【英文】慕尼黑安全会议报告：跨大西洋中国政策的优先事项（66页）

The struggle for power at the global level is increasingly being viewed  through the prism of diferent systems of governance. The question is which  political system can best cope with key global challenges such as climate  change, technology, health, security, and economic development: China’s  centralized and authoritarian state capitalism, on the one hand, or, on the  other hand, some variant of the decentralized and democratic market systems of North America and Europe. The answer to this question will, to a  large extent, determine not only the scope for international cooperation and  confict, but also the shape of the new world (dis)order. The growth of Chinese power has made this question more difcult and has set stricter limits  to the ability of democracies to shape the international order the way they  did in the 1990s and 2000s.36 That kind of liberal international order cannot  be restored.

What is left? There is still a Westphalian consensus enshrined in the 1945  Charter. China stresses the norm of sovereignty, according to which states  can go to war only for self-defense or with Security Council approval. Taking  a neighbor’s territory by force has been rare since 1945 and has led to costly  sanctions when it has happened (as with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in  2014). In addition, the UN Security Council has often authorized the  deployment of peacekeeping forces in troubled countries, and diplomacy  has achieved important results in non-proliferation. This dimension of a  rules-based order remains crucial and will likely be maintained.