编者按：3月19日，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院副院长蔡彤娟与马来西亚中国餐饮业协会副会长甘文静在《中国日报》发表英文文章认为，高质量的“一带一路”合作重心，正从铁路、公路、港口等“硬联通”，转向规则、标准、制度协同等“软联通”，这一倡议也正从项目建设阶段迈向框架构建阶段。现将中文译文及英文原文发布如下：（中文译文约2200字，预计阅读时间6分钟）

“一带一路”倡议的首个十年，其发展成效大多体现在钢铁基建与实体物流领域。中欧班列驰骋亚欧大陆，港口持续扩建，桥梁拔地而起，“一带一路”的版图也愈发清晰。如今，一场难以用镜头捕捉，更具深远意义的变革正悄然发生。从人工智能治理到绿色金融，从跨境数据流动到可持续供应链，中国在国际规则制定的各类对话中表现得愈发积极。这些举措并非孤立的外交行动，而是中国深层次战略调整的体现。高质量的“一带一路”合作重心，正从铁路、公路、港口等“硬联通”，转向规则、标准、制度协同等“软联通”，这一倡议也正从项目建设阶段迈向框架构建阶段。

这一转变的意义至关重要。实体基建能实现货物的流通，但如果缺乏兼容的法律、金融和数字体系，货物的流通效率会大打折扣，有时甚至会陷入停滞。

以中欧班列为例，它已然成为亚欧互联互通的标志性成果。但在国际贸易中，铁路运单往往不具备完整的物权属性。

与此同时，各国数据监管规则差异明显，货物信息在跨越不同司法管辖区时，往往需要多次申报。

其中的道理十分明确：仅有钢铁轨道，无法保障经济红利的落地。缺乏监管协同的互联互通，很容易成为发展的瓶颈。这也是“高质量合作”成为“一带一路”下一阶段核心发展理念的原因。如今，衡量合作成效的标准，不再是开出多少列班列、铺设多少公里轨道，而是参与国能否共建协同发展生态，实现标准互认、产业融合、风险共担与利益共享。

中国在这一生态体系中的角色也在悄然转变。倡议初期，中国主要是国际公共产品的出资方和建设者，而如今，中国正愈发致力于成为规则的联合制定者和治理方案的提供者。

这一转变已在多项技术试点项目中显现。中方正尝试利用区块链技术，实现跨境铁路运单的数字化和证券化，推动其成为可拆分、可质押的电子凭证。若试点成功，这类电子凭证可成为“一带一路”沿线中小企业的融资抵押物，进一步拓宽其贸易融资渠道。

与此同时，各方还在多个领域同步开展探索，包括数字海关程序互认、环境社会治理披露标准统一，以及打造适配“一带一路”项目的仲裁机制等。

至关重要的是，这一新兴的合作模式并非将中国标准单向对外输出，其生命力在于兼容性。以跨境数据治理为例，相关试点机制在提升通关效率的同时，也为各国保留了落实数据本地化监管要求的政策空间。其设计逻辑采用模块化而非单一化模式，让相关标准能够实现“即插即用”，适配不同的监管环境。

这一思路也折射出更为宏观的地缘政治现实：全球贸易体系正面临重重压力，世界贸易组织的改革陷入停滞，美国和欧盟正加速在数字贸易、绿色补贴等领域构建排他性的监管框架，发展中经济体往往被排斥在标准制定的进程之外。

在此背景下，“一带一路”为中国提供了重要平台，使其能够在数字治理、绿色金融、供应链韧性等新兴领域，牵头开展基于规则的对话，而这些对话始终秉持包容性和发展实用主义的原则。对众多南方国家而言，参与标准制定并非纸上谈兵的理论行为，这直接决定了它们能否顺利进入国际市场、获取先进技术和发展资本。v

当然，制定规则远比修建桥梁复杂。技术标准领域可能成为战略竞争的角力场，各国的法律体系存在差异，地缘政治的紧张局势也会带来干扰，中国也确实面临着被外界误解为借制度建设谋求扩张、而非追求互利共赢的风险。

但从初步迹象来看，以解决问题为导向的合作模式仍具有强大吸引力。在人工智能治理、绿色标准等领域，近期的国际合作互动表明，许多国家更倾向于循序渐进、以问题为导向的合作框架，而非陷入意识形态的对立。

未来五年，将是检验“一带一路”能否成功从走廊经济向共生型治理生态转型的关键时期。这一倡议的可持续发展，将取决于其能否降低交易成本、提升监管确定性，以及创造出普惠共享的发展成果。

一场全球治理的新实践正逐步成型，这也昭示着，21世纪的互联互通，既体现在钢筋水泥与物流货运之上，更蕴藏于规则体系与契约精神之中。

英文原文

BRI moves from concrete and cargo to standard setting

Cai Tongjuan and Gan Wenjing

For much of its first decade, the Belt and Road Initiative was measured in steel and stone. Freight trains rumbling across Eurasia, ports expanding and bridges rising. The map filled in. Today, the more consequential shift is harder to photograph. From artificial intelligence governance to green finance, from cross-border data flows to sustainable supply chains, China has become increasingly active in international rule-making conversations. These are not isolated diplomatic gestures. They point to a deeper strategic recalibration. The emphasis of high-quality BRI cooperation is moving beyond the "hard connectivity" of railways, highways and ports toward the "soft connectivity" involving rules, standards and institutional alignment. The initiative is evolving from building projects to shaping frameworks.

The distinction matters. Physical infrastructure can move goods. But without compatible legal, financial and digital systems, those goods move inefficiently — and sometimes not at all.

Consider the China-Europe freight trains. They have become emblematic of Eurasian connectivity. Yet railway waybills in international trade often lack full property-right status.

Meanwhile, divergent data regulations mean cargo information may need to be declared multiple times as it crosses jurisdictions.

The lesson is clear. Steel tracks alone do not guarantee economic dividends. Connectivity without regulatory interoperability risks becoming a bottleneck. This is why "high-quality cooperation" has become the operative phrase for the next stage of the BRI. The metric is no longer how many trains depart or how many kilometers of track are laid. It is whether participating countries can build a cooperative ecosystem with mutual recognition of standards, industrial integration, shared risk management and equitable distribution of benefits.

China's role within that ecosystem is subtly changing. In the early years, it was primarily a financier and builder of international public goods. Increasingly, it seeks to act as a co-designer of rules and a provider of governance solutions.

Some of this shift is already visible in technical pilot projects. Efforts to digitize and securitize cross-border railway waybills using blockchain technology aim to transform them into divisible, pledgeable electronic instruments. If successful, such instruments could serve as collateral for small and medium-sized enterprises along BRI corridors, expanding access to trade finance.

Parallel explorations are underway in areas such as mutual recognition of digital customs procedures, harmonization of environmental, social and governance disclosure standards, and the establishment of arbitration mechanisms tailored to BRI projects.

Crucially, this emerging model is not framed as a one-way export of Chinese standards. Its viability depends on compatibility. In cross-border data governance, for example, pilot mechanisms aim to facilitate efficient customs clearance while preserving policy space for national data localization requirements. The design logic is modular rather than monolithic — standards that can be "plugged in" and adapted to diverse regulatory environments.

That approach reflects a broader geopolitical reality. The global trading system is under strain. Reform of the World Trade Organization has stalled. The United States and the European Union are accelerating club-based regulatory frameworks in areas such as digital trade and green subsidies, often leaving developing economies on the margins of standard-setting processes.

Against this backdrop, the BRI offers China a platform to convene rule-based dialogues in emerging domains — digital governance, green finance, supply chain resilience — that emphasize inclusivity and developmental pragmatism. For many countries in the Global South, participation in standard-setting is not a theoretical exercise. It shapes their access to markets, technology and capital.

Of course, rule-building is inherently more complex than bridge-building. Technical standards can become arenas of strategic competition. Legal systems differ. Geopolitical tensions intrude. The risk of being perceived as pursuing institutional expansion rather than mutual benefit is real.

Yet the early signs suggest that solution-oriented cooperation retains appeal. In areas such as artificial intelligence governance and green standards, recent international engagements indicate that many countries prefer incremental, problem-driven frameworks over ideological polarization.

The coming five years will test whether the BRI can successfully transition from corridor economics to a symbiotic governance ecosystem. Its sustainability will hinge on its ability to reduce transaction costs, improve regulatory certainty and generate broadly shared gains.A new experiment in global governance is taking shape — one that suggests connectivity in the 21st century is defined as much by code and contract as by concrete and cargo.