反对对反干预学说的不对称解释

C. Henderson
{"title":"反对对反干预学说的不对称解释","authors":"C. Henderson","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Adherents to the so-called ‘negative equality’ principle agree that an exception exists in the form of the doctrine of counter-intervention. This exception is, however, seen as operating asymmetrically, in that while states are permitted to counter-intervene in support of governmental regimes they are not permitted to intervene in support of non-state opposition groups should the governmental regime be in receipt of prior assistance in the context of the civil war. The purpose of this article is to probe the asymmetrical interpretation of the doctrine of counter-intervention in testing whether it can be said to stand up to scrutiny, as well as explore the possibilities for a symmetrical interpretation of the doctrine and the legal and policy issues involved in extending it in this way.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"34 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A countering of the asymmetrical interpretation of the doctrine of counter-intervention\",\"authors\":\"C. Henderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Adherents to the so-called ‘negative equality’ principle agree that an exception exists in the form of the doctrine of counter-intervention. This exception is, however, seen as operating asymmetrically, in that while states are permitted to counter-intervene in support of governmental regimes they are not permitted to intervene in support of non-state opposition groups should the governmental regime be in receipt of prior assistance in the context of the civil war. The purpose of this article is to probe the asymmetrical interpretation of the doctrine of counter-intervention in testing whether it can be said to stand up to scrutiny, as well as explore the possibilities for a symmetrical interpretation of the doctrine and the legal and policy issues involved in extending it in this way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"34 - 66\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872\",\"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/10.1080/20531702.2021.1917872","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: 0

摘要

摘要:所谓“消极平等”原则的拥护者一致认为,反干预原则是一种例外。然而,这一例外被视为不对称运作,因为尽管国家被允许反干预以支持政府政权,但如果政府政权在内战中事先获得援助,则不允许国家干预以支持非国家反对派团体。本文的目的是探讨对反干预学说的不对称解释,以测试它是否可以说经得起审查,并探讨对该学说进行对称解释的可能性,以及以这种方式扩展该学说所涉及的法律和政策问题。
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
A countering of the asymmetrical interpretation of the doctrine of counter-intervention
ABSTRACT Adherents to the so-called ‘negative equality’ principle agree that an exception exists in the form of the doctrine of counter-intervention. This exception is, however, seen as operating asymmetrically, in that while states are permitted to counter-intervene in support of governmental regimes they are not permitted to intervene in support of non-state opposition groups should the governmental regime be in receipt of prior assistance in the context of the civil war. The purpose of this article is to probe the asymmetrical interpretation of the doctrine of counter-intervention in testing whether it can be said to stand up to scrutiny, as well as explore the possibilities for a symmetrical interpretation of the doctrine and the legal and policy issues involved in extending it in this way.
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