110
不僅限于學(xué)術(shù)辯論，還塑造了關(guān)于 LIO 種族平等制度化的政治和規(guī)范斗爭。采用以對象為的方法，本文認為種族的認識論模糊性產(chǎn)生了政治影響，既允許在 LIO 中重現(xiàn)殖民邏輯，也為抵抗策略提供了空間。筆者未采用線性因果關(guān)系，而是從經(jīng)驗層面上來描繪認知模糊性在本世紀中葉國際秩序的建立中所發(fā)揮的作用。
【 原 文 】 There is increasing interest in how anticolonial actors advanced a norm of racial equalityinmid-century formations of liberal international order (LIO). Less attention, however, is affordedtosimultaneous epistemic conflicts over the scientific object of ‘race’ and their political effects. Duringpostwar order-building and alongside political struggles for racial equality, there was wide anddeepscientific debate on the analytical utility of race as a means to categorize human diversity. Race, I
demonstrate, was rendered as epistemically ambiguous, caught between social scientists and philosopherswho understood it as a social construct akin to ethnicity and natural scientists who maintained a biological
basis. This split was not confined to academic debate but shaped political and normative struggles over theinstitutionalization of racial equality in LIO. Adopting an object-oriented approach, I argue that theepistemic ambiguity of race generated political effects, at once permitting the reproduction of colonial logicsin LIO as well as providing latitude for strategies of resistance. Rather than a linear causal effect, I
empirically map the work that epistemic ambiguity performed in the creation of mid-century international
order. 5. 技術(shù)標準的地緣政治：美國、歐盟和中國做法的歷史背景（The geopolitics of
technology standards: historical context for US, EU and Chinese approaches）Nicholas Zú?iga
【摘要】人們越來越關(guān)注反殖民主義行為者如何在本世紀中葉的自由國際秩序(LIO) 形成過程中推進種族平等規(guī)范。然而，人們較少關(guān)注同時發(fā)生的關(guān)于“種族”科學(xué)對象的認識論沖突及其政治影響。在戰(zhàn)后秩序建設(shè)期間以及種族平等的政治斗爭中，科學(xué)界對種族作為人類多樣性分類手段的分析效用進行了廣泛而深入的辯論。我認為，種族在認識論上是模棱兩可的，夾在社會科學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家（他們將種族理解為類似于種族的社會結(jié)構(gòu)）與自然科學(xué)家（他們認為種族是生物學(xué)基礎(chǔ)）之間。這種分裂不僅限于學(xué)術(shù)辯論，還塑造了關(guān)于 LIO 種族平等制度化的政治和規(guī)范斗爭。采用以對象為的方法，本文認為種族的認識論模糊性產(chǎn)生了政治影響，既允許在 LIO 中重現(xiàn)殖民邏輯，也為抵抗策略提供了空間。筆者未采用線性因果關(guān)系，而是從經(jīng)驗層面上來描繪認知模糊性在本世紀中葉國際秩序的建立中所發(fā)揮的作用。
【原 文】This article provides a review of the historical trends that are shaping global competitionfor
standard setting in emerging technologies. Specifically, it explores how the traditional rule-makers of
international standardization, namely the United States and Europe, are responding to the rise of Chinainstandard-setting. The article argues that three polities are adapting their standard-setting strategies to shiftingpower dynamics in the international technology order. To preserve its competitive advantage, the USisbecoming more interventionist and proactive in setting technology standards. China has developedalong-term standardization strategy to bolster its domestic industrial development, increase its influenceand
