俄罗斯对乌克兰的攻击和战时法

James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys
{"title":"俄罗斯对乌克兰的攻击和战时法","authors":"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of – or ‘special military operation’ in – Ukraine has sent shock waves across the globe. In this editorial the Editors-in-Chief of JUFIL examine in detail the legal justifications advanced by President Putin for Russia’s use of military force and subject them to scrutiny. Doing so highlights just how devoid of substance and credibility they are within the context of the jus ad bellum as it exists today. Furthermore, the Editors reflect on some of the broader questions that this use of military force poses for the jus ad bellum, including what the invasion of Ukraine says about the efficacy of the contemporary jus ad bellum and what is – or what might be – the ultimate impact upon the rules and norms governing the use of force.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"9 1","pages":"4 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum\",\"authors\":\"James A. Green, C. Henderson, T. Ruys\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of – or ‘special military operation’ in – Ukraine has sent shock waves across the globe. In this editorial the Editors-in-Chief of JUFIL examine in detail the legal justifications advanced by President Putin for Russia’s use of military force and subject them to scrutiny. Doing so highlights just how devoid of substance and credibility they are within the context of the jus ad bellum as it exists today. Furthermore, the Editors reflect on some of the broader questions that this use of military force poses for the jus ad bellum, including what the invasion of Ukraine says about the efficacy of the contemporary jus ad bellum and what is – or what might be – the ultimate impact upon the rules and norms governing the use of force.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"4 - 30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

2022年2月24日,俄罗斯入侵乌克兰——或称“特别军事行动”——在全球引发了冲击波。在这篇社论中,JUFIL的主编详细审查了普京总统为俄罗斯使用军事力量提出的法律理由,并对其进行了审查。这样做突显出,在目前存在的战争法的背景下,它们是多么缺乏实质内容和可信度。此外,编辑们还反思了这种使用武力对战时法提出的一些更广泛的问题,包括入侵乌克兰对当代战时法效力的看法,以及对管理使用武力的规则和规范的最终影响是什么,或者可能是什么。
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
Russia’s attack on Ukraine and the jus ad bellum
ABSTRACT The 24 February 2022 Russian invasion of – or ‘special military operation’ in – Ukraine has sent shock waves across the globe. In this editorial the Editors-in-Chief of JUFIL examine in detail the legal justifications advanced by President Putin for Russia’s use of military force and subject them to scrutiny. Doing so highlights just how devoid of substance and credibility they are within the context of the jus ad bellum as it exists today. Furthermore, the Editors reflect on some of the broader questions that this use of military force poses for the jus ad bellum, including what the invasion of Ukraine says about the efficacy of the contemporary jus ad bellum and what is – or what might be – the ultimate impact upon the rules and norms governing the use of force.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Quashing protests abroad: The CSTO’s intervention in Kazakhstan Intervention by invitation and the scope of state consent Anticipatory consent to military intervention: analysis in the wake of the coup d’état in Niger in 2023 The war in Ukraine and legal limitations on Russian vetoes Digest of state practice: 1 January – 30 June 2023
×
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