人道主义干预和保护的责任

R. Thakur
{"title":"人道主义干预和保护的责任","authors":"R. Thakur","doi":"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198803164.013.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-border military intervention is a recurring feature throughout history. Often, geopolitical and commercial calculations were cloaked in the language of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ After decolonization, developing countries embedded non-intervention as a peremptory norm. Many tyrants then used sovereignty as a shield behind which to commit atrocities with impunity. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened to protect victims of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, the Non-Aligned Movement denounced any right of humanitarian intervention. To reconcile the two competing imperatives, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proposed the principle of the ‘responsibility to protect’ to permit UN-authorized protective interventions while consolidating a rules-based order. Although much improved, however, dilemmas remain about when and by whom force can be used inside borders to guarantee human protection.","PeriodicalId":117675,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect\",\"authors\":\"R. Thakur\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198803164.013.25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cross-border military intervention is a recurring feature throughout history. Often, geopolitical and commercial calculations were cloaked in the language of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ After decolonization, developing countries embedded non-intervention as a peremptory norm. Many tyrants then used sovereignty as a shield behind which to commit atrocities with impunity. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened to protect victims of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, the Non-Aligned Movement denounced any right of humanitarian intervention. To reconcile the two competing imperatives, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proposed the principle of the ‘responsibility to protect’ to permit UN-authorized protective interventions while consolidating a rules-based order. Although much improved, however, dilemmas remain about when and by whom force can be used inside borders to guarantee human protection.\",\"PeriodicalId\":117675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198803164.013.25\",\"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 Oxford Handbook on the United Nations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OXFORDHB/9780198803164.013.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

跨境军事干预是历史上反复出现的一个特征。通常,地缘政治和商业考量都被披上了“人道主义干预”的外衣。在非殖民化之后,发展中国家将不干涉作为一项强制性规范。当时,许多暴君以主权为掩护,肆无忌惮地实施暴行。当北大西洋公约组织为保护科索沃塞族暴行的受害者而进行干预时,不结盟运动谴责任何人道主义干预的权利。为了调和这两种相互冲突的必要性,国际干预和国家主权委员会提出了“保护责任”原则,允许联合国授权的保护性干预,同时巩固基于规则的秩序。然而,尽管情况有了很大改善,但关于何时以及由谁在边界内使用武力以保证人类得到保护的问题仍然存在。
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
Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect
Cross-border military intervention is a recurring feature throughout history. Often, geopolitical and commercial calculations were cloaked in the language of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ After decolonization, developing countries embedded non-intervention as a peremptory norm. Many tyrants then used sovereignty as a shield behind which to commit atrocities with impunity. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened to protect victims of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, the Non-Aligned Movement denounced any right of humanitarian intervention. To reconcile the two competing imperatives, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty proposed the principle of the ‘responsibility to protect’ to permit UN-authorized protective interventions while consolidating a rules-based order. Although much improved, however, dilemmas remain about when and by whom force can be used inside borders to guarantee human protection.
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
Cyber Threats UN Development System Political Approaches Human Security Human Rights
×
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