备战打仗中的国际人道法规则运用

国际人道法的基本原则之一是区分对待战斗员和平民,以便在武装冲突中有效地对战争受难者进行保护,平衡"军事必要"与"人道需求"这一矛盾。从实践经验上看,我军在战争中往往守法做的比较好,而在对付敌人违法作战方面准备不足。在未来军事斗争中应利用国际人道法的相关知识,做到既严格遵守又灵活运用。具体做法包括:将遵守国际人道规则列入部队训练和演习内容;运用国际人道法合理进行目标选择与打击;做到正确、灵活地对待和使用保护性标志;灵活处置国际人道法的守势反用等。     

法律原则与法律规则的界限——以德沃金与阿列克西的原则理论为主线

德沃金基于规则的"一般一例外"结构及原则具有分量的特性对规则与原则所作的区分,经过阿列克西的修正被精确地表述为两者在最佳化命令、初步性特征及碰撞法则三个方面的不同.碰撞法则的构建使得原则与规则在区分的基础之上紧密地联系起来,通过对五个分量公式的具体展开,衡量法则得以具体化、量化,原则的逻辑结构也得以较清晰地显现,从而也为与衡量法则相配套的法学论证理论的适用创造了条件.     

论非国际性武装冲突中人道原则的适用问题

国际人道法是规制战争和武装冲突的作战方法、手段以及保护战争受难者的具体规定,是关于适用战争或武装冲突的法律规则.本文主要从理论与实践两个感官上,对非国际性武装冲突适用人道主义原则做了深入研究.对于明确非国际性武装冲突的性质,国际人道法的调整范围以及对冲突中受难的平民的保护有着重大意义,还有助于实现法律正义、公平、秩序等原则,对于我国关于此项制度的立法的进一步完善提供的重要的理论依据.     

美伊战争与国际人道法

国际人道法的一个重要规定是 :任何作战方在战争中所使用的作战手段和方法 ,都不是毫无限制的 ,其所使用的武器也必须符合国际法、尤其是国际人道法的规定。国际人道法有一些最基本的原则 ,如 :“应避免不必要痛苦原则”和“区分原则” ,从非常规武器的特征来看 ,其使用时很难做到避免产生不必要痛苦原则 ,也很难做到将战斗员与非战斗员进行区别。从现行国际法的规定看 ,目前还没有任何关于禁止或限制使用集束武器、贫铀弹以及“炸弹之母”等武器的明确规定。但在武装冲突中落实国际人道法有关规定时 ,必须考虑“马尔顿”条款这一重要的法律原则     

论国际法中战俘制度的发展及其当代挑战

战俘制度是国际法中最古老的制度之一,其基调奠定于启蒙运动。战争在屡次损害战俘制度的同时,也不断推动其发展。如今,非国际性武装冲突成为战争和武装冲突的主要形式,这使得仅存在于国际性武装冲突中的战俘制度适用的机会越来越少。而且,在国际性武装冲突中,"非法战斗员"的大量出现严重挑战了战俘制度。战俘制度亟需根据现实情况的变化做出相应调整和更新,以维护并促进自身以及整个国际法的效力和良性发展。     

武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护的历史演进

武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护是文化遗产国际法律保护的重要组成部分。从“拿破仑战争”到“一战”,再到“二战”,文化遗产所遭受的严重毁损和流失客观上导致了武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护的萌芽、形成与发展。武装冲突情况下文化遗产国际法律保护在历史演进中,以禁止战时掠夺为基本原则,不断完善法律规范、扩大保护范围、加重保护责任、加强保护措施,从而得以迅速发展。     

所有权移转模式比较研究

古罗马法学家对所有权移转过程存在不同的理解,但对买卖和转让的区分则相当清晰。近代以来大陆法国家分别建立了以同一原则和区分原则为基础的权利移转模式,英美法国家也采用类似的买卖和转让相区分的移转方式。我国合同法关于无权处分行为的效力的规定和物权法善意取得制度之间存在冲突,应当修正合同法,并在法理上采纳区分理论。     

信息化战争法律体系构建

信息化战争以前所未有的冲击力震撼着人们在以往战争中形成的武装冲突法理念,动摇了武装冲突法体系,弱化了武装冲突法的效力,使得现行武装冲突法对战争和武装冲突缺乏有效的法律强制力和规范性的约束。进入新世纪以来,这种情况表现得尤为严重。国际间武装冲突违反人道原则的行为时有发生,霸权主义侵略、扩张更是肆无忌惮,联合国的权威地位也受到了空前的挑战。如何应对挑战,强化武装冲突法在信息化战争中的作用成为亟待解决的问题。     

建筑物区分所有权之业主的共有权探析

我国《物权法》对"建筑物区分所有权"做出了相关规定,那么作为"业主"所享有的共有权与"建筑物区分所有权"是何种关系,"业主"的共有权该如何保护?本文论述了"业主"的共有权的归属、行使主体,并提出了共有权的行使原则。     

诚信原则法律修正功能的适用及限度

在处理具体规则与诚信原则的适用关系时,通常依据具体规则优先的法律适用原则。然而,在具体规则与诚信原则发生冲突时,诚信原则应当如何适用,我国学界尚欠缺深入研究。当适用具体规则与诚信原则相抵触,并于个案中产生难以容忍的不公正结果时,诚信原则具有法律修正功能。诚信原则法律修正功能的实质并非是通过修改法律以在现行法之外建立另一套法律制度,而仅是在具体规则中为某些特殊案件创设但书,使之区别于适用具体规则的正常情况。在判断适用具体规则所产生的结果是否公正时,法官不能仅凭法政策或自己的法感,而须依据现行法秩序所蕴含的评价对诚信原则进行价值填充,以立法者的视角作出判断。在这一意义上,诚信原则的法律修正功能仍受现行法秩序的约束,并未僭越立法权。在适用方法上,诚信原则的法律修正功能规制的是制度滥用,填补的是隐藏法律漏洞,在方法论上须遵循"目的性限缩-法律修正"这一适用顺序。但是,诚信原则的法律修正功能不适用于"法政策漏洞"和"立法者有意沉默"两种情形。     

Expanding the Borders of Common Article 3 in Non-International Armed Conflicts: Amending Its Geographical Application Through Subsequent Practice?

The geographic footprint of contemporary warfare often challenges the existing understanding of the term ‘non-international armed conflict’, a term not defined in international humanitarian treaty law. This article examines whether the opening lines of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions include a geographical requirement. Controversy surrounds this question which until recently has received little attention. The customary interpretation of Common Article 3 is that it has a geographical scope of application limited to non-international armed conflicts which take place exclusively within the borders of a single member state (internal armed conflict). The 2016 ICRC Commentaries to the First Geneva Conventions challenges this traditional view and argues in favour of a broader interpretation of the scope of application of Common Article 3. This re-interpretation recently has gained traction in scholarship. The ICRC’s position serves as a possible solution to prevent a lacuna in humanitarian protection in situations where conflicts fit neither the understanding of ‘international armed conflict’ nor ‘internal armed conflict’. By evaluating the merits of the arguments posed by the ICRC, the article assesses whether the phrase ‘conflict not of an international character’, as included in Common Article 3, conclusively limits its geographical application to an armed conflict occurring within the boundaries of a single state.

     

Bribes vs. bombs: A study in Coasean warfare

Warfare is often thought of as the antithesis of Coasean bargaining over entitlements because armed conflicts consume real resources whose destruction could be avoided by negotiated solutions. We argue that fighting and negotiating are not mutually exclusive methods of resolving disputes between nations—there can often be a useful role for bargaining between a state and agents of its enemy, even when armed conflict has broken out between opposing states. We evaluate the efficacy and normative desirability of selectively substituting “bribes” for “bombs” as a means of warfare. We show how inter-country disparities in wealth, differences in military strength, the organization of the bribing and recipient forces, uncertainty about the outcome of the conflict, and communications technology can contribute to the efficacy of bribes. We discuss methods for enforcing bargains struck between opposing forces, a key problem in structuring bribes. We also examine the legal status of bribe agreements, under both international and US law. While the former apparently views bribery as legitimate means of warfare, the latter poses a potentially significant obstacle by refusing on public policy grounds to enforce secret contracts made with foreign agents.     

论"人类共同遗产"原则与相关原则的关系

"人类共同遗产"原则不仅是人类在月球和其他天体上活动的最重要原则之一,同时也是保护和开发其他诸如公海海底资源和人类文化遗产等有限资源的重要原则.它直接引导出"禁止据为己有"原则,并意味着全面非军事化和禁止一切军事活动.为了保证开发的福利在所有国家之间公平分配,应该对所有的使用有限自然资源的国际管理制度的创设活动进行规范,而该创设活动必须以"共同利益"原则和"人类共同遗产"原则为指导方针.     

Agricultural drug economies: cause or alternative to intra-state conflicts?

Through case studies selected among the world’s main drug-producer countries and regions (Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burma, Colombia, Morocco, Peru, and West Africa) this paper depicts the global scene in order to improve understanding of how agricultural illicit drug economies may foster the emergence of intra-state conflicts, help prolong intra-state conflicts or, conversely, prevent some crises. The paper thereby examines the complex connections between agricultural illicit drug production and intra-state conflict in the all-important context of underdevelopment and globalisation. Because it is illegal, drug production may affect international security, above all through the armed violence it creates and the uses to which resulting profits are put (financing of armed groups and criminal organisations, and even – as has been recently though mostly erroneously claimed – terrorist organisations [4, 5]. However, it is important to avoid restricting the question of drug production to security issues, and instead to examine the phenomenon overall in an analysis encompassing everything from the causes of the recourse to an illegal drug economy to the effects of official responses. Through case studies selected from the main regions of illegal agricultural drug production (Afghanistan, West Africa, Burma (Myanmar), Bolivia, Colombia, Morocco and Peru) this paper aims at improving our understanding of how such production might foster the emergence of conflicts, ease their prolongation or, conversely, prevent crises in certain situations. These three questions require examining the connections between the agricultural economy of illegal drugs and conflict in the all-important context of underdevelopment and of globalisation.     

权利冲突的司法化解

法定权利之间的冲突并非一个伪命题,其在司法实践中颇为常见。受到立法者的有限理性、社会的变动性以及法律语言的模糊性等多重因素的影响,某些情形下权利的边界未被立法者清晰界定,并由此引发法定权利之间的冲突。权利冲突的实质是利益冲突和价值冲突。权利冲突的存在导致了法律适用的难题,法官需要借助个案中的法益衡量来确定权利边界并进而化解权利冲突。法官在进行法益衡量时,可以参考权利位阶来作出判断,然而权利位阶秩序缺乏整体确定性,仅有有限的参考价值,因此法益衡量还需诉诸比例原则。比例原则包括适当性原则、必要性原则和狭义的比例原则三项子原则。比例原则能够指引法官对权利作客观和理性的衡量,最大限度地缩小法官的裁量余地。鉴于个案中的法益衡量具有决策性质,法官必须在司法能动主义与司法克制主义之间维持恰当的平衡,在解决权利冲突时不能逾越司法的限度。     

A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya

The cases on Chechnya recently decided by the European Courtof Human Rights force us to re-evaluate the relationship betweenhuman rights law and humanitarian law. Since the InternationalCourt of Justice held that humanitarian law is lex specialisto human rights law in 1996 – if not since the TehranConference of 1968 – it has been widely accepted that‘human rights in armed conflict’ refers to humanitarianlaw. The ECtHR has directly applied human rights law to theconduct of hostilities in internal armed conflicts. The rulesit has applied may prove controversial, but humanitarian law’slimited substantive scope and poor record of achieving compliancein internal armed conflicts suggest the importance of this newapproach.     

断裂与弥合:我国集体土地征收补偿逻辑的解构与重构

土地是一种稀缺资源,在我国这样一个人口大国里尤其显得珍贵。随着城镇化和工业化的推进,对土地的需求量突飞猛进,因征收土地而引发的矛盾也越来越多。虽然,《国有土地上房屋征收与补偿条例》的出台有效地解决了城市房屋搬迁补偿问题,但是该条例对于矛盾更加突出的集体土地征收则显得无能为力。从域外征收补偿理论结合我国实际情况展开论证。征收与补偿是一个问题的两个方面,在征收合法且已是事实的前提下,补偿在一定程度上是矛盾的根源,也是目前最难解决的问题,有效的解决方式莫过于完善的法制、健全的机制以及认真对待权利,而其根本则是构建严密的补偿逻辑。     

战争罪的国内立法研究

战争罪是在战争或者武装冲突中发生的违反战争法规、严重侵犯人权的罪行。战争罪主要是国际法上的罪行,但国内法院也承担着追究战争罪罪犯刑事责任的重要任务。将我国缔结的国际公约里规定的战争罪转化为国内刑法上的犯罪,是我国作为缔约国应当履行的条约义务。但我国《刑法》只有第446条和第448条规定的两个犯罪才基本符合国际法对于战争罪的定义。我国《刑法》应当专章设立“危害人类和平与安全罪”,使其包括战争罪等核心罪行,这样可以更好地维护我国的刑事管辖权,有效地避免我国公民受到国际刑事法庭的审判,以便享受《国际刑事法院规约》补充管辖原则提供的益处。     

A Development of Modest Proportions: The Application of the Principle of Proportionality in the Targeted Killings Case

The comment critically discusses the application of the principleof proportionality by the Israeli Supreme Court in the TargetedKillings case. While the judgment confirms the customary statusof the principle and its applicability to all Israel DefenseForces (IDF) military operations during armed conflicts, itssubstantive contents remain, as might have been expected, unclear.In particular, the application of the ‘least-injuriousalternative’ subtest with regard to all civilians takinga direct part in hostilities is unsubstantiated and perhapstoo sweeping. However, the reference by the Court to ex anteand ex post review mechanisms to monitor the application ofthe proportionality principle constitutes a positive contributionto its development under international humanitarian law, whichmight also have some implications for criminal prosecutionsof soldiers and commanders involved in unlawful targeted killingoperations.