【摘要】：“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”是二十一世紀(jì)初產(chǎn)生的一個(gè)新的理論，該理論主要源自于國(guó)際社會(huì)在面對(duì)人道主義災(zāi)難時(shí)應(yīng)該做出如何反應(yīng)的深刻的歷史背景，并建立在主權(quán)原則的基礎(chǔ)上，適應(yīng)著新型安全觀和保障人權(quán)的國(guó)際化要求。理論自提出以來(lái)，引起了國(guó)際社會(huì)的廣泛關(guān)注，隨著頻繁見(jiàn)諸于國(guó)際文件和報(bào)告中，在理論層面不斷豐富和發(fā)展自己的內(nèi)涵，終于于2005年《世界首腦會(huì)議成果》確定下了具體的概念，即主權(quán)國(guó)家有責(zé)任保護(hù)其人民免受滅絕種族、戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪、族裔清洗和危害人類(lèi)罪之害，，當(dāng)主權(quán)國(guó)家不能或者不愿意保護(hù)其人民免遭四種罪之害時(shí)，國(guó)際社會(huì)有責(zé)任保護(hù)之。但是，在其他方面，各個(gè)國(guó)家還存在分歧。 “保護(hù)的責(zé)任”的出現(xiàn)給傳統(tǒng)的國(guó)際法理論帶來(lái)了一定的沖擊，也與較前的人道主義干涉相區(qū)別，它一方面承認(rèn)國(guó)家主權(quán)固有的內(nèi)涵，同意主權(quán)國(guó)家對(duì)其對(duì)內(nèi)事務(wù)的享有最高的、排他性的管轄權(quán)，另一方面又豐富了主權(quán)隨著新時(shí)代發(fā)展所內(nèi)化出的責(zé)任觀，即主權(quán)意味著責(zé)任，最終得出“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”并沒(méi)有像某些學(xué)者所擔(dān)憂的那樣弱化了國(guó)家主權(quán)，而是在新的時(shí)代背景下建立的一個(gè)負(fù)責(zé)任的主權(quán)的結(jié)論。有學(xué)者認(rèn)為，“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”僅僅是人道主義干涉的一個(gè)新措辭，但是我們發(fā)現(xiàn)這是一個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的觀點(diǎn)，該理論已經(jīng)將軍事干預(yù)納入了聯(lián)合國(guó)的整體框架下，這是與人道主義干涉相比最具代表性的區(qū)別。 本文通過(guò)對(duì)現(xiàn)有的“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”的理論框架進(jìn)行歸納總結(jié)，整理出其脈絡(luò)，再?gòu)膶?shí)證上分析該理論的運(yùn)用，針對(duì)理論現(xiàn)存的弊端和需要注意的問(wèn)題提出一些學(xué)術(shù)上的思考建議，尤其是最為敏感的軍事干預(yù)如何規(guī)范的問(wèn)題可以說(shuō)是頗費(fèi)筆墨，最后從我國(guó)的立場(chǎng)出發(fā)，分析我國(guó)現(xiàn)階段對(duì)“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”的態(tài)度，以及對(duì)在“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”框架進(jìn)一步發(fā)展的過(guò)程中我國(guó)應(yīng)該怎樣應(yīng)對(duì)的問(wèn)題進(jìn)行了說(shuō)明。 本文第一部分從“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”的產(chǎn)生背景著手，引出了該理論的形成與發(fā)展的整個(gè)過(guò)程，第二部分從理論構(gòu)建角度論述了該理論存在的法理基礎(chǔ)以及其出現(xiàn)對(duì)傳統(tǒng)國(guó)際法理論帶來(lái)的沖擊，并分析了該理論自己的框架。第三部分以利比亞危機(jī)為例，論述了該理論在實(shí)踐中遇到的困境，并針對(duì)困境提出了完善的建議，最后以落腳到我國(guó)作為論文的結(jié)尾。
[Abstract]:The responsibility to protect (R2P) is a new theory that emerged in the early 21 century. It derives mainly from the profound historical background of how the international community should react in the face of humanitarian disasters and is based on the principle of sovereignty. Adapt to the new security concept and safeguard the international requirements of human rights. Since the theory was put forward, it has aroused the widespread concern of the international community. Along with its frequent appearance in international documents and reports, it has continuously enriched and developed its connotation at the theoretical level. Finally, the 2005 World Summit outcome established a specific concept that sovereign States have the responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, When sovereign States are unable or unwilling to protect their populations from the four crimes, the international community has a responsibility to protect them. But in other ways, there are differences among countries. The emergence of the "responsibility to protect" has had a certain impact on the traditional theory of international law and is different from the earlier humanitarian intervention, which, on the one hand, recognizes the inherent connotation of State sovereignty, Agreeing that sovereign States enjoy the highest and exclusive jurisdiction over their internal affairs and, on the other hand, enriching the concept of responsibility inherent in sovereignty as a result of the development of the new era, that is, sovereignty implies responsibility, The ultimate conclusion is that the responsibility to protect does not weaken state sovereignty as some scholars fear, but rather establishes a responsible sovereignty in the new era. Some scholars believe that the "responsibility to protect" is only a new term for humanitarian intervention, but we find that this is a false view, which has incorporated military intervention into the overall framework of the United Nations. This is the most representative distinction compared with humanitarian intervention. This paper summarizes the existing theoretical framework of "responsibility to protect", collates its context, and then empirically analyzes the application of the theory. In view of the existing drawbacks of the theory and the problems needing attention, some academic suggestions are put forward, especially the most sensitive question of how to regulate military intervention, which can be said to be painstaking. Finally, from the standpoint of our country, This paper analyzes our country's attitude towards "responsibility to protect" at present, and explains how to deal with the problems in the process of further development of "responsibility to protect". The first part of this paper begins with the background of "responsibility to protect", and leads to the whole process of the formation and development of the theory. The second part discusses the legal basis of the existence of the theory and its impact on the traditional theory of international law from the perspective of theoretical construction, and analyzes its own framework. The third part takes the Libyan crisis as an example, discusses the difficulties encountered in the practice of the theory, and puts forward some suggestions for the difficulties. Finally, the end of the paper is to settle down to our country.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D998.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 戴軼;;試論安理會(huì)授權(quán)使用武力的法律規(guī)制[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2008年03期

2 付海娜;姜恒昆;;保護(hù)的責(zé)任與國(guó)家主權(quán)的實(shí)質(zhì)——兼論達(dá)爾富爾沖突及其出路[J];國(guó)際關(guān)系學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年02期

3 汪舒明;;“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”與美國(guó)對(duì)外干預(yù)的新變化——以利比亞危機(jī)為個(gè)案[J];國(guó)際展望;2012年06期

4 何蘭;;從西亞北非動(dòng)蕩看西方干涉主義新特點(diǎn)[J];思想理論教育導(dǎo)刊;2012年08期

5 趙洲;;“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”機(jī)制中的武力強(qiáng)制措施[J];南通大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年03期

6 袁娟娟;;從干涉的權(quán)利到保護(hù)的責(zé)任——對(duì)國(guó)家主權(quán)的重新詮釋和定位[J];河北法學(xué);2012年08期

7 楊永紅;;從利比亞到敘利亞——保護(hù)責(zé)任走到盡頭了?[J];世界經(jīng)濟(jì)與政治論壇;2012年03期

本文編號(hào)：2390914