The International Society's Complementary Role in Mass Atrocities Responses: The Responsibility to Protect and The Responsibility to Prosecute

国际协会在应对大规模暴行中的补充作用：保护的责任和起诉的责任

• 批准号: 1948650
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: University of Leeds
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2017
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2017 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1948650
• 关键词: International; Society; Complementary; Role; Mass

This interdisciplinary research project draws on the International Relations and International Criminal Law scholarship to explore new security and justice approaches to mass atrocity crises. Specifically, it examines the relationship between two emerging norms: the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) populations from mass atrocities and the Responsibility to Prosecute perpetrators of mass crimes, through the International Criminal Court (ICC), and how they advance new protection approaches. The International Relations literature on the R2P-ICC relationship is growing. Many see the Responsibility to Prosecute as implicit in R2P. The UN Secretary General and the ICC Prosecutor see the Court as a key tool for implementing R2P. International law scholars, however, tend to focus their analysis either on R2P or the ICC from a legal perspective, whereas this research seeks to add a more normative perspective. Despite the growing literature, there is a research gap regarding the normative status of the Responsibility to Prosecute, its normative relation to R2P and the changing nature of the legal-political knowledge concerning responses to mass atrocities and how this affects policy. This research seeks to address this lacuna and to achieve three goals. The first objective is to examine the origins and the 'making' of these responsibilities, focusing on the Responsibility to Prosecute, which is underresearched.Following World War II, new international criminal justice principles developed, such as the 'duty to prosecute' and 'prosecute or extradite'. The Responsibility to Prosecute is a new term in the international criminal justice language. This research investigates who are the actors involved in creating this concept (governments, international organisations, academics, NGOs) and its history. Despite claims that the Responsibility to Prosecute goes back to the Nuremberg Trials, this thesis looks at it in the context of the emergence of R2P and the establishment of the ICC. This is significant because it illustrates that there is a push for these responsibilities to be linked. Second, this thesis examines the Responsibility to Prosecute and R2P's normative and legal status. It explores whether the Responsibility to Prosecute is a norm and has the same status and normative ambitions as R2P. It investigates the relation between punishment and protection and what 'in the interest of justice' ICC principle means. It then examines whether these responsibilities include any legal obligations or customary international law elements. This will allow me to look at state practice and discourse to analyse whether the great powers agree that there are Responsibilities to Protect and Prosecute, which is significant for understanding why states fulfil (or fail to fulfil) these responsibilities. The final objective is to examine how togetherthese responsibilities advance a protection discourse (a framework of thinking about protection) that is inherently interventionist and sees protection, justice and peace as order through liberal institutional governance. Conclusions will be drawn regarding the legal and political implications of this discourse, how it marginalises alternative approaches to protection and justice, and how it influences policy. I will use qualitative research methods, focusing on interpretative approaches. Utilising a Constructivist perspective, I will examine norm development and study the beliefs and meanings surrounding the two responsibilities. Primary data will add an element of originality, by conducting elite interviews with representatives of states, the ICC, the UN Joint Office on the Prevention of Genocide and R2P, and NGOs, such as the Global Centre for R2P and the Coalition for the ICC. This diverse data set will provide the basis for a detailed examination of the role that the Responsibilities to Protect and Prosecute play in the (re)production of the social and political order.

这个跨学科的研究项目借鉴了国际关系和国际刑法奖学金，探索新的安全和正义的方法来解决大规模暴行危机。具体而言，它审查了两个新的规范之间的关系：保护责任（R2 P）人口免受大规模暴行和责任，以防止大规模犯罪的肇事者，通过国际刑事法院（ICC），以及他们如何推进新的保护方法。关于保护责任与国际刑事法院关系的国际关系文献越来越多。许多人认为保护责任中隐含着保护责任。联合国秘书长和国际刑事法院检察官将法院视为履行保护责任的关键工具。然而，国际法学者倾向于从法律的角度分析保护责任或国际刑事法院，而本研究则试图增加一个更规范的角度。尽管文献越来越多，但在保护责任的规范地位、保护责任与保护责任的规范关系、应对大规模暴行的法律-政治知识不断变化的性质及其如何影响政策等方面，仍存在研究空白。本研究旨在解决这一空白，并实现三个目标。第一个目标是审查这些责任的起源和“制造”，重点是起诉的责任，这是研究不足。第二次世界大战后，新的国际刑事司法原则的发展，如“起诉的义务”和“起诉或引渡”。预防责任是国际刑事司法语言中的一个新术语。本研究调查了参与创造这一概念的行为者（政府，国际组织，学术界，非政府组织）及其历史。尽管有人声称保护责任可以追溯到纽伦堡审判，但本文将其置于保护责任的出现和国际刑事法院的成立的背景下进行研究。这一点意义重大，因为它表明，有一种将这些责任联系起来的推动力。其次，本文考察了保护责任和保护责任的规范性和法律的地位。它探讨了保护责任是否是一种规范，是否具有与保护责任相同的地位和规范目标。探讨了惩罚与保护的关系以及国际刑事法院的“为了正义”原则的含义。然后审查这些责任是否包括任何法律的义务或习惯国际法要素。这将使我能够审视国家实践和话语，以分析大国是否同意存在保护和预防责任，这对于理解为什么国家履行（或未能履行）这些责任具有重要意义。最后一个目标是审查这些责任如何共同推动一种保护论述（一种关于保护的思考框架），这种论述本身就是干预主义的，并将保护、正义与和平视为通过自由的机构治理建立的秩序。将得出结论，关于这种话语的法律的和政治影响，它如何边缘化的保护和正义的替代方法，以及它如何影响政策。我将使用定性研究方法，重点是解释性方法。利用建构主义的观点，我将检查规范的发展和研究的信念和意义周围的两个责任。原始数据将通过与各国、国际刑事法院、联合国防止种族灭绝和保护责任联合办公室以及保护责任全球中心和国际刑事法院联盟等非政府组织的代表进行精英访谈，增加原创性。这一多样化的数据集将为详细审查保护责任和保护责任在社会和政治秩序的（再）生产中发挥的作用提供基础。