"先发制人"战略与国际法

美国的"先发制人"战略形式上是以传统国际法中的预先自卫权为其理论依据的.传统国际法承认国家可以先发制人,但<联合国宪章>生效后,国际社会对于国家是否仍享有预先自卫权存在广泛争议.因此,先发制人在国际法上的合法性是不确定的.实质上,美国的"先发制人"战略大大超越了预先自卫的范畴,走向了预防性行动或预防性战争,它已经而且必将继续对国际秩序和国际法产生很大冲击.从根本上说,这是国际法需要完善的问题.不久前,联合国高级名人小组、安南秘书长在他们各自的报告中就武力使用问题提出了一些有益的主张,对于国际法的完善具有一定的指导意义.     

试析预先性自卫的法律管制

关于预先性自卫的合法性问题，学界争论由来已久，但始终未有能为国际社会接受的定论。可以预见，争论仍将持续，但仍将无助于问题的解决，因为其症结在于习惯国际法上的预先性自卫权在以《联合国宪章》为核心的现代国际法体系上并没有得到明确的规制。令人担忧的事实是，     

欧盟共同外交与安全政策的性质及其运作局限性

1993年11月1日《马斯特里赫特条约》(又称《欧洲联盟条约》,以下简称《马约》)正式生效,欧盟的共同外交与安全政策正式形成,并被确立为欧盟的三大支柱之一。经过1997年《阿姆斯特丹条约》的修订后,欧盟对其共同外交与安全政策的目标做了如下界定:“(1)依照《联合国宪章》的原则,维护欧盟的共同价值观、根本利益和独立;(2)全面加强欧盟及其成员国的安全;(3)按照《联合国宪章》的原则与《赫尔辛基最后文件》的原则以及《巴黎宪章》的目标,维持和平与加强国际安全;(4)促进国际合作;(5)发展和巩固民主与法治,尊重人权和基本自由。”①从这些目标…     

从国际法视角看冷战后联合国维和行动

联合国维和行动是介于宪章第六章规定的和平方法和第七章规定的强制方法之间的一种维护国际和平与安全的国际干预手段。冷战后,联合国维和行动有了重大变化,对国家主权、不干涉内政、禁止使用武力等国际法基本原则造成了极大的冲击。为了摆脱困境,联合国维和行动必须准确定位,坚持维和三原则,尽快制定专门的联合国维和行动法典,正确对待人道主义干涉,完善国际干预机制,由此才能更好地维护国际和平与安全。     

新干涉主义对国际秩序的冲击

冷战结束，美国成为唯一超级大国之后，先是以“人道主义干预”，后来改用“保护的责任”为旗子，以武力干涉别国内政为手段实现政权更迭的新干涉主义成为美国推行霸权主义的一种思潮和模式。这种新干涉主义对国际秩序的冲击十分严重，它直接破坏了《联合国宪章》的宗旨和原则，危害地区和世界和平，遭到国际社会特别是广大发展中国家的反对。鉴于“保护的责任”已被塞进2005年纪念联合国成立60周年首脑会议的成果文件中，因此，有必要对维护国际秩序的相关内容进行详细厘清。     

联合国开创了两个危险先例

今年以来,西方国家对利比亚的连日空袭和西方驻科特迪瓦维和部队直接参与科国内的战斗,开创了联合国在处理主权国家内部事务问题两个危险的先例。这为霸权主义和强权政治欺压发展中国家尤其是弱小国家开了新的绿灯,将对国际安全与和平和联合国成员国的主权带来严重威胁和后果。为了制止和遏制这种严重违反《联合国宪章》和安理会决议的行径,联合国和国际社会应立即行动起来,一是对《宪章》的有关条款作出明确的定义;二是建立具有法律效力的独立监督机制,审议和监督安理会决议的执行情况;三是安理会立即召开会议审议1973号决议执行情况,提出政治解决利比亚问题的方案。     

维护和平共处五项原则和《联合国宪章》

和平共处五项原则的一些内容进一步明确和补充了《联合国宪章》的论述。联合国应通过改革确保《宪章》的基本宗旨和原则 ,坚持和平共处五项原则 ,以应对“单边主义”、“先发制人”的挑战。     

国际社会的发育与国际社会核心价值观的确立

国际社会的核心价值观是指民族国家关于国际关系的“是非判断”和“行为准则”, 它 的确立与发展与国际社会的发育程度密切相关。自1789年法国大革命以来, 国际社会经历了孕育 与初生期(1789 ～ 1918年)、幼儿期(1919 ～ 1945年), 少年期(1945年后)。国际社会核心价值观 起源于《国际联盟盟约》, 基本成型于《联合国宪章》, 其理论基础是威尔逊主义的理想主义, 哲学基 底是自由主义的自然权利论和社会契约论。当前, 《联合国宪章》面临的最大问题是:它的原初制 订者———美国不时有意“违宪”, 这反映出自由主义国际政治理念在美国的衰落。另外, 宪章的“国 家主义”色彩非常浓厚, 而对国家内部和全球化时代的公民安全关心不够, 因此有调适的必要。     

从1483号决议看联合国在战后伊拉克的作用

决议的通过标志着联合国对伊经济制裁的结束 ,为全面重建伊拉克铺平了道路 ,而且反映了当前国际政治格局和秩序的现实 ,在重新确认联合国权威的同时 ,承认美国的主导地位 ,也给《联合国宪章》提出许多严峻挑战。     

“名人小组”与联合国改革

11月 4日 ,联合国秘书长安南致信第 5 8届联大主席亨特 ,通告已组建了一个高级别名人小组 ,其任务是研究全球面临的重大威胁和挑战及联合国改革等问题 ,并于 2 0 0 4年第 5 9届联大前拿出报告。安南的这一决定标志着联合国新一轮改革正式启动。联合国改革问题由来已久 ,而对伊战争无疑是联合国新一轮改革的“催化剂”。伊战使联合国陷入窘境 ,但也打破了联合国改革的僵局 ,促使国际社会及安南本人下决心改变现状 ,进行新一轮改革。自联合国创立以来 ,《联合国宪章》的基本原则和联合国地位受到挑战已不是第一次。但伊战使《宪章》原则和联合…     

How the United Nations Beat Hitler and Prepared the Peace

The United Nations was born in 1942, defeated the Axis Powers led by Germany, Italy and Japan and created today's UN system. This reality has been lost in modern scholarship. We are taught that the Allied countries, mainly America and Britain, with the Soviet Union won the war and that the United Nations was created in 1945. In this way, the achievement of victory can be set in opposition to the United Nations and to multilateralism in general. But it should not be possible to separate victory in the war from the modern United Nations and its priorities, for these were the priorities set by the United Nations at war. America, Britain and the Soviet Union led a large coalition of states organised as the United Nations and this term was used routinely in military orders, in the instruments of surrender signed by the enemy and in political and social life. Bretton Woods and San Francisco were United Nations conferences, and interim United Nations organisations preceded the Charter. Understanding the wartime United Nations reframes our understanding of the second half of the last century and of our own. From UNESCO to the World Bank the primary purpose of the international system is conflict prevention and its wartime architects bequeathed us this system as a realist necessity vital in times of trial, not as a liberal accessory to be discarded when the going gets rough.     

Re-conceptualizing State Responsibility: Human Security Protection, Confl icts and Governance

Different from the perspective of traditional national security, human security is an essential component of non-traditional security. Human security is influenced by multi-dimensional factors. Human security will be threatened if one or more of these dimensional factors get twisted. Such threats, once accumulated to a certain level, may trigger a confl ict. While some factors may have a low correlation with confl ict, some other factors may have a multiplying effect in triggering the confl ict. Further, confl ict may be triggered by a single factor or multiple factors. Poor governance may lead to escalation of confl icts. Deep understanding of triggering effects and their correlation with confl icts is essential to addressing the root causes and the management of conflicts effectively. Concepts of human security, state responsibility of protection and neo-interventionism have been developed in succession. Though the people-centered security framework draws global attention, it should be recognized that there is no international consensus on an optimal type of governance. However, according to the Charter of the United Nations, the primary responsibilities of human security protection should be rested on the government of a state. The principle of sovereignty remains the fundamental principle of international relations, which should be the guiding principle for addressing human security issues.     

Imperatives of Peace in South Asia

For the past 54 years, South Asia has been mired in tension and conflicts. The root cause of these problems is the unresolved Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. The United Nations, despite its Charter obligation to maintain international peace and security, has been unable to resolve this dispute. Kashmir, itself, has been turned into a nuclear flashpoint and poses a threat to international peace and security. The challenge before the international community, and especially the United States, therefore, is to become involved in resolving the dispute in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions and in conformity with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. India must show its good faith by eschewing hegemonic designs, abandoning bellicosity and brinkmanship, and sincerely joining Pakistan in overcoming all bilateral problems. It is time to restore peace and stability in South Asia. To achieve that, the international community, especially the United States, must play their due role.     

Pre-emption,Deterrence, and Self-Defence: A Legal and Historical Assessment

The policy of the United States, outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy, whereby the US claims a right under international law to engage in pre-emptive use of force to prevent a rogue state's development of nuclear weapons, or any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), is unnecessary and therefore unlawful under customary international law of self-defence. This conclusion is reached through a comprehensive and intensive assessment of the normative reactions of politically effective actors to China's development of nuclear weapons during a two-year period between the Cuban Missile Crisis and China's first test in October 1964. While pre-emptive use of force against China, a rogue state, was considered by both the United States and most likely by the Soviet Union, neither used force to prevent it developing nuclear weapons. Since a policy of pre-emptive use of force was unnecessary for either state's self-defence, it would have been unlawful under customary international law. Given that the current strategic scenario of states vis-à-vis rogue states is the same under most circumstances, notwithstanding the existence of international terrorist networks, the article concludes that the proposed claim of the United States is, prima facie, unnecessary to its self-defence, and therefore unlawful under customary international law of self-defence. It shifts the burden of proof to policymakers claiming that all rogue states can be lawfully prevented through pre-emptive use of force from acquiring nuclear weapons, to establish that a particular state cannot be deterred from the use of nuclear weapons. Though the preventive war claim of the US National Security Strategy 2002 may turn out to be an effective strategic bluff in limiting WMD proliferation, the wisdom of the threat should not be confused with the illogic of preventive war.     

重塑国家之责：人的安全保护、冲突与治理

与传统的“国家安全”观相比，“人的安全”观是非传统安全领域中的重要内容。人的安全受多维度影响。其中一个或几个维度出现问题，人的安全就受到威胁；威胁达到一定程度，就可能导致冲突。这些维度构成冲突诱因。冲突诱因呈现多元化。有的诱因与冲突相关度较低，有的诱因对诱发冲突具有乘数效应。就触发状态而言，冲突可能由单一因素诱发，亦可由多种因素叠加引发。如果治理失当，会导致冲突恶化。一个国家要有效地治理冲突，就应当对导致冲突的诱因及相关度有深刻理解，如此方可对症下药。人的安全概念、国家保护责任与新干预主义是相继形成的三个概念。应当说，尽管以人为中心的安全框架日益被全球关注，但应当采取何种治理形式，何种治理形式属于最优方案，在国际社会中并未达成共识。但是，根据《联合国宪章》的精神，保护人的安全的责任首先在于当事国政府。主权原则仍是国际关系的基本原则，是解决人的安全问题必须遵守的根本准则。     

Collective Security and Human Rights: How the United Nations' Institutional Design Corrupted Complementary Purposes

That human rights should be viewed as a complementary aim to the international pursuit of collective security was an intention of the drafters of the Charter and the subsequent Universal Declaration and they were correct to stress that functional relationship which exists between the domestic observation of human rights and the achievement of lasting peace and security internationally. Yet, in spite of the United Nations' assertion of the complementary nature of the purposes of collective security and human rights, this essay argues that if we survey the inception of the United Nations Organisation then it will become clear that the organisation was from the onset institutionally impaired in regard to effective human rights proliferation and enforcement. Indeed, the organisation's particular approach to collective security was designed intentionally so as to render any hopes for the effective observation and enforcement of human rights nugatory.     

Reading “Threats to International Peace and Security,” 1946-2005

In the United Nations Charter the notion of the “threat to international peace and security” is designed to play a key enabling role in framing its collective security functions. Taking a 60-year period from the UN's founding, this article examines how the UN Security Council has developed the notion of the “threat to international peace and security” through its resolutions, and what this evolution might mean for the notion of collective security and the Council's role in it.     

Fit for what? Towards explaining Battlegroup inaction

Abstract

The thrust of this paper concerns the case of the European Battlegroup (BG) non-deployment in late 2008, when the United Nations requested European military support for the United Nations Organisation Mission peacekeeping force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The argument is built on the fact that when, in official documents, the EU approaches the European security and ESDP/CSDP's military crisis management policy and interventions, it makes strong references to the United Nations and the UN Charter Chapter VII's mandate of restoring international peace and security. Such references make it seem that supporting the UN when it deals with threats and crises is a primary concern of the EU and the member states. These allusions lead to the main contention of this paper, that there is much ambivalence in these indications. The paper develops its argument from one key hypothesis; namely, that the non-deployment of a European BG in the DRC, at the end of 2008, constitutes a useful case study for detecting a number of ambiguities of the EU in respect of its declarations in the official documents establishing the European military crisis management intervention structure.     

The humanitarian responsibilities of the United Nations Security Council: Ensuring the security of the people1

The United Nations Charter confers on the Security Council prime responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Yet these very concepts are undergoing radical change. More than the absence of war, peace has come to mean harmony both within and among nations. It has acquired a dimension far larger than the original State-centred notion of the Charter. Security connotes inclusion, cohesion, and integration - a sense of belonging to a society and a prevailing international order that is predicated on fairness and respect for differences and human dignity. Today, especially given the rise in conflicts of a non-international character, the Council musturgently review the appropriateness of existing instruments and traditional diplomacy. The author calls for better links between the UN, the Security Council, NGOs, and civil-society organisations; and proposes legal and practical mechanisms both to afford better protection to aid workers and to ensure that, when they are applied, sanctions regimes are effective means of placing pressure on those responsible for the abuse of power.     

Toward an effective international legal order: from coexistence to concert?

In forbidding the use of force except in self‐defence against armed attack or when authorised by the Security Council, the UN Charter appears to be the culminating development of a system of international order based on the doctrine of state sovereignty. The cumulative result of international‐law‐related acts, omissions and declarations of the Bush administration since its inception can be construed as a fundamental challenge to the sovereign state system. The administration's stated security strategy is one possible response to undoubtedly grave challenges to national and human security. In fact, only an institutionalised partnership between the US and regional powers such as China, India, Brazil and Germany can hope to address those challenges successfully, in part because only it would have the requisite legitimacy. That partnership or concert could be organised within the UN framework, albeit intensifying its hierarchical elements.