Active in Not Being Active (AINBA): how East Asian powers accept R2P
Sangmin Bae,Amy Infanzon &Michael J. Abbe
Pages 1-19 | Published online: 15 Dec 2017
In this articleABSTRACT
I. Introduction
II. International politics, national identity and R2P
III. China's AINBA
IV. Japan's AINBA
V. Conclusion: talking the international talk, walking the domestic walk
References
Full Article
Figures & data
References
Citations
Metrics
Reprints & Permissions
ABSTRACT
This article explores and compares the positions of two major powers in East Asia—China and Japan—towards the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) norm. R2P calls for collective international responsibility in the event that states are unwilling or unable to protect their people. Evaluating the mainstream argument in the literature that China and Japan have recently been welcoming the R2P norm, we ask the following questions: To what extent have China and Japan aligned themselves with R2P? How do international and national factors play out to influence their R2P stance? To summarize our findings up front: unlike what much of the current literature says, China and Japan's acceptance and practice of the R2P norm are largely pro forma. We argue that they both appear active in participating in the debates but only in order to remain inactive. In other words, they are active participants in the debates and discussions on R2P, but their aim is not to further its usage but to contain its effects. Their current stance on R2P is characterized by what we will call ‘Active in Not Being Active’ (AINBA). The article discusses the key sources and rationale for their AINBA policy with regard to R2P.
KEYWORDS: Responsibility to Protect, China, Japan, East Asia, State Interest, National Identity
《“积极地保持消极”：东亚国家如何接受“保护责任”》
作者：Sangmin Bae,Amy Infanzon &Michael J. Abbe
I.导论
II.国际政治、国家认同以及“保护责任”
III.中国的“积极地保持消极”政策
IV.日本的“积极地保持消极”政策
V.结论：言国际之道，行国内之路
摘要
本文探讨并比较了东亚两大国——中国和日本对于“保护责任”（Responsibility to Protect，R2P）这一规范的立场。如果一国无意或无法保护其人民，“保护责任”则要求国际社会在此方面承担集体责任。文献中的主流观点认为中国和日本近来对“保护责任”这一规范持欢迎态度，笔者对这些观点进行了评估并提出下列问题：中日在何种程度上遵从了“保护责任”这一规范？国际和国内因素又怎样影响了两国关于“保护责任”的立场？笔者预先得出以下结论：与目前主流文献的观点不同，中国和日本两国在很大程度上是在形式上接受了“保护责任”这一规范。笔者认为，两国表面上积极参与此议题的讨论，实际上是却无所作为。换言之，中日两国积极参与有关“保护责任”的讨论，但是它们的目的不是促进其运用，而是遏制其效果。关于两国目前对于“保护责任”这一议题所持的立场，笔者将其表述为“积极地保持消极”（Active in Not Being Active，AINBA）。本文讨论了有关“保护责任”的“积极地保持消极”政策的重要资料以及论据。
关键词：保护责任、中国、日本、东亚、国家利益、国家认同
Source：http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02185377.2017.1366348
（王守都 译）