來(lái)源：新浪財(cái)經(jīng)

　　文 | 新浪財(cái)經(jīng)李欣然、劉浩（實(shí)習(xí)）

　　當(dāng)前，全球可持續(xù)發(fā)展進(jìn)程在復(fù)雜地緣政治格局下推進(jìn)受阻，可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn)面臨多邊機(jī)制弱化、氣候治理倒退等多重挑戰(zhàn)，而中小經(jīng)濟(jì)體與新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體在維護(hù)多邊體系中的作用愈發(fā)關(guān)鍵。在此背景下，可持續(xù)發(fā)展與國(guó)際關(guān)系、經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)如何實(shí)現(xiàn)協(xié)同？多邊主義未來(lái)將走向何種形態(tài)以適配21世紀(jì)全球治理需求？近日，新浪財(cái)經(jīng)對(duì)話國(guó)際關(guān)系與可持續(xù)發(fā)展中心（CIRSD）主席、塞爾維亞前外交部長(zhǎng)、第67屆聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)主席武克·耶雷米奇（Vuk Jeremi?），共同深入探討全球可持續(xù)發(fā)展的核心難題、氣候行動(dòng)與經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的平衡之道，以及多邊主義在推動(dòng)人類(lèi)可持續(xù)進(jìn)步中的關(guān)鍵價(jià)值與演進(jìn)方向。

　　以下為對(duì)話實(shí)錄：

　　Q: 國(guó)際關(guān)系與可持續(xù)發(fā)展中心（CIRSD）一直處于全球推動(dòng)可持續(xù)發(fā)展的前沿。您如何看待國(guó)際關(guān)系與可持續(xù)發(fā)展之間的聯(lián)系？您認(rèn)為當(dāng)前國(guó)際形勢(shì)對(duì)可持續(xù)發(fā)展有何影響？

　　A: 自 2012 年以來(lái)，我擔(dān)任過(guò)多個(gè)職務(wù)。其中最值得一提的，是我在擔(dān)任聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)主席期間，主持了由具有歷史意義的 “里約 + 20” 峰會(huì)授權(quán)的談判——我親眼見(jiàn)證了將可持續(xù)發(fā)展納入全球議程的復(fù)雜性與重要性。此番談判最終促使各國(guó)在2015年一致采納了聯(lián)合國(guó)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)（Sustainable Development Goals，以下簡(jiǎn)稱SDGs），成為了有史以來(lái)開(kāi)展過(guò)的最復(fù)雜的多邊努力之一。

　　可持續(xù)發(fā)展完全是一個(gè)整體性概念，涵蓋社會(huì)、經(jīng)濟(jì)和環(huán)境三個(gè)維度，且具有普遍性。無(wú)論發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家還是發(fā)展中國(guó)家，地處北半球還是南半球，政治體制或歷史背景如何，均適用這一概念。沒(méi)有任何國(guó)家能孤立實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展目標(biāo)；這些挑戰(zhàn)本質(zhì)上是全球性的，且存在相互依存的關(guān)系。

　　這意味著國(guó)際合作并非是一項(xiàng)選擇，而是不可或缺的一環(huán)。政府必須發(fā)揮主導(dǎo)作用，但要取得成功，還需要私營(yíng)部門(mén)、學(xué)術(shù)界、公民社會(huì)及其他利益相關(guān)方的積極參與。遺憾的是，當(dāng)前全球格局以地緣政治競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和分裂為特征，這可能會(huì)阻礙可持續(xù)發(fā)展的進(jìn)程。因此，我們必須加倍致力于對(duì)話與多邊主義。只有通過(guò)共同努力，我們才有望實(shí)現(xiàn)本世紀(jì)SDGs所承載的宏偉愿景。

　　Q：作為第 67 屆聯(lián)合國(guó)大會(huì)主席，您在全球治理體系構(gòu)建中發(fā)揮了關(guān)鍵作用。您認(rèn)為當(dāng)前可持續(xù)發(fā)展面臨的最重大挑戰(zhàn)是什么？您認(rèn)為中小經(jīng)濟(jì)體和新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體在推動(dòng)可持續(xù)發(fā)展方面應(yīng)發(fā)揮怎樣的作用？

　　A：我時(shí)常將當(dāng)今時(shí)代描述為 “地緣政治衰退期”。與經(jīng)濟(jì)周期類(lèi)似，地緣政治也有繁榮與衰退的階段，但地緣政治衰退的持續(xù)時(shí)間更長(zhǎng) —— 往往可達(dá)數(shù)十年。在這樣的負(fù)面周期中，大國(guó)之間的信任逐漸瓦解，多邊主義的弱化，國(guó)際關(guān)系變得更具交易性和雙邊性，而共同目標(biāo)則淪為了犧牲品。

　　這一趨勢(shì)造成的一大嚴(yán)重后果是國(guó)際組織的效能受損。如今，聯(lián)合國(guó)及其他多邊機(jī)構(gòu)難以有效履行職責(zé)，導(dǎo)致一些人質(zhì)疑它們的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。盡管這種不滿可以理解，但拋棄聯(lián)合國(guó)將是一個(gè)嚴(yán)重的錯(cuò)誤，因?yàn)槟壳皼](méi)有一家機(jī)構(gòu)能擁有聯(lián)合國(guó)所具備的普遍性與合法性。

　　盡管中小經(jīng)濟(jì)體和新興經(jīng)濟(jì)體影響大國(guó)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的能力有限，但它們?cè)诰S護(hù)多邊體系方面發(fā)揮著關(guān)鍵作用。這些經(jīng)濟(jì)體應(yīng)堅(jiān)定支持那些促成SDGs通過(guò)的原則，并倡導(dǎo)改革，使多邊機(jī)構(gòu)更能反映 21 世紀(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí)情況。通過(guò)這樣的行動(dòng)，這些國(guó)家可以擰成一股繩，確保全球治理始終立足于合作而非對(duì)抗。耐心與堅(jiān)持，是維系可持續(xù)發(fā)展議程的關(guān)鍵。

　　Q：氣候變化仍是當(dāng)今時(shí)代最緊迫的問(wèn)題之一。目前，部分國(guó)家和地區(qū)在氣候治理方面出現(xiàn)了倒退現(xiàn)象。您如何看待氣候行動(dòng)與經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展之間的關(guān)系？您認(rèn)為我們應(yīng)如何推進(jìn)氣候治理？

　　A：氣候變化是當(dāng)今時(shí)代的標(biāo)志性挑戰(zhàn)，它對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展（尤其是脆弱地區(qū)的經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展）的影響不容小覷?，F(xiàn)實(shí)情況是，若氣候變化得不到遏制，經(jīng)濟(jì)體將遭到破壞、貧困現(xiàn)象加劇，可持續(xù)發(fā)展領(lǐng)域來(lái)之不易的成果也將由此削弱。相反，大膽的氣候行動(dòng)能夠激發(fā)創(chuàng)新、推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)，尤其是在可再生能源、綠色技術(shù)和可持續(xù)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施等領(lǐng)域。

　　然而，我們也必須承認(rèn)，全球一些關(guān)鍵國(guó)家的內(nèi)部政治態(tài)勢(shì)正在發(fā)生變化。國(guó)內(nèi)政治變動(dòng)已導(dǎo)致部分國(guó)家重新考慮甚至推翻長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的氣候承諾。盡管這一現(xiàn)象令人遺憾，但此類(lèi)發(fā)展往往超出外部影響力所能干預(yù)的范圍。國(guó)際社會(huì)不應(yīng)一味惋惜這些變化，而應(yīng)務(wù)實(shí)調(diào)整策略 —— 聚焦可實(shí)現(xiàn)的目標(biāo)，推動(dòng)包容性合作。

　　我們的目標(biāo)應(yīng)始終以科學(xué)證據(jù)和公平進(jìn)步原則為指導(dǎo)。這意味著氣候治理框架需兼顧發(fā)展中國(guó)家的需求：發(fā)展中國(guó)家要走低碳增長(zhǎng)道路，既需要資源支持，也需要技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移。簡(jiǎn)而言之，氣候行動(dòng)與經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展并非對(duì)立目標(biāo)，就像是一枚硬幣的正反面；全球治理體系必須體現(xiàn)二者的相互依存關(guān)系。

　　Q：在當(dāng)前的地緣政治格局下，多邊主義正面臨重大挑戰(zhàn)。您如何看待多邊主義的未來(lái)？您認(rèn)為多邊主義對(duì)推動(dòng)可持續(xù)發(fā)展而言是否不可或缺？

　　A：我們正處于一個(gè)地緣政治衰退期，而多邊機(jī)構(gòu)是其中最大的受害者之一。許多多邊機(jī)構(gòu)仍受困于過(guò)時(shí)的架構(gòu)，無(wú)法反映當(dāng)今的均勢(shì)。當(dāng) “交通規(guī)則” 與 “交通現(xiàn)實(shí)” 不匹配時(shí)，不滿情緒和單邊主義便會(huì)不可避免地滋生。

　　在這種情況下，三大趨勢(shì)將決定未來(lái)走向：第一，持續(xù)推進(jìn)現(xiàn)有機(jī)構(gòu)改革，從而更貼合當(dāng)代現(xiàn)實(shí)（盡管過(guò)程充滿挑戰(zhàn)）；第二，替代性的區(qū)域組織或聚焦某一領(lǐng)域的組織不斷崛起（如歐盟、金磚國(guó)家、東盟），將越來(lái)越多地處理全球體系難以應(yīng)對(duì)的問(wèn)題；第三，各國(guó)為維護(hù)自身認(rèn)定的核心利益而采取的單邊行動(dòng)會(huì)增多，這在近期的地緣政治危機(jī)中便可察覺(jué)。

　　盡管這一局面遠(yuǎn)非理想，但我們必須保持務(wù)實(shí)。即便聯(lián)合國(guó)的職能存在缺陷，它仍是唯一真正具有普遍性的對(duì)話與規(guī)則制定平臺(tái)，因此不可或缺。多邊主義不會(huì)消失，但會(huì)發(fā)生演變，漸而形成一種全球機(jī)制、區(qū)域機(jī)制與國(guó)家機(jī)制共存的混合模式。我們面臨的挑戰(zhàn)是，在應(yīng)對(duì)這一轉(zhuǎn)型的過(guò)程中，始終不偏離最終目標(biāo)：維護(hù)和平，推動(dòng)人類(lèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展。

　　以下是英文對(duì)話實(shí)錄：

　　Q: The International Relations and Sustainable Development Center (CIRSD) has been at the forefront of promoting sustainable development globally. How do you see the relationship between international relations and sustainable development? What do you think the current international situation has an impact on sustainable development?

　　A: In my various capacities since 2012—most notably as President of the UN General Assembly when I chaired the negotiations mandated by the historic Rio+20 Conference—I have witnessed firsthand the complexity and importance of integrating sustainable development into the global agenda. The negotiations that ultimately resulted in the unanimous adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 were among the most intricate multilateral efforts ever undertaken.

　　Sustainable development is a truly holistic concept, encompassing social, economic, and environmental dimensions, and it applies universally—to developed and developing nations alike, across North and South, and regardless of political systems or historical backgrounds. No country can achieve the SDGs in isolation; these challenges are inherently global and interdependent.

　　This means that international cooperation is not optional—it is indispensable. Governments must take the lead, but success requires strong engagement from the private sector, academia, civil society, and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, the current global landscape, characterized by geopolitical rivalry and fragmentation, threatens to derail progress. We must therefore redouble our commitment to dialogue and multilateralism. Only by working together can we hope to achieve the bold vision embodied in the SDGs for this century.

　　Q: As the 67th President of the United Nations General Assembly, you played a pivotal role in shaping global governance. What do you see as the most significant challenges facing sustainable development today? What role do you believe smaller and emerging economies should play in promoting sustainable development?

　　A: I often describe our current era as one of “geopolitical recession.” Like economic cycles, geopolitics has periods of boom and bust, but geopolitical downturns last longer—often decades. In such negative cycles, trust among major powers erodes, multilateralism weakens, and international relations become more transactional and bilateral, at the expense of shared goals.

　　One major casualty of this trend is the effectiveness of international organizations. Today, the UN and other multilateral bodies struggle to deliver, leading some to question their relevance. While these frustrations are understandable, abandoning the UN would be a grave mistake. No other institution possesses the universality and legitimacy that the UN offers.

　　Smaller and emerging economies, despite their limited ability to influence great power rivalries, play a critical role in sustaining the multilateral system. They should remain steadfast in supporting the principles that led to the adoption of the SDGs and advocate for reforms to make institutions more reflective of 21st-century realities. By doing so, these nations can serve as a stabilizing force and ensure that global governance remains anchored in cooperation rather than confrontation. Patience and persistence will be key to keeping the sustainable development agenda alive.

　　Q: Climate change remains one of the most pressing issues of our time. Currently, we've seen some backsliding in climate governance by certain countries and regions. What's your view on the relationship between climate action and economic development? And how do you think we should approach climate governance?

　　A: Climate change is the defining challenge of our time, and its impact on economic development—especially in vulnerable regions—cannot be overstated. The reality is that unchecked climate change will devastate economies, exacerbate poverty, and undermine hard-won progress toward sustainability. Conversely, bold climate action can unlock innovation and drive economic growth, particularly in areas such as renewable energy, green technologies, and sustainable infrastructure.

　　Yet, we must also acknowledge the shifting political dynamics within some of the world's key players. Domestic political changes have led certain countries to reconsider or even reverse long-standing climate commitments. While regrettable, these developments are often beyond external influence. Instead of lamenting these changes, the international community must pragmatically recalibrate its strategies—focusing on achievable goals and fostering inclusive cooperation.

　　Our ambition should remain guided by scientific evidence and the principle of equitable progress. This means ensuring that climate governance frameworks accommodate the needs of developing nations, which require both resources and technology transfers to pursue low-carbon growth pathways. In short, climate action and economic development are not opposing objectives; they are two sides of the same coin, and global governance must reflect this interdependence.

　　Q: Multilateralism is facing significant challenges in the current geopolitical landscape. How do you see the future of multilateralism? Do you think multilateralism is indispensable for promoting sustainable development?

　　A: We live in a period of geopolitical recession, and multilateral institutions are among its greatest victims. Many remain locked in outdated structures that no longer reflect today's balance of power. When the "rules of the road" fail to match the reality of traffic, frustration and unilateralism inevitably follow.

　　Under these circumstances, three trends will define the future: First, ongoing—though challenging—efforts to reform existing institutions to better mirror contemporary realities. Second, the rise of alternative regional or thematic organizations such as the EU, BRICS, or ASEAN, which will increasingly handle issues the global system struggles to address. And third, the growth of unilateral actions by states seeking to protect what they perceive as vital interests, as seen in recent geopolitical crises.

　　While this is far from ideal, we must be realistic. The UN remains indispensable as the only truly universal platform for dialogue and norm-setting, even if its functionality is imperfect. Multilateralism will not disappear, but it will evolve—through a hybrid model where global, regional, and national mechanisms coexist. The challenge before us is to navigate this transition without losing sight of the ultimate goal: preserving peace and fostering sustainable progress for humanity.