{"title":"车臣战争中人权主张的陷阱与承诺:欧洲法庭上的俄罗斯","authors":"M. Evangelista","doi":"10.1163/21967415-BJA10024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nRussia’s brutal wars against the separatist republic of Chechnya, starting in the mid-1990s, entailed untold numbers of war crimes and human rights abuses, including kidnapping, extrajudicial killings, torture, murder, and vast destruction of property and civilian life by aerial bombardment and artillery barrages. Blocked from pursuing justice through the Russian courts or by having the Russian government fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, victims instead worked with activists and lawyers to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting in 2003, the Court has found against Russia in some 250 cases – in effect bringing the higher standards of human rights law to the domain of armed conflict, normally regulated (with mixed success) by international humanitarian law (“laws of war”). The first step in the process of understanding this normative change is to identify and understand the transformation: from a normative standpoint, the Court rulings constitute a major achievement for civilian protections during wartime; they build on earlier precedents in cases against Turkey and the United Kingdom, which not only expand protections for civilians but also extend the espace juridique of the Court’s competence beyond Europe to include, for example, British military forces in Iraq. The second step provides a social-sciences perspective by adding an empirical dimension to the study of these cases. We see that the actual consequences of the Court’s decisions on the military practices of Russia and other states have been limited and may even portend a backlash that could undermine protections for civilians in warfare. The last step of normative analysis suggests that even if appeals to a court of human rights might not serve the goal of reducing war crimes in general, the use of human-rights norms retains a certain plausibility to the extent that if offers victims an opportunity to present their claims and seek remedies.","PeriodicalId":145597,"journal":{"name":"European Review of International Studies","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Pitfalls and Promises of Human Rights Claims in the Chechen Wars: Russia at the European Court\",\"authors\":\"M. Evangelista\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/21967415-BJA10024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nRussia’s brutal wars against the separatist republic of Chechnya, starting in the mid-1990s, entailed untold numbers of war crimes and human rights abuses, including kidnapping, extrajudicial killings, torture, murder, and vast destruction of property and civilian life by aerial bombardment and artillery barrages. Blocked from pursuing justice through the Russian courts or by having the Russian government fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, victims instead worked with activists and lawyers to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting in 2003, the Court has found against Russia in some 250 cases – in effect bringing the higher standards of human rights law to the domain of armed conflict, normally regulated (with mixed success) by international humanitarian law (“laws of war”). The first step in the process of understanding this normative change is to identify and understand the transformation: from a normative standpoint, the Court rulings constitute a major achievement for civilian protections during wartime; they build on earlier precedents in cases against Turkey and the United Kingdom, which not only expand protections for civilians but also extend the espace juridique of the Court’s competence beyond Europe to include, for example, British military forces in Iraq. The second step provides a social-sciences perspective by adding an empirical dimension to the study of these cases. We see that the actual consequences of the Court’s decisions on the military practices of Russia and other states have been limited and may even portend a backlash that could undermine protections for civilians in warfare. The last step of normative analysis suggests that even if appeals to a court of human rights might not serve the goal of reducing war crimes in general, the use of human-rights norms retains a certain plausibility to the extent that if offers victims an opportunity to present their claims and seek remedies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":145597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Review of International Studies\",\"volume\":\"109 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Review of International Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of International Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21967415-BJA10024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
从上世纪90年代中期开始,俄罗斯对分离主义的车臣共和国发动了残酷的战争,造成了数不清的战争罪行和侵犯人权行为,包括绑架、法外处决、酷刑、谋杀,以及空中轰炸和炮火对财产和平民生命的巨大破坏。由于无法通过俄罗斯法院或让俄罗斯政府履行《日内瓦公约》规定的义务,受害者转而与活动人士和律师合作,向欧洲人权法院(European Court of Human Rights)提起诉讼。自2003年以来,法院在约250起案件中作出了对俄罗斯不利的判决——实际上将人权法的更高标准引入了通常由国际人道主义法(“战争法”)规范(成败参半)的武装冲突领域。理解这种规范变化过程的第一步是识别和理解这种转变:从规范的角度来看,法院的裁决构成了战时平民保护的重大成就;它们以先前针对土耳其和联合王国的判例为基础,这些判例不仅扩大了对平民的保护,而且还将法院管辖权的范围扩大到欧洲以外,例如包括在伊拉克的英国军队。第二步通过在这些案例的研究中增加经验维度,提供了社会科学的视角。我们看到,法院对俄罗斯和其他国家军事行为的裁决的实际后果是有限的,甚至可能预示着可能破坏战争中对平民的保护的反弹。规范分析的最后一步表明,即使向人权法院提出上诉可能无助于一般减少战争罪行的目标,但使用人权准则仍具有一定的合理性,因为它为受害者提供了提出其要求和寻求补救的机会。
The Pitfalls and Promises of Human Rights Claims in the Chechen Wars: Russia at the European Court
Russia’s brutal wars against the separatist republic of Chechnya, starting in the mid-1990s, entailed untold numbers of war crimes and human rights abuses, including kidnapping, extrajudicial killings, torture, murder, and vast destruction of property and civilian life by aerial bombardment and artillery barrages. Blocked from pursuing justice through the Russian courts or by having the Russian government fulfill its obligations under the Geneva Conventions, victims instead worked with activists and lawyers to bring cases before the European Court of Human Rights. Starting in 2003, the Court has found against Russia in some 250 cases – in effect bringing the higher standards of human rights law to the domain of armed conflict, normally regulated (with mixed success) by international humanitarian law (“laws of war”). The first step in the process of understanding this normative change is to identify and understand the transformation: from a normative standpoint, the Court rulings constitute a major achievement for civilian protections during wartime; they build on earlier precedents in cases against Turkey and the United Kingdom, which not only expand protections for civilians but also extend the espace juridique of the Court’s competence beyond Europe to include, for example, British military forces in Iraq. The second step provides a social-sciences perspective by adding an empirical dimension to the study of these cases. We see that the actual consequences of the Court’s decisions on the military practices of Russia and other states have been limited and may even portend a backlash that could undermine protections for civilians in warfare. The last step of normative analysis suggests that even if appeals to a court of human rights might not serve the goal of reducing war crimes in general, the use of human-rights norms retains a certain plausibility to the extent that if offers victims an opportunity to present their claims and seek remedies.