邀请干预和集体自卫:同一枚硬币的两面?

L. Visser
{"title":"邀请干预和集体自卫:同一枚硬币的两面?","authors":"L. Visser","doi":"10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Intervention by invitation and collective self-defence are often dealt with as two distinct justifications to the prohibition of the use of force, thus two separate reasons for states to use force lawfully. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the two concepts appear to be quite similar as both deal with a situation where a state invites/requests the military assistance of another state. This article analyses both concepts and their criteria. It subsequently determines whether they are substantially different or in fact two sides of the same coin.","PeriodicalId":37206,"journal":{"name":"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"292 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intervention by invitation and collective self-defence: two sides of the same coin?\",\"authors\":\"L. Visser\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Intervention by invitation and collective self-defence are often dealt with as two distinct justifications to the prohibition of the use of force, thus two separate reasons for states to use force lawfully. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the two concepts appear to be quite similar as both deal with a situation where a state invites/requests the military assistance of another state. This article analyses both concepts and their criteria. It subsequently determines whether they are substantially different or in fact two sides of the same coin.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"292 - 316\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal on the Use of Force and International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767\",\"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/10.1080/20531702.2020.1834767","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: 7

摘要

邀请干预和集体自卫通常被视为禁止使用武力的两个不同理由,因此国家合法使用武力的理由是两个不同的。然而,经过仔细研究,这两个概念似乎非常相似,因为两者都涉及一个国家邀请/请求另一个国家军事援助的情况。本文分析了这两个概念及其标准。它随后确定它们是实质上不同,还是实际上是同一枚硬币的两面。
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
Intervention by invitation and collective self-defence: two sides of the same coin?
ABSTRACT Intervention by invitation and collective self-defence are often dealt with as two distinct justifications to the prohibition of the use of force, thus two separate reasons for states to use force lawfully. Upon closer scrutiny, however, the two concepts appear to be quite similar as both deal with a situation where a state invites/requests the military assistance of another state. This article analyses both concepts and their criteria. It subsequently determines whether they are substantially different or in fact two sides of the same coin.
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