University of Texas at Austin.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Dec 1;45(6):1013-1021. doi: 10.1215/03616878-8641542.
The COVID-19 outbreak is the most serious test of the international system since the 2008 global financial crisis. Rather than cooperate to contain and respond to a common threat, the world's leading powers-the United States and China-have increasingly blamed each other through wildly speculative theories about the origins of the virus. The World Health Organization sought to coordinate a global response, but it has been hamstrung and has come under attack. Given past cooperation between major powers to mobilize and eradicate smallpox and previous US leadership to fight HIV/AIDS and the 2014 West African Ebola crisis, the limited cooperation and lack of leadership are puzzling. What explains the anemic global response to date? This article draws from structural international relations theory to suggest a partial but somewhat dissatisfying answer. International organizations are inherently weak and now face opposition by major powers. The international system simultaneously incentivizes states to cooperate and address common threats, but it also encourages countries to take care of themselves, potentially at the expense of others. Which of these motives dominates cannot be explained by structural theory, thus requiring us to look to other factors such as the attributes of states and leaders themselves.
新冠疫情爆发是自 2008 年全球金融危机以来对国际体系最严重的考验。世界主要大国——美国和中国非但没有合作来共同遏制和应对这一共同威胁,反而通过对病毒起源的各种猜测性理论相互指责。世界卫生组织试图协调全球应对措施,但却受到掣肘,并受到攻击。鉴于大国之间曾在消灭天花以及美国曾在防治艾滋病毒/艾滋病和 2014 年西非埃博拉危机方面进行过合作,目前这种有限的合作和缺乏领导力令人费解。如何解释迄今为止全球应对乏力这一现象?本文借鉴国际关系结构理论,提出了一个部分但有些令人不满意的答案。国际组织本质上较为薄弱,现在面临大国的反对。国际体系一方面鼓励各国合作并应对共同威胁,但另一方面也鼓励各国照顾自己,这可能会以牺牲他国为代价。结构理论无法解释这些动机中哪一个占主导地位,因此需要我们考虑国家和领导人自身的属性等其他因素。