2024年2月25日发(作者：)

Non-traditional Security Community: A New

Exploration of Transnational Security GovernanceYU Xiaofeng and WANG MengtingAbstract: With the emergence of numerous complex non-traditional security issues,

the “resource-induced” security dilemma characterized by being non-military has

become increasingly prominent. It is exerting an impact on the existent security policies

and cooperation mechanisms of various governments and transnational organizations

too great for the traditional security community to cope with these new challenges.

Reflecting on the theories of the security community, this paper proposes the idea of

“non-traditional security community” by defining its features, types, dynamics, and

construction paths. It then expands the theories of multilateral security cooperation. The

non-traditional security community places emphasis on the shared future of nations when

confronted with threats, advocating that union and sharing based on “generic security”

is an effective solution to the “resource-induced” security dilemma. With “optimum co-existence”, “shared security”, and “security co-governance” as its core categories, “peace-cooperativism” is the value premise for the non-traditional security community and the

“multidimensional-multilateral cooperation” is the best way to build the non-traditional

security community. Meanwhile, China should actively participate in the construction

of the non-traditional security community at sub-regional, regional, and global levels

with a view to implementing the idea of “community of shared future”.Keywords: resource-induced security dilemma, non-traditional security community,

multidimensional-multilateral cooperation, security governance * T he fi rst draft of this paper was submitted for discussion at the fourth International Studies Forum and the Symposium on

“The Theory and Practice of the Asia and Pacifi c Security Community” on October 14 and 15, 2016. The conference was

co-hosted by College of ASEAN Studies, Guangxi University for Nationalities, the Editorial Department of International

Security Studies, University of International Relations and the Editorial Department of Global Review, Shanghai Institutes for

International Studies. Thanks go to the experts present for their criticism and advice and the anonymous reviewers for their

suggestions on the modifi cation of the thesis. The authors take sole responsibility for any errors made in it. ** YU Xiaofeng, Professor, School of Public Affairs, Zhejiang University; WANG Mengting, Ph. D. Candidate, School of Public

Affairs, Zhejiang University.

2

YU Xiaofeng and WANG MengtingIntroductionCommunity is a mode of human existence and development as well as an important

mark that man carries out practical activities as a social being. As a theoretical subject,

scholars in the fi elds of philosophy, political science, sociology, etc. pay great attention

to “community” and conduct in-depth and extensive research on it. Writings on

community by academicians of international relations are more focused on “security

1community”. “In terms of political philosophy, security study with state centralism as

its driving force and undoubted priority has gradually become complex and society-oriented to deal with an increasing number of individuals and small units, and many

non-state actors at various levels. In constructivist terms, security study is pushing

2forward its reorientation towards society.” In recent years, with the emergence of non-traditional security study, scholars have also accorded attention and consideration to

security community under the context of non-traditional security.3Scholars of international relations construct “security community” to resolve

“military” security dilemmas while a large number of prominent non-traditional security

problems in the wake of the Cold War have brought about a kind of “resourced-induced”

Major research results by foreign scholars are: Karl W. Deutsch, et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic Area,Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957; Emanuel Adler and Michael Barnett, eds., Security Communities, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1998; Emanuel Adler and Patricia Greve, “When Security Community Meets Balance of Power:

Overlapping Regional Mechanisms of Security Governance,” Review of International Studies, Vol. 35, No. S1 (February

2009), pp. 59-84; Ken Booth and Nicholas Wheeler, The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation, and Trust in World Politics,New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011; Amitav Acharya, Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and

the Problem of Regional Order (Third Edition), London: Routledge Press, 2014, etc. Major research results by Chinese experts

include: Yuan Zhengqing, “From Security Dilemma to Security Community: a Constructivist Interpretation,” European

Studies, No. 4 (2003), pp. 38-50; Wang Xueyu, “Building Security Community through Regional Integration: A Framework

for Analysis,” European Studies, No. 5 (2003), pp. 11-24; Yang Luhui and Guo Yanjun, “From ‘Hegemonic Stability Theory’

to ‘Security Community’—the New Trend of Northeast Asian Security Cooperation Framework,” World Economics and

Politics, No.4 (2005), pp. 55-60; Sun Xuefeng, “The Realistic Basis and Future Way-out of East Asian Security Community,”

World Economics and Politics, No. 10 (2008), pp. 18-21; Zheng Xianwu, Security, Cooperation, and Community: the Theory

and Practice of Southeast Asian Regionalism, Nanjing: Nanjing University Press, 2009 (国内的研究成果主要有袁正清：《从安全困境到安全共同体：建构主义的解析》，载《欧洲研究》2003年第4期，第38-50页；王学玉：《通过地区一体化实现安全共同体：一个分析的框架》，载《欧洲研究》2003年第5期，第11-24页；杨鲁慧、郭延军：《从“霸权稳定论”到“安全共同体”——东北亚安全合作架构新走向》，载《世界经济与政治》2005年第4期，第55-60页；孙学峰：《东亚安全共同体的现实基础与未来出路》，载《世界经济与政治》2008年第10期，第18-21页；郑先武：《安全、合作与共同体：东南亚安全区域主义理论与实践》，南京：南京大学出版社2009年版).2 Wang Yizhou, “State Security Study from a Global Perspective,” The Journal of International Studies, No. 4 (2015), pp. 102-103 (王逸舟：《全球主义视野下的国家安全研究》，载《国际政治研究》2015年第4期，第102-103页).3 Major research results abroad are: Melly Caballero Anthony, “Non-traditional Security Challenges, Regional Governance, and

the ASEAN Political Security Community (APSC),” in Ralf Emmers, ed., ASEAN and the Institutionalization of East Asia,London: Routledge Press, 2010, pp. 27-42. Major research results by Chinese scholars include: Liu Xinghua, “Non-traditional

Security and the Construction of Security Community,” World Economics and Politics, No. 9 (2004), pp. 37-42; Wang Jiangli,

“‘Security Community’ Under the Context of Non-traditional Security,” World Economics and Politics, No. 3 (2009), pp.

54-61; Jin Chunzhu and Han Xiandong, “Non-traditional Security Cooperation and the Construction of the Northeast Asian

Security Community: An Evaluation Based on the Process of China-Japan-Korea Environmental Security Cooperation,”

Journal of Contemporary Asia-Pacifi c Studies, No. 5 (2010), pp. 70-88 (中文研究成果主要有刘兴华：《非传统安全与安全共同体的建构》，载《世界经济与政治》2004年第9期，第37-42页；王江丽：《非传统安全语境下的“安全共同体”》，载《世界经济与政治》2009年第3期，第54-61页；〔韩〕金淳洙、韩献栋：《非传统安全合作与东北亚安全共同体的构建：基于中日韩环境安全合作进程的评价》，载《当代亚太》2010年第5期，第70-88页，等等).1

Non-traditional Security Community: A New Exploration of Transnational Security Governance

3security dilemma that is different from traditional security dilemmas. The traditional

security community dominated by state governments is inadequate to address non-traditional security threats. Therefore, the theory and practice of non-traditional security

requires researchers to put forward a “non-traditional” formula corresponding to the

new security situation. The construction of “the non-traditional security community” is

an effective path for humankind to cope with non-traditional security threats.

1 H ow does Humankind Address “Resource-induced” Security

Dilemmas?Community is social integration of “mutually related elements” to cope with dilemmas

humans are confronted with in different environments for survival. Generally speaking,

as the bonds of community, there are three types of “mutually related elements”:

physically mutually related elements, such as consanguinity and geography; socially

mutually related elements, such as schooling, profession, interests and power; and

intentionally mutually related elements, such as identity, desire, self-esteem, and

faith. The three types of mutually related elements intertwine and mutually construct.

The “common features” that develop thereon become people’s “distinctive mark”

or “special identity” and assemble into a variety of “organic groups”, “responsible

units”, and “action collectives” in society to acquire shared senses of “identity” and

“security”. For example, in a state community, these senses consist mainly of “being-here” of cohabitation, “we-feeling” of the same race, “homogeneity” of culture or

civilization, shared political “legitimacy”, and collective “self-esteem” recognized by

4the international community. Traditional and non-traditional security communities are

mostly transnational ones and the acquisition of shared “identity” and “security” is their

basic motives, but the security dilemmas they confront are different, thus differing in

qualities and taking different forms.1.1 T he Traditional Security Community: Deconstructing and Constructing

“Military” Security DilemmaMan is a “species-being”5 who is aware of its own existence. Humankind exists in

groups and copes with threats by means of “community”, thereby constructing a special

way of contact between people and between nations. In terms of the historical respect

of human development, the history of human development is just a history of security

community expansion. According to the research of anthropologists, the early human

4 Yu Xiaofeng and Zhang Taiqi, “‘Peace-cooperativism’: Construction of the Value Paradigm of ‘Interstate Endorsement’ –

Taking the Countries Along the ‘Belt and Road’ for Example,” Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Science), No.

6 (2015), p. 5 (余潇枫、张泰琦：《“和合主义”：建构“国家间认同”的价值范式——以“一带一路”沿线国家为例》，载《西北师范大学学报（社会科学版）》2015年第6期，第5页).Marx/Engels Collected Works, No. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1975, p. 96 (《马克思恩格斯全集》（第42卷），北京：人民出版社1975年版，第96页).5