Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?
Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: Who Should Intervene?
复制标题
人道主义干预和保护责任：谁应该干预？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Newman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Newman
人道主义干预通常被理解为跨界使用军事力量，以制止或避免大规模和严重的人类苦难，是近几十年来引起学术界广泛关注的一个主题。虽然这个主题几个世纪以来一直是正义战争讨论的一部分，并且在冷战后期出版了许多关于人道主义干预的重要著作（例如 Lillich，1973 年编辑；Bull，1984 年编辑；Tesón，1988 年），但它是 20 世纪 90 年代的各种干预措施 - 从第一次海湾战争后在伊拉克实施禁飞区开始，到 1999 年科索沃战争结束干预——引发了对该主题最持续的讨论。使关于人道主义干预的讨论既令人着迷又令人沮丧的原因不仅在于该主题的学术量巨大，还在于这些文献从各种学科的角度探讨了该主题，包括国际法、伦理学、国际关系、政治学和哲学。此外，2000 年代的一些国际事态发展为有关人道主义干预的讨论提供了更多素材，其中最著名的是 2001 年国际干预和国家主权委员会 (ISICC) 的报告《保护的责任》(R2P)，该报告随后在 2005 年联合国世界峰会上通过（修订版），得到联合国安理会的重申，并得到联合国秘书长的认可潘基文在其 2009 年报告中。尽管建议实践
Humanitarian intervention is generally understood to be the trans-boundary use of military force in order to halt or avert large-scale and grave human suffering, and is a subject that has attracted much scholarly attention in recent decades. While the subject has been part of the Just War discourse for centuries, and many important works on humanitarian intervention were published during the later Cold War years (e.g. Lillich, ed. 1973; Bull, ed. 1984; Tesón, 1988), it was the various interventions of the 1990s—beginning with the enforcement of no-fly zones in Iraq following the first Gulf War and ending with the 1999 Kosovo intervention—that provoked the most sustained discussion of this topic. What has made the discussion about humanitarian intervention both fascinating and frustrating is not only the sheer volume of scholarship on this topic, but also the fact that this literature approaches the subject from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including international law, ethics, international relations, political science, and philosophy. Furthermore, a number of international developments during the 2000s have provided even more fodder for the discussion about humanitarian intervention—most notably the publication in 2001 of the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ISICC), The Responsibility to Protect (or R2P), which was subsequently adopted (in revised form) at the 2005 United Nations World Summit, reaffirmed by the UN Security Council, and endorsed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in his 2009 Report. Despite suggestions that the practice of