使它们相似或无害。自由秩序、美国和民主困境

IF 2.2 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Contemporary Italian Politics Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/23248823.2023.2168338
Andrea Locatelli
{"title":"使它们相似或无害。自由秩序、美国和民主困境","authors":"Andrea Locatelli","doi":"10.1080/23248823.2023.2168338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"actions are deemed immoral. In this respect, the history of international relations has shown that, for the sake of peace and mutual agreement, shared interests between nations can drive relations among regimes of a different nature. This is probably an intrinsic consequence of an international system rooted in an unfair global order where the most powerful nations are privileged compared to the others and in which the EU alone is not capable of reorganizing the world order. Ultimately, even the authors appear to acknowledge this problem when they contend that the very existence of a world of nation states prevents the realization of genuine international justice, whose pursuit fuels their overall analysis. This is in line with a more realistic viewpoint. Today, the EU’s diplomacy should be considered a tool to strengthen alliances with international actors that chose to share the same global institutional architecture and are trying to uphold liberal values in an increasingly challenging environment (Treaty of Lisbon, Article 21 TEU). Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the EU’s external action is to safeguard its values and fundamental interests, thereby promoting an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance. The emerging compromise is, as this research points out, not always immune to double standards. But on the other hand, one may wonder whether the other players in the international system, upholding very different values, are really consistent with their own ‘ethos’ or rather open to settlements, and what this means for contemporary international politics (e.g. for the definition of the ‘global justice’ the authors hope to be officially framed and enacted). The answer to this question could deepen further the excellent analysis of this book and open the door to more ambitious investigations.","PeriodicalId":37572,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Italian Politics","volume":"15 1","pages":"115 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Renderli simili o inoffensivi. L’ordine liberale, gli Stati Uniti e il dilemma della democrazia\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Locatelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23248823.2023.2168338\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"actions are deemed immoral. In this respect, the history of international relations has shown that, for the sake of peace and mutual agreement, shared interests between nations can drive relations among regimes of a different nature. This is probably an intrinsic consequence of an international system rooted in an unfair global order where the most powerful nations are privileged compared to the others and in which the EU alone is not capable of reorganizing the world order. Ultimately, even the authors appear to acknowledge this problem when they contend that the very existence of a world of nation states prevents the realization of genuine international justice, whose pursuit fuels their overall analysis. This is in line with a more realistic viewpoint. Today, the EU’s diplomacy should be considered a tool to strengthen alliances with international actors that chose to share the same global institutional architecture and are trying to uphold liberal values in an increasingly challenging environment (Treaty of Lisbon, Article 21 TEU). Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the EU’s external action is to safeguard its values and fundamental interests, thereby promoting an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance. The emerging compromise is, as this research points out, not always immune to double standards. But on the other hand, one may wonder whether the other players in the international system, upholding very different values, are really consistent with their own ‘ethos’ or rather open to settlements, and what this means for contemporary international politics (e.g. for the definition of the ‘global justice’ the authors hope to be officially framed and enacted). The answer to this question could deepen further the excellent analysis of this book and open the door to more ambitious investigations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Italian Politics\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"115 - 117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Italian Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2023.2168338\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Italian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2023.2168338","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

行为被认为是不道德的。在这方面,国际关系的历史表明,为了和平与相互协议,国家之间的共同利益可以推动性质不同的政权之间的关系。这可能是植根于不公平全球秩序的国际体系的内在后果,在这种秩序中,最强大的国家比其他国家享有特权,而欧盟本身没有能力重组世界秩序。最后,即使是作者似乎也承认了这个问题,他们认为,民族国家世界的存在阻碍了真正国际正义的实现,而对国际正义的追求推动了他们的整体分析。这符合更现实的观点。今天,欧盟的外交应被视为一种工具,以加强与选择共享相同的全球制度架构的国际参与者的联盟,并试图在日益具有挑战性的环境中维护自由主义价值观(里斯本条约,第21条TEU)。因此,欧盟对外行动的最终目的是维护其价值观和根本利益,从而推动建立以加强多边合作和良好全球治理为基础的国际体系。正如这项研究指出的那样,正在出现的妥协并不总是不受双重标准的影响。但另一方面,人们可能会想知道,国际体系中持不同价值观的其他参与者是否真的与他们自己的“精神”一致,或者更确切地说,是否愿意接受和解,这对当代国际政治意味着什么(例如,对于作者希望正式制定和颁布的“全球正义”的定义)。这个问题的答案可以进一步深化这本书的优秀分析,并为更雄心勃勃的调查打开大门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Renderli simili o inoffensivi. L’ordine liberale, gli Stati Uniti e il dilemma della democrazia
actions are deemed immoral. In this respect, the history of international relations has shown that, for the sake of peace and mutual agreement, shared interests between nations can drive relations among regimes of a different nature. This is probably an intrinsic consequence of an international system rooted in an unfair global order where the most powerful nations are privileged compared to the others and in which the EU alone is not capable of reorganizing the world order. Ultimately, even the authors appear to acknowledge this problem when they contend that the very existence of a world of nation states prevents the realization of genuine international justice, whose pursuit fuels their overall analysis. This is in line with a more realistic viewpoint. Today, the EU’s diplomacy should be considered a tool to strengthen alliances with international actors that chose to share the same global institutional architecture and are trying to uphold liberal values in an increasingly challenging environment (Treaty of Lisbon, Article 21 TEU). Accordingly, the ultimate objective of the EU’s external action is to safeguard its values and fundamental interests, thereby promoting an international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good global governance. The emerging compromise is, as this research points out, not always immune to double standards. But on the other hand, one may wonder whether the other players in the international system, upholding very different values, are really consistent with their own ‘ethos’ or rather open to settlements, and what this means for contemporary international politics (e.g. for the definition of the ‘global justice’ the authors hope to be officially framed and enacted). The answer to this question could deepen further the excellent analysis of this book and open the door to more ambitious investigations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Italian Politics
Contemporary Italian Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Contemporary Italian Politics, formerly Bulletin of Italian Politics, is a political science journal aimed at academics and policy makers as well as others with a professional or intellectual interest in the politics of Italy. The journal has two main aims: Firstly, to provide rigorous analysis, in the English language, about the politics of what is one of the European Union’s four largest states in terms of population and Gross Domestic Product. We seek to do this aware that too often those in the English-speaking world looking for incisive analysis and insight into the latest trends and developments in Italian politics are likely to be stymied by two contrasting difficulties. On the one hand, they can turn to the daily and weekly print media. Here they will find information on the latest developments, sure enough; but much of it is likely to lack the incisiveness of academic writing and may even be straightforwardly inaccurate. On the other hand, readers can turn either to general political science journals – but here they will have to face the issue of fragmented information – or to specific journals on Italy – in which case they will find that politics is considered only insofar as it is part of the broader field of modern Italian studies[...] The second aim follows from the first insofar as, in seeking to achieve it, we hope thereby to provide analysis that readers will find genuinely useful. With research funding bodies of all kinds giving increasing emphasis to knowledge transfer and increasingly demanding of applicants that they demonstrate the relevance of what they are doing to non-academic ‘end users’, political scientists have a self-interested motive for attempting a closer engagement with outside practitioners.
期刊最新文献
La justice en examen La justice en examen , by Cécile Vigour, Bartolomeo Cappellina, Laurence Dumoulin and Virginie Gautron, Presses Universitaires de France - P.U.F., Paris, 2022, 436 pp., €28.00 (Hardback), EAN 9782130836056 Neoliberal transformations of the Italian State: understanding the roots of the crises Neoliberal transformations of the Italian State: understanding the roots of the crises , by Adriano Cozzolino, Lanham, MD/London, Rowman & Littlefield, 2021, 216 pp., $110.00 (hardback), ISBN: 9781786614735. Come votano le periferie. Comportamento elettorale e disagio sociale nelle città Italiane Come votano le periferie. Comportamento elettorale e disagio sociale nelle città Italiane , by Marco Valbruzzi (ed.), Bologna, Il Mulino, 2021, 344 pp., €28 (paperback), ISBN: 978-88-15-29435-7 Il presidente del consiglio dei ministri. mediatore o decisore? Il presidente del consiglio dei ministri. mediatore o decisore? by Francesco Clementi, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2023, 240 pp., €16,00 (paperback), ISNB: 9788815386359 Mussolini’s grandchildren: fascism in contemporary Italy Mussolini’s grandchildren: fascism in contemporary Italy , edited by David Broder, London, Pluto Press, 2023, 240 pp., £17.99 (paperback), ISBN: 9780745348025
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1