卢旺达和罗兴亚人

David J. Simon
{"title":"卢旺达和罗兴亚人","authors":"David J. Simon","doi":"10.1163/18754112-0220104013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda led the United Nations and global civil society to attempt to reinvent the international atrocity prevention regime. The advent of the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect was to supposed to represent a new-found dedication to the goal of preventing mass atrocities and to intervene to stop them when they do break out. However, the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, who have been subject to years of persecution, ethnic cleansing, and – since 2017 – many elements of genocide, suggests that there has been more continuity than change. Rather, many of the same issues that plagued the global response to Rwanda are problematic again with respect to the Rohingya. This essay examines both the promise of change in the global anti-atrocity regime after Rwanda as well as the shortcomings that continue to plague the international response to atrocity.","PeriodicalId":38927,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-0220104013","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rwanda and the Rohingya\",\"authors\":\"David J. Simon\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/18754112-0220104013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda led the United Nations and global civil society to attempt to reinvent the international atrocity prevention regime. The advent of the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect was to supposed to represent a new-found dedication to the goal of preventing mass atrocities and to intervene to stop them when they do break out. However, the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, who have been subject to years of persecution, ethnic cleansing, and – since 2017 – many elements of genocide, suggests that there has been more continuity than change. Rather, many of the same issues that plagued the global response to Rwanda are problematic again with respect to the Rohingya. This essay examines both the promise of change in the global anti-atrocity regime after Rwanda as well as the shortcomings that continue to plague the international response to atrocity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Peacekeeping\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/18754112-0220104013\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Peacekeeping\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-0220104013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Peacekeeping","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-0220104013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

1994年在卢旺达发生的针对图西族的种族灭绝导致联合国和全球民间社会试图重塑国际暴行预防制度。保护责任学说的出现本应代表一种新的献身精神,致力于防止大规模暴行,并在暴行爆发时进行干预以阻止暴行。然而,缅甸罗兴亚人的处境表明,他们遭受了多年的迫害、种族清洗,自2017年以来,还遭受了许多种族灭绝的因素,这表明他们的处境与其说是变化,不如说是连续性。相反,困扰全球应对卢旺达的许多同样的问题,对罗兴亚人来说又成了问题。本文探讨了卢旺达事件后全球反暴行制度变革的前景,以及继续困扰国际社会应对暴行的缺点。
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
Rwanda and the Rohingya
The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda led the United Nations and global civil society to attempt to reinvent the international atrocity prevention regime. The advent of the doctrine of the Responsibility to Protect was to supposed to represent a new-found dedication to the goal of preventing mass atrocities and to intervene to stop them when they do break out. However, the situation of the Rohingya in Myanmar, who have been subject to years of persecution, ethnic cleansing, and – since 2017 – many elements of genocide, suggests that there has been more continuity than change. Rather, many of the same issues that plagued the global response to Rwanda are problematic again with respect to the Rohingya. This essay examines both the promise of change in the global anti-atrocity regime after Rwanda as well as the shortcomings that continue to plague the international response to atrocity.
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
Journal of International Peacekeeping
Journal of International Peacekeeping Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊最新文献
Safeguarding Freedom of Religion or Belief to Prevent Conflicts and Mass Atrocities in Southeast Asia: the Role of Parliamentarians The Civil Society-Military Interface in the Protection of Civilians: the Bangsamoro Case Re-imagining asean and the Quest for Peace: Challenges and Prospects for Peacebuilding, Conflict Prevention, and Atrocities Prevention Conflict Management and Atrocity Prevention in Southeast Asia: Making asean “Fit for Purpose” Responding to Atrocities in Myanmar after the February 2021 Coup: Options for asean beyond Normative and Structural Constraints
×
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