【摘要】：發(fā)生在21世紀(jì)初的“9·11”事件,對(duì)國(guó)際關(guān)系的發(fā)展產(chǎn)生了巨大影響,反恐成為全球化過(guò)程中的一個(gè)重要課題。此前雖然國(guó)際社會(huì)出于對(duì)地區(qū)性恐怖活動(dòng)的關(guān)注,制定了不少?lài)?guó)際公約和議定書(shū),但是聯(lián)合國(guó)會(huì)員國(guó)加入的比例很低。“9·11”事件之后,恐怖活動(dòng)的國(guó)際化使得加入比例快速上升,國(guó)際反恐立法也在此背景下得到更快發(fā)展。“9·11”事件也催生了利用國(guó)際法上的自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論打擊恐怖主義活動(dòng)這一全新實(shí)踐。雖然“9·11”事件已經(jīng)過(guò)去近十年,但是國(guó)際反恐立法仍然在發(fā)展,關(guān)于2001年美國(guó)出于自衛(wèi)對(duì)阿富汗發(fā)動(dòng)反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的爭(zhēng)論仍然沒(méi)有停止,而關(guān)于2003年美國(guó)以“預(yù)先自衛(wèi)”為由對(duì)伊拉克發(fā)動(dòng)的反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的爭(zhēng)論更是激烈。筆者認(rèn)為目前國(guó)際法上反恐的思路大致有兩種,一是通過(guò)國(guó)際立法合作進(jìn)行反恐,二是利用自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論作為打擊恐怖主義活動(dòng)的法律基礎(chǔ),這兩種思路既相互依賴(lài),又各有所不同。目前的國(guó)際反恐合作的法律領(lǐng)域呈現(xiàn)以下兩個(gè)特征:一是對(duì)以新手段進(jìn)行的恐怖主義活動(dòng)進(jìn)行定罪沒(méi)有異議,這方面的公約也進(jìn)展順利,豐富完善了國(guó)際反恐立法;二是一些長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)的爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題仍然沒(méi)有得到解決,這也反映出了目前國(guó)際法上反恐的現(xiàn)狀,雖然國(guó)際反恐立法已初成體系,并且還有新發(fā)展,但是國(guó)際反恐立法所能解決的問(wèn)題仍然有限,其固有的滯后性的特征無(wú)法滿(mǎn)足及時(shí)打擊恐怖主義活動(dòng)的需要;利用自衛(wèi)權(quán)打擊恐怖主義活動(dòng)雖然能夠及時(shí)地維護(hù)受害國(guó)的權(quán)益,但是反恐戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)極易突破應(yīng)有的限度,原因就在于并沒(méi)有關(guān)于監(jiān)督自衛(wèi)權(quán)行使的國(guó)際立法。為了充分說(shuō)明這兩條法理路徑及二者之間的關(guān)系,筆者對(duì)大量有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了分析并給出了自己的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:The "September 11" incident, which occurred in the early 21st century, has had a great impact on the development of international relations, and anti-terrorism has become an important issue in the process of globalization. Previously, although the international community had drawn up a number of international conventions and protocols out of concern for regional terrorist activities, the proportion of UN member States acceding to the "9 / 11" incident was very low. The internationalization of terrorist activities makes the proportion of participation rise rapidly, and the international anti-terrorism legislation develops more rapidly under this background. The "9 / 11" incident has also spawned a new practice of using the theory of the right of self-defence in international law to combat terrorist activities. Although nearly a decade has passed since the "9 / 11" incident, international anti-terrorism legislation is still developing, and the debate over the 2001 US war on terrorism against Afghanistan in self-defence has not stopped. The controversy over the US war on Iraq on the grounds of preemptive self-defense in 2003 was even fiercer. The author thinks that there are two ways of thinking about anti-terrorism in international law at present, one is to carry out anti-terrorism through international legislative cooperation, the other is to use the theory of the right of self-defence as the legal basis for combating terrorist activities. These two ideas are interdependent. It's different. The current legal field of international counter-terrorism cooperation shows the following two characteristics: first, there is no objection to the conviction of terrorist activities by new means, and the conventions in this respect are also progressing smoothly, enriching and perfecting international anti-terrorism legislation; Second, some long-standing controversial issues remain unresolved, which also reflects the current state of international law on counter-terrorism, although international anti-terrorism legislation has become a system and there are new developments. However, the problems that can be solved by international anti-terrorism legislation are still limited, and its inherent lag characteristics cannot meet the needs of combating terrorism in a timely manner; Although the use of the right of self-defence to combat terrorist activities can safeguard the rights and interests of the injured State in time, the war on terror is easy to break through the limits due to the absence of international legislation on the supervision of the exercise of the right to self-defence. In order to fully explain the two legal paths and the relationship between them, the author analyzes a large number of controversial issues and gives his own conclusions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D997.9

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 何秉松,廖斌;恐怖主義概念比較研究[J];比較法研究;2003年04期

2 林麗;;上海合作組織框架下中國(guó)新疆與周邊國(guó)家恐怖主義犯罪及打擊對(duì)策[J];兵團(tuán)教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

3 簡(jiǎn)基松;關(guān)于反對(duì)國(guó)際恐怖主義的若干國(guó)際法問(wèn)題研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

4 馬進(jìn)保;論國(guó)際犯罪中的國(guó)家責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1995年06期

5 肖平;;論恐怖主義的法律性質(zhì)[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

6 簡(jiǎn)基松;“反恐”軍事行動(dòng)對(duì)國(guó)家自衛(wèi)權(quán)規(guī)則的突破[J];法學(xué)雜志;2002年02期

7 趙秉志;杜邈;;在聯(lián)合國(guó)法律框架內(nèi)進(jìn)行反恐斗爭(zhēng)——“全球反恐法律框架”學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)綜述[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年03期

8 梁西;國(guó)際法律秩序的呼喚——“9.11”事件后的理性反思[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2002年01期

9 汪自勇;美國(guó)反恐自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論之批判——從阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)到伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年04期

10 王立民;完善反恐立法 有效打擊恐怖主義犯罪[J];法學(xué);2003年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 李華;國(guó)際恐怖主義與反恐國(guó)際立法問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

2 劉睿;國(guó)際反恐合作對(duì)聯(lián)合國(guó)集體安全機(jī)制的影響[D];北京交通大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2309790