争取国际刑事责任的斗争尚未解决

R. Falk
{"title":"争取国际刑事责任的斗争尚未解决","authors":"R. Falk","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter rejects the view that the anti-aggression norm affirmed by the Pact of Paris, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the UN Charter “remade the world” in a manner that reduced the relevance of intergovernmental wars to the conduct of international relations. It argues that geopolitical primacy of dominant states persists, which has rendered impotent the anti-aggression norm, and related efforts to impose individual criminal accountability in war/peace contexts. The unfortunate result is that international warfare has remained integral to the Westphalian framework of world order. For this reason, the anti-aggression norm has not had a transformative impact, but has led to a variety of accommodating developments, such as “impunity,” “victor’s justice,” and “double standards.” Only transnational civil society initiatives, such as peoples’ tribunals, take the anti-aggression norm and the guidance of the Nuremberg Principles in a manner that aspires to remake the world. Such a dramatic overcoming of war seems to depend on a movement from below, not reforms from above by governments or through the United Nations.","PeriodicalId":416751,"journal":{"name":"The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Unresolved Struggle for International Criminal Accountability\",\"authors\":\"R. Falk\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter rejects the view that the anti-aggression norm affirmed by the Pact of Paris, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the UN Charter “remade the world” in a manner that reduced the relevance of intergovernmental wars to the conduct of international relations. It argues that geopolitical primacy of dominant states persists, which has rendered impotent the anti-aggression norm, and related efforts to impose individual criminal accountability in war/peace contexts. The unfortunate result is that international warfare has remained integral to the Westphalian framework of world order. For this reason, the anti-aggression norm has not had a transformative impact, but has led to a variety of accommodating developments, such as “impunity,” “victor’s justice,” and “double standards.” Only transnational civil society initiatives, such as peoples’ tribunals, take the anti-aggression norm and the guidance of the Nuremberg Principles in a manner that aspires to remake the world. Such a dramatic overcoming of war seems to depend on a movement from below, not reforms from above by governments or through the United Nations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2020","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197618721.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章反对《巴黎条约》、《纽伦堡审判》和《联合国宪章》所确认的反侵略准则以一种降低政府间战争对国际关系行为的相关性的方式“重塑了世界”的观点。它认为,主导国家的地缘政治首要地位仍然存在,这使得反侵略规范以及在战争/和平背景下施加个人犯罪责任的相关努力变得无能为力。不幸的结果是,国际战争仍然是威斯特伐利亚世界秩序框架的组成部分。因此,反侵略准则并没有产生变革性的影响,反而导致了“有罪不罚”、“胜利者的正义”和“双重标准”等各种顺应性的发展。只有诸如人民法庭之类的跨国民间社会倡议,才能以一种渴望改造世界的方式采取反侵略准则和纽伦堡原则的指导。如此戏剧性的战胜战争似乎依赖于自下而上的运动,而不是政府或联合国自上而下的改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Unresolved Struggle for International Criminal Accountability
This chapter rejects the view that the anti-aggression norm affirmed by the Pact of Paris, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the UN Charter “remade the world” in a manner that reduced the relevance of intergovernmental wars to the conduct of international relations. It argues that geopolitical primacy of dominant states persists, which has rendered impotent the anti-aggression norm, and related efforts to impose individual criminal accountability in war/peace contexts. The unfortunate result is that international warfare has remained integral to the Westphalian framework of world order. For this reason, the anti-aggression norm has not had a transformative impact, but has led to a variety of accommodating developments, such as “impunity,” “victor’s justice,” and “double standards.” Only transnational civil society initiatives, such as peoples’ tribunals, take the anti-aggression norm and the guidance of the Nuremberg Principles in a manner that aspires to remake the world. Such a dramatic overcoming of war seems to depend on a movement from below, not reforms from above by governments or through the United Nations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”: A Research Study of a Multifaceted Policy From Pandemic to Apocalypse—Nuclear War as Terminal Disease Appendix of the Part—Topics Covered in the Previous Issues (2008–2019) Introductory Note Introductory Note
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1