Abstract Theories such as balance of power, deterrence, collective security, democratic peace, interdependence are proposed by three major schools of contemporary international relations to solve the security dilemma of the international society. However, the international anti-terrorism cooperation is quite inefficient with the major Western countries, which adopt traditional security views, always exploit terrorism against strategic rivals and use unilateralism and dual standards in the wars on terror. This means that the limitations of traditional security ideas and corresponding solutions are often exposed.Generally speaking, international relations scholars believe that the essence of the relationship between countries is similar to the natural state of Hobbes: the international community is actually in a state of anarchy and all countries are always lost in a security dilemma, for there is no institution with sufficient legitimacy and authority to adjust conflicts among nations. Actually, the existing international law is so weak that it is only regarded as a piece of advice for sovereign governments in most situations. International law has no fundamental coercive power over countries, so countries can choose either to enforce or not to enforce according to their own circumstances. Thus, in an international anarchy, the countries whose interests are harmed resort to self-help instead of international law. Historically, in order to maintain their own interests and solve the security dilemma of survival, countries had to resort to a series of solutions. Three modern international relations theories are constructed to provide different theory systems and solutions to the dilemma based on the assumption of international anarchy.Each solution has distinguished features, but they are often under a lot of criticisms. Realism theories which are based on pessimistic assumptions of human nature, put forward theories such as deterrence, containment, collective security, balance of power, hegemonic stability and alliance to maintain the unbreakable balance of power between different power groups. But the balance of the game will be broken sooner or later and then all efforts will give up halfway. Liberal theories are optimistic about human nature. The theorists believe that the security dilemma will be eliminated by increasing interdependence through economic cooperation among countries. Their solutions include democratic peace, power interdependence and international institution cooperation, but liberal theorists do not recognize that these theories are the accessory tools created by the hegemony countries to maintain the hegemony systems of the hegemonic states. What they achieve is the interests of hegemony and temporary peace. Constructivism holds that a country can shape the relationship between its enemies and friends according to its own needs, but it attaches too much importance to the subjectivity of human beings instead of material objectivity, and fails to realize that the subjective construction of a country is not omnipotence.Limited by the traditional security concept, the security crisis that the international community is facing is increasing: the continuous expansion of the pandemic, the turbulence of the world situation aggravated by great game powers, major Western countries seeking new nuclear deterrents under the new Cold War mentality, and global diffusion of terrorism. Based on long-term practices and theory discussions, Chinese government and Chinese academic circles put forward new security concepts featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and collaboration. Human society is forming a closely connected community and the international community must therefore abandon old traditional security ideas and work together to build a security community on the basis of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and collaboration to deal with common serious threats and stop the global flooding trend of terrorism.
1 Bull H.， The Anarchical Society： A Study of Order in World Politics， New York： Palgrave Macmillan， 2002. 2 Jervis R.， Perception and Misperception in International Politics， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1976. 3 Gaddis J. L.， “Containment： its past and future，” International Security， Vol. 5， No. 4 （1981）， pp. 74-102. 4 美］罗伯特·杰维斯： 《国际政治中的知觉与错误知觉》，秦亚青译，北京：世界知识出版社，2003年。 5 Walt S. M.， The Origins of Alliance， Ithaca： Cornell University Press， 1990. 6 Schweller R. L.， “New realist research on alliances： refining， not refuting， Waltz’s balancing proposition，” American Political Science Review， Vol. 91， No. 4 （1997）， pp. 927-930. 7 Rawls J.， A Theory of Justice （Revised Edition）， Cambridge， MA： Harvard University Press， 1999. 8 美］肯尼思·华尔兹： 《国际政治理论》，信强译，上海：上海人民出版社，2008年。 9 秦亚青： 《霸权体系与国际冲突》，上海：上海人民出版社，1999年。 10 Montgomery E. B.， In the Hegemon’s Shadow： Leading States and the Rise of Regional Powers， Ithaca： Cornell University Press， 2016. 11 Schweller R. L.， “Domestic structure and preventive war： are democracies more pacific？” World Politics， Vol. 44， No. 2 （1992）， pp. 235-269. 12 Deutsch K. W.， Burrell S. A. & Kann R. A. et al.， Political Community and the North Atlantic Area， Princeton： Princeton University Press， 1957. 13 英］巴里·布赞： 《人、国家与恐惧：后冷战时代的国际安全研究议程》，闫健、李剑译，北京：中央编译出版社，2009年。 14 Rosecrance R. & Stein A.， “Interdependence： myth or reality？” World Politics， Vol. 26， No. 1 （1973）， pp. 1-27. 15 法］弗雷德里克·皮耶鲁齐、［法］马修·阿伦： 《美国陷阱：如何通过非商业手段瓦解他国商业巨头》，北京：中信出版社，2019年。 16 宋国友： 《中美经济相互依赖及其战略限度》，《现代国际关系》2007年第5期，第58-64页。 17 美］罗伯特·卡根： 《美国缔造的世界》，刘若楠译，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2013年。 18 Mearsheimer J. J.， “The false promise of international institutions，” International Security， Vol. 19， No. 3 （1994-1995）， pp. 5-49. 19 李彬、胡高辰： 《美国视阈中的中国核威慑有效性》，《外交评论》2018年第5期，第21-41页。 20 Arms Control Association， “INF Treaty Crisis： background and next steps，” https：//www.armscontrol.org/issue-briefs/2019-02/inf-treaty-crisis-background-next-steps， 2020-11-03. 21 IISS， “The Trump administration and nuclear weapons，” Strategic Comments， Vol. 25， No. 4 （2019）， pp. 7-9 . 22 美］罗伯特·基欧汉： 《局部全球化世界中的自由主义、权力与治理》，门洪华译，北京：北京大学出版社，2004年。 23 Frisch H. & Inbar E.， Radical Islam and International Security： Challenges and Responses， New York & London： Routledge， 2008. 24 Hegghammer T.， “The rise of Muslim foreign fighters： Islam and the globalization of Jihad，” International Security， Vol. 35， No. 3 （2010）， pp. 53-91. 25 Thrush G. & Davis J. H.， “Trump， in Poland， asks if west has the ‘will to survive’，” 2017-07-06， https：//www.nytimes.com/2017/07/06/world/europe/donald-trump-poland-speech.html， 2020-11-03. 26 Bellamy A. J.， Fighting Terror： Ethical Dilemmas， London： Zed Books， 2008. 27 余潇枫主编： 《非传统安全蓝皮书：中国非传统安全研究报告（2012~2013）》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2013年。 28 新华社： 《中央国家安全委员会第一次会议召开 习近平发表重要讲话》，2014年4月15日，http：//www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-04/15/content_2659641.htm，2020年11月3日。 29 王希、贾远琨： 《习近平：应积极倡导共同、综合、合作、可持续的亚洲安全观》，2014年5月21日，http：//www.xinhuanet.com//world/2014-05/21/c_1110792359.htm，2020年11月3日。 30 张蕴岭： 《新安全观与新安全体系构建》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2015年。 31 曾向红、陈亚州： 《上海合作组织命运共同体：一项研究议题》，《世界经济与政治》2020年第1期，第102-127页。 32 加］阿米塔·阿查亚： 《建构安全共同体：东盟与地区秩序》，王正毅译，上海：上海人民出版社，2004年。 33 Deutsch K. W.， Political Community at the International Level： Problems of Definitions and Measurement， New York： Doubleday & Company， 1954. 34 以］伊曼纽尔·阿德勒、［美］迈克尔·巴涅特主编： 《安全共同体》，孙红译，北京：世界知识出版社，2015年。 35 Adler E. & Barnett M.， “Security communities in theoretical perspective，” in Adler E. & Barnett M. （eds.）， Security Communities， Cambridge： Cambridge University Press， 1998， pp. 5-6. 36 Koschut S.， “Regional order and peaceful change： security communities as a via media in international relations theory，” Cooperation and Conflict， Vol. 49， No. 4 （2014）， pp. 519-535. 37 高清海、余潇枫： 《“类哲学”与人的现代化》，《中国社会科学》1999年第1期，第70-79页。 38 余潇枫、陈佳： 《核正义理论与“人类核安全命运共同体”》，《世界经济与政治》2018年第4期，第69-89页。 39 黄昭宇、王卓宇： 《新安全观的建构及其要义》，《和平与发展》2015年第6期，第61-81页。 40 蒋小杰： 《基于全球正义视角的全球治理规制重建》，《思想战线》2019年第1期，第85-92页。 41 潘亚玲： 《中国与“保护的责任”原则的发展》，《国际观察》2016年第6期，第44-57页。
2021, Vol. 51 
