乌克兰和西方的双重标准

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW Journal of International Criminal Justice Pub Date : 2022-11-23 DOI:10.1093/jicj/mqac041
Kai Ambos
{"title":"乌克兰和西方的双重标准","authors":"Kai Ambos","doi":"10.1093/jicj/mqac041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The West, under the leadership of the US, EU and NATO, claims to be defending a rules-based international order by way of its support for Ukraine, including its call for full accountability. Regrettably, however, this claim fails to fully convince given the inconsistencies in the West’s approach to international (criminal) law. I will develop this counterclaim in three steps: first, I will argue that the Western approach to the Russian aggression is by no means universally accepted, especially not in the Global South (Part 2). Secondly, I will try to explain, at least partly, the reason for this limited support by pointing out both historical and more recent Western inconsistencies with regard to international law (Part 3). On this basis I will then, by way of conclusion, call for (greater) Western consistency in international law, while formulating some caveats at the same time (Part 4).","PeriodicalId":46732,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ukraine and the Double Standards of the West\",\"authors\":\"Kai Ambos\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jicj/mqac041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The West, under the leadership of the US, EU and NATO, claims to be defending a rules-based international order by way of its support for Ukraine, including its call for full accountability. Regrettably, however, this claim fails to fully convince given the inconsistencies in the West’s approach to international (criminal) law. I will develop this counterclaim in three steps: first, I will argue that the Western approach to the Russian aggression is by no means universally accepted, especially not in the Global South (Part 2). Secondly, I will try to explain, at least partly, the reason for this limited support by pointing out both historical and more recent Western inconsistencies with regard to international law (Part 3). On this basis I will then, by way of conclusion, call for (greater) Western consistency in international law, while formulating some caveats at the same time (Part 4).\",\"PeriodicalId\":46732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac041\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqac041","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国、欧盟和北约的领导下,西方声称通过对乌克兰的支持来捍卫基于规则的国际秩序,包括呼吁全面问责。然而,令人遗憾的是,鉴于西方对国际(刑事)法的态度不一致,这种说法未能完全令人信服。我将分三步阐述这一反诉:首先,我将论证西方对俄罗斯侵略的态度绝不是被普遍接受的,尤其是在全球南方(第2部分)。其次,我将试图通过指出西方在国际法方面的历史和最近的不一致来解释,至少部分地解释这种有限支持的原因(第3部分)。在此基础上,我将通过结论的方式,呼吁(更大的)西方在国际法上的一致性。同时提出一些注意事项(第4部分)。
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
Ukraine and the Double Standards of the West
The West, under the leadership of the US, EU and NATO, claims to be defending a rules-based international order by way of its support for Ukraine, including its call for full accountability. Regrettably, however, this claim fails to fully convince given the inconsistencies in the West’s approach to international (criminal) law. I will develop this counterclaim in three steps: first, I will argue that the Western approach to the Russian aggression is by no means universally accepted, especially not in the Global South (Part 2). Secondly, I will try to explain, at least partly, the reason for this limited support by pointing out both historical and more recent Western inconsistencies with regard to international law (Part 3). On this basis I will then, by way of conclusion, call for (greater) Western consistency in international law, while formulating some caveats at the same time (Part 4).
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
22.20%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: The Journal of International Criminal Justice aims to promote a profound collective reflection on the new problems facing international law. Established by a group of distinguished criminal lawyers and international lawyers, the Journal addresses the major problems of justice from the angle of law, jurisprudence, criminology, penal philosophy, and the history of international judicial institutions. It is intended for graduate and post-graduate students, practitioners, academics, government officials, as well as the hundreds of people working for international criminal courts.
期刊最新文献
The Biological Weapons Amendment to the ICC Statute and National Provisions Victims’ Perspectives on Participation in the Ongwen Case Witnessing Ongwen The Ongwen Case at the International Criminal Court as a Test of the Court’s Outreach Programming in Northern Uganda Targeted Sanctions as a Pathway to Accountability
×
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