志坤要求翻译2nd.docVIP

One World, Rival Theories The study of international relations is supposed to tell us how the world works. It’s a tall order, and even the best theories fall short. But they can puncture illusions and strip away the simplistic brand names—such as “neocons” or “liberal hawks”— that dominate foreign-policy debates. Even in a radically changing world, the classic theories have a lot to say. | By Jack Snyder T he U.S. government has endured sev- eral painful rounds of scrutiny as it tries to figure out what went wrong on Sept. 11, 2001. 试图为了找出2001年9月1号那天所犯的错误，美国政府已经经历了好几轮的精密调查。 The intelligence community faces radical restructuring; 情报团体面临着激进的重组； the military has made a sharp pivot to face a new enemy; 军事方面已经将重点转向面对新的敌人； and a vast new federal agency has blossomed to coordinate homeland security. 而且一个新的巨大的联邦机构已经成立，以协助配合国内安全。 But did September 11 signal a failure of theory on par with the failures of intelligence and policy? 但是九一一事件标志着 一个 。。。。的失败吗？ Familiar theories about how the world works still dominate academic debate. 关于世界如何运作类似的理论依然在学术争论中处于主导地位。 Instead of radical change, academia has adjusted existing theories to meet new realities. 学术界已经调整了现存的理论去适应新的现实，而不是进行彻底的改革。 Has this approach succeeded? Does international relations theory still have something to tell policymakers? 采取这样的途径能够成功吗？那些国际关系理论还依然能够为那些策略者提供某些提示吗？ Six years ago, political scientist Stephen M. Walt published a much-cited survey of the field in these pages (“One World, Many Theories,” Spring 1998). 六年前，政治科学家Stephen M. Walt发表了关于这个领域的一个调查。（该调查收录于1998春发表的《一个世界，多种理论》里） He sketched out three dominant approaches: realism, liberalism, and an updated form of idealism called “constructivism.” 他拟定了三个占有主导性的途径：现实主义，自由主义和一个现实主义适时的形式，并被称之为“构成主义”。 Walt argued that these theories shape both public dis course and policy analysis. Walt坚持认为这些理论形成了公共论述和政策分析。 Realism focuses on the shifting distribution of power among states. 现实主义将焦点放在国与国之间力量的转移分布的问题上。 Liberalism highlights the ris