仍然同意不同意见:国际安全和建设性歧义

M. Byers
{"title":"仍然同意不同意见:国际安全和建设性歧义","authors":"M. Byers","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article – which updates and builds on an earlier piece published in Global Governance in 2004 – concerns the deliberate use of redundancies, contradictions, imprecisions and other ambiguities in UN Security Council resolutions on the use of force, centrally including Resolution 1441 on Iraq, Resolution 1973 on Libya, and Resolution 2249 on Syria and Iraq. ‘Constructive ambiguity’, a term generally attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, is employed in many areas of international law. This article identifies five different forms of constructive ambiguity found in Security Council resolutions and suggests reasons for why this drafting strategy is used. It concludes by considering the implications of this research for our understanding of the role of international law in international peace and security. It finds that ambiguity, deployed deliberately and strategically, is not the ‘design weakness’ that some scholars consider it to be.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"91 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Still agreeing to disagree: international security and constructive ambiguity\",\"authors\":\"M. Byers\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article – which updates and builds on an earlier piece published in Global Governance in 2004 – concerns the deliberate use of redundancies, contradictions, imprecisions and other ambiguities in UN Security Council resolutions on the use of force, centrally including Resolution 1441 on Iraq, Resolution 1973 on Libya, and Resolution 2249 on Syria and Iraq. ‘Constructive ambiguity’, a term generally attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, is employed in many areas of international law. This article identifies five different forms of constructive ambiguity found in Security Council resolutions and suggests reasons for why this drafting strategy is used. It concludes by considering the implications of this research for our understanding of the role of international law in international peace and security. It finds that ambiguity, deployed deliberately and strategically, is not the ‘design weakness’ that some scholars consider it to be.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"91 - 114\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656\",\"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/10.1080/20531702.2020.1761656","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: 8

摘要

摘要这篇文章更新并建立在2004年发表在《全球治理》杂志上的一篇文章的基础上,涉及联合国安理会关于使用武力的决议中故意使用冗余、矛盾、不精确和其他模糊之处,其中包括关于伊拉克的第1441号决议、关于利比亚的第1973号决议和关于叙利亚和伊拉克的第2249号决议“建设性歧义”一词通常被认为是美国前国务卿亨利·基辛格的词,在国际法的许多领域都有使用。本条指出了安全理事会决议中存在的五种不同形式的建设性歧义,并提出了使用这一起草战略的原因。最后,它考虑了这项研究对我们理解国际法在国际和平与安全中的作用的影响。它发现,故意和战略性地部署的模糊性并不是一些学者认为的“设计弱点”。
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
Still agreeing to disagree: international security and constructive ambiguity
ABSTRACT This article – which updates and builds on an earlier piece published in Global Governance in 2004 – concerns the deliberate use of redundancies, contradictions, imprecisions and other ambiguities in UN Security Council resolutions on the use of force, centrally including Resolution 1441 on Iraq, Resolution 1973 on Libya, and Resolution 2249 on Syria and Iraq. ‘Constructive ambiguity’, a term generally attributed to former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, is employed in many areas of international law. This article identifies five different forms of constructive ambiguity found in Security Council resolutions and suggests reasons for why this drafting strategy is used. It concludes by considering the implications of this research for our understanding of the role of international law in international peace and security. It finds that ambiguity, deployed deliberately and strategically, is not the ‘design weakness’ that some scholars consider it to be.
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