以下是该内容的中文翻译： 本次讲座探讨了后冷战初期世界的国际架构，重点关注从共产主义垮台到2008年金融危机之间的这段时期。议程涵盖北约扩张、“华盛顿共识”以及欧盟面临的挑战和扩张。 讲师介绍了理解政治的三个视角：**利益**、**制度**和**理念**。基于利益的视角，通常与国际关系中的现实主义一致，侧重于行动者的自身利益（尤其是国家）。制度主义强调联合国等国际机构在规范行为方面的作用。基于理念的视角考察规范、思想和文化对政治结果的影响，通常与国际关系中的建构主义相关联。讲师的观点是，这些视角本身没有优劣之分，其适用性取决于具体的背景。 讲座从第一次海湾战争开始，这场由美国领导的、并经联合国安理会授权的联盟行动，被视为未来国际安全危机的潜在模板。布什采取的广泛联盟建设和有限目标的方式，在后来却未被采纳。 北约最初是为了应对冷战时期苏联的威胁而建立，在冷战结束后面临着关于其目的的质疑。尽管向戈尔巴乔夫承诺北约不会扩张到统一的德国之外，但该联盟稳步向东扩张，纳入了前华沙条约成员国。这种扩张激起了俄罗斯的愤怒，并助长了一种受辱感，促成了普京等人物的崛起。关于维持一个没有明确目的的强大军事联盟的长期优势和成本，以及它常常开始脱离其创始原则的临时任务，仍然存在疑问。 “华盛顿共识”，本质上是新自由主义的全球版本，其特点是放松管制、自由贸易和国有资产私有化。它逐渐获得突出地位，被视为经济发展的“一刀切”方法。本·伯南克和其他人认为，技术官僚已经充分管理了经济。放松管制，特别是在金融领域，以及贸易协定和私有化是关键要素。然而，这种共识遭到了全球南方国家的抵制，通常被视为一种经济帝国主义形式。后金融危机时代，美国的援助和影响力均有所下降。 欧盟起源于20世纪50年代的欧洲煤钢共同体，旨在防止未来的战争，成为制衡美国的力量，并创建一个自由贸易区，尽管该贸易区存在对外保护主义和内部复杂性。玛格丽特·撒切尔倡导的合格多数投票推动，说明了欧盟利用其促进新自由主义政策。欧盟被视为一个精英项目，缺乏广泛的基层支持。2005年法国和荷兰就欧洲宪法进行全民公决并被否决，表明了自上而下整合的局限性和民族认同的力量。 总之，讲师指出了北约和欧盟的重要性。北约的强大，自相矛盾地，可能会阻碍泛欧洲认同的发展。通过将国家安全外包，欧洲国家避免建立共同军队和共同命运感，从而更难创造统一的欧洲认同。

This lecture examines the international architecture of the early post-Cold War world, focusing on the period between the fall of communism and the 2008 financial crisis. The agenda covers NATO expansion, the Washington Consensus, and the challenges and enlargement of the European Union. The lecturer introduces three lenses for understanding politics: **interests**, **institutions**, and **ideals**. The interest-based perspective, often aligned with realism in international relations, focuses on the self-interest of actors (especially states). Institutionalism emphasizes the role of international institutions like the United Nations in structuring behavior. The ideals-based perspective examines the influence of norms, ideas, and culture on political outcomes, often associated with constructivism in international relations. The lecturer's position is that none of these lenses is inherently superior, and their relevance depends on the specific context. The lecture begins with the first Gulf War, a US-led coalition authorized by the UN Security Council, as a potential template for future international security crises. Bush's approach of broad coalition building and limited objectives was a path not taken, later. NATO, initially created to counter the Soviet threat during the Cold War, faced questions about its purpose after the Cold War's end. Despite promises to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand beyond the reunified Germany, the alliance steadily expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact members. This expansion sparked outrage in Russia and fueled a sense of humiliation, contributing to the rise of figures like Putin. Questions remain about the long-term advantages and costs of maintaining a powerful military alliance without a clear, defined purpose, often embarking on ad-hoc missions detached from its founding principles. The Washington Consensus, which is essentially a global version of neoliberalism, is characterized by deregulation, free trade, and the privatization of state assets. It gained prominence, seen as the one-size-fits-all approach to economic development. Ben Bernanke and others believed that technocrats have sufficiently managed the economy. Deregulation, particularly in the financial sector, as well as trade agreements and privatization were key elements. However, the consensus faced resistance from the global South, often viewed as a form of economic imperialism. The post-financial crisis era saw a decline in both US assistance and influence. The European Union (EU), originating from the European Coal and Steel Community in the 1950s, aimed to prevent future wars, serve as a counterweight to US power, and create a free trade zone, albeit one with external protectionism and internal complexities. The push for qualified majority voting, championed by Margaret Thatcher, illustrates the EU's use to promote neoliberal policies. The EU was seen as an elite project, lacking widespread grassroots support. The 2005 referendums where the European constitution was voted down in France and the Netherlands demonstrated the limits of top-down integration and the strength of national identities. In conclusion, the lecturer notes the importance of NATO and EU. NATO's strength, paradoxically, can hinder the development of a pan-European identity. By contracting out national security, European countries avoid building a common army and a sense of shared destiny, making it harder to create a unifying European identity.