moral outrage against human smugglers during the European refugee crisis can be justified. To do this, the article first analyzes whether (commercial) human smuggling is inherently wrong. Answering this question in the negative, this article then asks whether the wholesale condemnation of human smuggling in the European case can nevertheless be justified by recourse to a nation-state’s purported right to political self-determination.
08 公民反抗之外？为非公民式抵抗留出空间
【题目】
Costs of refugee admission and the ethics of extraterritorial protection
【作者】
Erin R. Pineda
Professor of Government, Smith College, USA
【摘要】
长期以来，研究政治义务的理论家格外关注公民反抗，将其作为哲学分析的对象，并将其作为法律约束力的例外状况。然而，这些对公民反抗的关注，都让非公民性反抗相对缺乏理论化。面对系统性不公，还有哪些其他形式的反抗是合理，甚至是必要的？Candice Delmas的著作《A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil》有力论证了反抗的义务是必要的，而履行这一义务时，可能需要超越公民反抗的形式，采取含糊的、令人震惊的、暴力的，或其他被认为是“非公民的”行动。以近期的学术成果和丰富的实例为基础，Delmas用政治哲学家通常用以捍卫守法义务的原则捍卫反抗义务：自然的正义义务、公平竞争的原则、救他人于危的撒玛利亚式职责，以及成员身份所带来的职责。但是，为了给非公民形式的反抗留有空间，我认为，讽刺的是，Delmas实际上掏空了公民抗命这一概念，将其过度地与礼节结合，并将其与非交际性的反抗区别开来。尽管如此，《反抗的义务》还是对关于异议和反抗的研究，做出了极好且急需的贡献
Theorists of political obligation have long devoted special attention to civil disobedience, establishing its pride of place as an object of philosophical analysis, and as one of a short list of exceptions to an otherwise binding obligation to obey the law. Yet all of this attention to civil disobedience has left the broader terrain of resistance to injustice relatively under-theorized. What other forms of action are justifiable – even required – in the face of systemic injustice? Candice Delmas’ A Duty to Resist: When Disobedience Should Be Uncivil offers an original and powerful defense of the idea that we have a duty to resist, and that carrying out this duty may sometimes require going beyond civil disobedience – engaging in forms of action that are evasive, shocking, violent, or otherwise deemed “uncivil.” Building on a wealth of recent scholarship and a rich set of examples, Delmas grounds the duty to resist in the same principles that political philosophers routinely use to defend an obligation to obey the law: the natural duty of justice, the principle of fair play, Samaritan duties to rescue others from peril, and the associative duties of membership. In making room for uncivil forms of dissent, however, I contend that Delmas ironically hollows out the category of civil disobedience, wedding it too tightly to a principle of decorum, and isolating it from protest that exceeds the boundaries of the communicative. Nevertheless, A Duty to Resist is an excellent – and much needed – contribution to the literature on dissent and disobedience.
翻 译：李若昱 刘博涵
校 对：李若昱 刘博涵
相关阅读：
编辑：余亚维
一审：刘博涵
二审：袁 丁
点击“阅读原文”，输入“2sov”，可免费获取本期英文原文哦~