The Responsibility to Protect: ‘Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing’?
The Responsibility to Protect: ‘Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing’?
复制标题
保护的责任：“喧哗与骚动毫无意义”？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Aidan Hehir
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aidan Hehir
自2001年国际干预与国家主权委员会发表报告以来，“保护责任”一词一直主导着关于人道主义干预的辩论。如今，R2P似乎已经成为该领域所有研究人员的必备参照点，而R2P几乎无处不在，证明了这一想法的有效营销。然而，这篇文章将争辩说，这个术语的通用语掩盖了它的空洞。不可否认，R2P改变了围绕人道主义干预的讨论，并可能扩大了人们对这一主题的兴趣，但它几乎没有贡献实质或说明性的优点。尽管起草报告的任务是调和国际人权与国家主权，但它回避了关键问题，即联合国安全理事会的实质性改革、单方面人道主义干预的合法性和干预的门槛。自2001年以来，重点从应对转向预防，回避了促使国际空间站起草其报告的关键问题，未能提供可行或创新的办法。
The term ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) has dominated debate on humanitarian intervention since the publication in 2001 of the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS). Today ‘R2P’ has become a seemingly obligatory reference point for all researchers in this field and R2P’s near ubiquity is testament to the effective marketing of the idea. This article will argue, however, that the currency of the term obscures its hollowness. R2P has undeniably changed the discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention, and possibly broadened interest in the subject, but it has contributed little of substance or prescriptive merit. Though the report was drafted with the mandate to reconcile international human rights with state sovereignty it fudged the key issues, namely, substantive reform of the United Nations Security Council, the legitimacy of unilateral humanitarian intervention and the threshold for intervention. The shift in focus from response to prevention since 2001 evades the key issue which prompted the ICISS to draft its report and fails to provide a viable or innovative approach.