题目：The Bomb as God: A Metaphor that Impedes Nuclear Disarmament

作者：Jacques E. C. Hymans，南加州大学国际关系副教授。

摘要：“核嵌入性”指的是一个国家无法对其核武库进行重新的考虑和计量。在一国的政治文化中，原子弹即上帝的隐喻不断深化从而巩固了这种“核嵌入性”。因为将某物比喻为神会超出，甚至理性的计算，所以将原子弹比喻为神有力地阻止了一个国家对核裁军道路的考虑。本文通过对美国、印度、巴基斯坦和朝鲜核政策的历史分析，以及对最终反对原子弹的三位美国、英国和法国高级核官员的案例研究，探讨了这一假设的合理性。

“Nuclear embeddedness” refers to a state’s persistent failure to reconsider its possession of a nuclear arsenal. The sedimentation of the metaphor of the Bomb as God in a state’s political culture consolidates “nuclear embeddedness.” Because metaphorizing something as God puts it beyond even boundedly rational calculation, the metaphor of the Bomb as God effectively blocks a state from seeing its way clear to nuclear renunciation. The article probes the plausibility of this hypothesis with historical analyses of the nuclear policies of the U.S., India, Pakistan, and North Korea, and with case studies of three high-level American, British, and French nuclear officials who ultimately turned against the Bomb.

题目：Trivializing Terrorists: How Counterterrorism Knowledge Undermines Local Resistance to Terrorism

作者：Sarah G. Phillips，悉尼大学政府与国际关系学科全球冲突与发展研究教授；Nadwa al-Dawsari，中东研究所的客座学者。

摘要：本文探讨了反恐知识实践如何影响他们所研究的群体。我们认为，这些做法通常将恐怖组织构建为本体论上稳定且组织上合理的组织，这使得反恐组织认为他们了解恐怖组织因此可以被管制。本文表明，通过排除普遍的当地知识，西方反恐政策话语将构建“恐怖分子”类别的权力分配给那些没有相关“恐怖分子”日常生活经验的人。这削弱了了解是什么维持着这些团体存在，可能消灭它们的方法，更重要的是，是什么使得他们似乎不太可能构成严重威胁，甚至荒谬的是，造就了那些据称需要他们支持才能作为恐怖分子生存的人。利用也门的证据，本文表明，被贴上“恐怖分子”标签的团体不属于反恐组织需要采取行动的类别。我们认为，虽然强加分类有助于反恐组织找到其假设的行动目标，但它也为暴力行为者提供了产生和演变的途径。

This article explores how counterterrorism knowledge practices affect the groups they study. We argue that these practices typically construct terrorist groups as ontologically stable and organizationally rational, which makes them appear familiar to, and so governable by, counterterrorism organizations. We show that by excluding prevalent local knowledge, Western counterterrorism policy discourses assign the power to construct the category of “terrorist” to those without daily lived experience of the “terrorists” in question. This undermines different ways of knowing what sustains these groups, what might eradicate them and, more importantly, what might make their ability to pose a serious threat seem unlikely, or even absurd, to those whose support they purportedly need to survive as terrorists. Using evidence from Yemen, we show that groups labelled as “terrorists” do not fit into the stable categories that counterterrorism organizations require to produce actionable targets. We argue that while imposing such categories helps counterterrorists find targets that reflect their assumptions, it also generates pathways for violent actors to evolve and reproduce.

题目：Is Multi-Method Research More Convincing Than Single-Method Research? An Analysis of International Relations Journal Articles, 1980–2018

作者：Anton Peez，法兰克福大学的博士后，法兰克福和平研究所副研究员。

摘要：虽然一些社会科学家认为多方法研究（MMR）是一种很有前途的强因果推理策略，但其他人则认为它对加强研究的有效性几乎没有帮助。本文系统地回顾了MMR在主流国际关系中的应用，特别是在安全研究领域。使用 TRIP 期刊文章数据库和 Web of Science 引文数据，我检查了 MMR 是否已发挥其全部潜力。自 2000 年代以来，MMR 越来越突出。学者们最常用它来研究国内问题而不是国家间问题。他们引用MMR文章的次数少于引用纯定量方法文章的次数，并且与引用纯定性方法研究的次数大致相同。这表明MMR并没有更具影响力，也没有被认为更具说服力。然而，近年来这种差距有所缩小。本研究为国际关系的研究设计和学科层面、MMR的实用性以及社会科学中的知识积累提供了见解。

While some social scientists see multi-method research (MMR) as a promising strategy for strong causal inference, others argue that it does little to strengthen the validity of research. This paper offers a systematic review of how MMR has been used in mainstream International Relations (IR) and specifically in security studies. Using the TRIP Journal Article Database and Web of Science citation data, I examine whether MMR has reached its full potential. MMR has grown in prominence since the 2000s. Scholars use it most often to examine domestic rather than interstate issues. They cite MMR articles less than they cite quantitative single-method articles and about as often as they cite qualitative single-method research. This suggests that MMR is not more influential, nor perceived as more persuasive. However, this gap has decreased in recent years. The study provides insights into IR at the research design and disciplinary levels, the utility of MMR, and knowledge accumulation in social science.

题目：Hawks Become Us: The Sense of Power and Militant Foreign Policy Attitudes

作者：Caleb Pomeroy，达特茅斯学院约翰·斯隆·迪基国际理解中心的戴安娜·戴维斯·斯宾塞美国外交政策和国际安全博士后研究员。

摘要：权力如何塑造外交政策态度？借鉴关于权力的前沿心理学研究，本文认为相对国家权力感可以解释外交政策中的鹰派。“我们的国家”比“你的国家”更强大的直觉激活了激进的国际主义，这种取向以武力和威慑力为实现国家目标的效力为取向。除了对世界的总体取向外，这种权力感还解释了对紧迫安全问题的不同态度，从南海的威胁感知到对伊朗使用核武器。在美国、中国和俄罗斯中进行的五项原始调查，以及一项针对美国公众的实验，都支持了这些说法。国家权力的心理影响掩盖了行为IR中常见的性格特征，如个人的性格和道德倾向。更令人惊讶的是，权力会改变个人，即使是最鸽派的人也会成为鹰派。总而言之，本文提出了“第一意象反转”，挑战了标准的自下而上的外交政策观点，并在潜在的美国衰落、中国崛起和俄罗斯好战的时代提供了独特的解释杠杆。

How does power shape foreign policy attitudes? Drawing on advances in psychological research on power, I argue that the sense of relative state power explains foreign policy hawkishness. The intuitive sense that “our state” is stronger than “your state” activates militant internationalism, an orientation centered on the efficacy of force and deterrence to achieve state aims. Beyond general orientation towards the world, this sense of power explains discrete attitudes towards pressing security issues, from threat perception in the South China Sea to nuclear weapons use against Iran. Five original surveys across the US, China, and Russia, as well as an experiment fielded on the US public, lend support to these claims. The psychological effects of state power overshadow dispositional traits common in behavioral IR, like individuals’ personalities and moral proclivities. More surprisingly, power changes individuals, making hawks of even the most dovish. Taken together, the paper presents a “first image reversed” challenge to standard bottom-up accounts of foreign policy opinion and offers unique explanatory leverage in a potential era of US decline, China’s rise, and Russian belligerence.

题目：Algorithmic Aversion? Experimental Evidence on the Elasticity of Public Attitudes to “Killer Robots”

作者：Ondřej Rosendorf，查尔斯大学社会科学学院的博士候选人，汉堡大学和平研究与安全政策研究所研究员；Michal Smetana，查尔斯大学社会科学学院的副教授，布拉格和平研究中心负责人；Marek Vranka，查尔斯大学社会科学学院助理教授，布拉格和平研究中心研究员。

摘要：致命自主武器系统是一项突出但有争议的军事创新。虽然先前的研究表明，部署“杀手机器人”将面临相当大的公众反对，但我们对这些态度的弹性，以及它们如何受到不同因素影响的理解仍然有限。在本文中，我们旨在探讨公众态度对三个特定因素的敏感性：对技术容易发生事故的担忧，对不良后果的责任归属的担忧，以及对自动杀戮自带的无尊严性质的担忧。我们对大量美国人的调查实验表明，公众对自主武器的态度在很大程度上取决于人们对它们相对于人工操作系统的出错率的观念。此外，我们发现有限的证据表明，关注人类尊严受到侵犯的个体更有可能反对“杀手机器人”。这些发现对当前关于自主武器国际监管的政策辩论具有重要意义。

Lethal autonomous weapon systems present a prominent yet controversial military innovation. While previous studies have indicated that the deployment of “killer robots” would face considerable public opposition, our understanding of the elasticity of these attitudes, contingent on different factors, remains limited. In this article, we aim to explore the sensitivity of public attitudes to three specific factors: concerns about the accident-prone nature of the technology, concerns about responsibility attribution for adverse outcomes, and concerns about the inherently undignified nature of automated killing. Our survey experiment with a large sample of Americans reveals that public attitudes toward autonomous weapons are significantly contingent on beliefs about their error-proneness relative to human-operated systems. Additionally, we find limited evidence that individuals concerned about human dignity violations are more likely to oppose “killer robots.” These findings hold significance for current policy debates about the international regulation of autonomous weapons.