本文選題：沖突 + 人道主義干涉　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：自從1648年結(jié)束了三十年戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的威斯特伐利亞條約簽訂之后,主權(quán)和不干涉原則成為了國(guó)際政治的支配原則。主權(quán)意味著國(guó)家之上無(wú)更高的權(quán)威,除非這個(gè)國(guó)家自愿加入某個(gè)組織并服從其管理。不干涉原則意味著國(guó)家在處理本國(guó)的事務(wù)時(shí)不受外國(guó)的干涉。二十世紀(jì)末,幾起外國(guó)干涉他國(guó)內(nèi)政的事件使得國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)威斯特伐利亞體系提出了質(zhì)疑——主權(quán)不再是神圣不可侵犯的。許多政治領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人以及理論家認(rèn)為,人道主義干涉不僅是合法行為,而且在政府侵犯本國(guó)公民人權(quán)的情況下也是必需的。本文以1999年科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)為例,分析了爆發(fā)在塞爾維亞聯(lián)邦共和國(guó)、前南斯拉夫以及北大西洋公約組織(NATO)之間的武裝沖突,凸顯了圍繞人道主義干涉所產(chǎn)生的諸多問(wèn)題。 本文分為5個(gè)部分: 第一章主要用來(lái)介紹研究的背景。國(guó)家間以及國(guó)內(nèi)沖突的增多成為了后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代所面臨的主要挑戰(zhàn)之一,所謂的武裝人道主義干涉也伴隨著沖突而出現(xiàn)。干涉或不干涉,如何對(duì)爆發(fā)國(guó)內(nèi)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的國(guó)家進(jìn)行干涉,這成為了困擾后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代世界的難題。本文以科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)為例,批判性地考察了這場(chǎng)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。在第一章中指出了本研究所關(guān)注的問(wèn)題:科索沃沖突爆發(fā)的歷史和政治背景是什么?北約干涉科索沃沖突是否正確?除了人道主義之外,北約的干涉是否還有其他利益的考慮?科索沃沖突的經(jīng)驗(yàn)教訓(xùn)以及對(duì)后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代國(guó)家治理的啟示是什么?本研究以正義戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)理論為理論框架來(lái)思考以上這些問(wèn)題。正義戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)理論以戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與沖突的道德哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)為前提,提供了判斷戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)以及戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)方式是否正義的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這一理論被應(yīng)用于考察國(guó)家在使用暴力時(shí)的道德義務(wù)。傳統(tǒng)的觀念認(rèn)為戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)以及戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)行為總是受道德條件的約束。正義戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)理論可以追溯到奧古斯丁,其大體分為兩類:國(guó)家訴諸戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的權(quán)利;國(guó)家合法地爭(zhēng)取戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的可能。人道主義干涉被界定為正義行為必須符合這樣的條件:實(shí)行者有著正確的意圖、受到合法的授權(quán)。在這一章中,筆者梳理了相關(guān)的文獻(xiàn)以及眾多學(xué)者關(guān)于干涉理論、后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代沖突的本質(zhì)與特征、科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的研究成果,為本研究搜集了大量的數(shù)據(jù),比較研究的方法也使得本研究的成果較為豐富。 第二章對(duì)冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代的本質(zhì)與特征進(jìn)行了深入的分析,澄清了人道主義干涉的概念。雖然冷戰(zhàn)的結(jié)束對(duì)世界和平產(chǎn)生了有利的影響,但同時(shí)也造成了沖突的增多。冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束所殘留下的大量武器出現(xiàn)在了地區(qū)以及國(guó)家內(nèi)部的沖突之中,這種現(xiàn)象愈發(fā)嚴(yán)重。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代充斥著大量的沖突與戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)。與普遍的預(yù)期不同的是,冷戰(zhàn)的結(jié)束并沒(méi)有為世界絕大部分地區(qū)帶來(lái)永遠(yuǎn)的和平與穩(wěn)定。世界并沒(méi)有從冷戰(zhàn)的結(jié)束中獲得和平,沖突卻隨之而來(lái)。從巴爾干到東帝汶,從非洲大陸到歐洲局部,世界目睹了種族沖突的程度和強(qiáng)度,這些沖突威脅了國(guó)家的生存,導(dǎo)致了國(guó)家的崩潰,也使得諸如“失敗國(guó)家”這樣的表述得以流行。安全分析家也傾向于同意沖突的本質(zhì)在冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束之后已經(jīng)發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)變這一觀點(diǎn)。20世紀(jì)90年代,很多沖突都是發(fā)生在國(guó)家內(nèi)部而非國(guó)家之間,后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代的沖突也與冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代有著顯著的不同。后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代的沖突對(duì)平民(尤其是婦女和兒童)造成了嚴(yán)重的傷害,這也成為了后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代沖突的特征之一。在這些沖突中,武裝集團(tuán)無(wú)視國(guó)際法對(duì)于戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)行為的約束,而平民所遭受的苦難也引發(fā)了國(guó)際社會(huì)的同情。國(guó)家治理的失敗與社會(huì)秩序的崩潰意味著國(guó)際社會(huì)的努力必須超越軍事以及人道主義范疇,通過(guò)和解以及重建有效政府的措施來(lái)解決沖突。聯(lián)合國(guó)負(fù)責(zé)處理世界范圍內(nèi)的沖突,并且在次區(qū)域的層級(jí)上管理沖突,而持續(xù)增多的國(guó)內(nèi)沖突加重了聯(lián)合國(guó)的壓力,同時(shí)也使得研究次區(qū)域組織的活動(dòng)成為了必需。通過(guò)對(duì)沖突管理的考察,以增強(qiáng)世界迎接挑戰(zhàn)的能力。 第三章是考察科索沃沖突爆發(fā)的歷史原因�？扑魑譀_突是后冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)代眾多沖突之一。隨著1980年長(zhǎng)期擔(dān)任南斯拉夫領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的鐵托去世,科索沃阿爾巴尼亞族與南斯拉夫政府的關(guān)系開(kāi)始明顯惡化。整個(gè)80年代,科索沃阿族和南斯拉夫政府的關(guān)系一直緊張。這種緊張關(guān)系在1989年達(dá)到高峰,塞爾維亞共和國(guó)總統(tǒng)斯洛博丹米洛舍維奇正式撤銷科索沃在塞爾維亞共和國(guó)的自治地位。這一行為加劇了本已動(dòng)蕩不安的局勢(shì),并進(jìn)一步導(dǎo)致了塞爾維亞和科索沃沖突的爆發(fā)。對(duì)于南斯拉夫政府在政治上的邊緣化,1990年科索沃阿族宣布科索沃從南斯拉夫獨(dú)立。兩年后,科索沃選舉了議會(huì)并任命卜拉欣魯戈瓦為總統(tǒng)。直到90年代中期,科索沃阿族一直堅(jiān)持魯戈瓦所倡導(dǎo)的和平抵抗政策。然而到1996年,因無(wú)法繼續(xù)獲得國(guó)際社會(huì)對(duì)科索沃阿族事業(yè)的支持,魯戈瓦和他的非暴力反對(duì)政策越來(lái)越不得人心。內(nèi)部的反對(duì)勢(shì)力開(kāi)始采取更為激進(jìn)的方式進(jìn)行反抗,反對(duì)勢(shì)力——科索沃解放軍出現(xiàn)。隨著科索沃解放軍的興起,對(duì)阿爾巴尼亞人的人權(quán)侵犯事件增加,包括任意逮捕和法外處決。以美國(guó)為首的北約和聯(lián)合國(guó),受命通過(guò)外交手段解決危機(jī),提出朗布依埃協(xié)議,作為和平解決沖突的方案。阿爾巴尼亞族和科索沃解放軍最終選擇了談判的道路,但是塞族拒絕簽署協(xié)議。因而北約聲稱別無(wú)選擇,為了拯救科索沃,不得不進(jìn)攻塞爾維亞。 第四章以正義戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)理論來(lái)考察北約的干涉行為。根據(jù)正義戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)理論,北約干涉科索沃沖突是得不償失的。北約以人道主義為借口,違背了聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章的規(guī)定,制造了一個(gè)不好的先例。除了宣傳的維護(hù)人道主義之外,北約的行為也有著其他的目的。北約違背聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章、未經(jīng)授權(quán)就在他國(guó)的領(lǐng)土上進(jìn)行干涉行動(dòng),這一行為不僅損害了美國(guó),也損害了世界。北約自1949年建立以來(lái),被定位于一個(gè)聯(lián)盟,用以保障聯(lián)盟成員的國(guó)家安全。北約規(guī)定有保護(hù)成員的義務(wù),但是南斯拉夫聯(lián)盟共和國(guó)作為一個(gè)主權(quán)國(guó)家,其并非北約成員,同時(shí)也沒(méi)有攻擊北約成員國(guó),但是卻遭到了北約的空襲,因而在干涉科索沃沖突上,北約的行為從歷史邏輯上來(lái)講是矛盾的。聯(lián)合國(guó)是國(guó)際上公認(rèn)的唯一可以授權(quán)進(jìn)行軍事干涉的國(guó)際組織,但是北約的行為并未受到聯(lián)合國(guó)的授權(quán),也并未遵從國(guó)際法的規(guī)定。正確的做法是聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章第39條中的規(guī)定:“安全理事會(huì)應(yīng)斷定任何和平之威脅、和平之破壞、或侵略行為之是否存在,并應(yīng)作成建議或抉擇依第四十一條及第四十二條規(guī)定之辦法,以維持或恢復(fù)國(guó)際和平及安全�！� 第五章是本文的結(jié)論部分。通過(guò)對(duì)科索沃沖突的剖析,可以看出以美國(guó)為首的西方國(guó)家試圖繞開(kāi)聯(lián)合國(guó)或者假借聯(lián)合國(guó)的名義來(lái)推行霸權(quán)主義的行徑。諸如北約這樣的軍事行動(dòng)極大地削弱了聯(lián)合國(guó)的威信,這也使得歐洲以外地區(qū),包括部分歐洲地區(qū)面臨著不合法的軍事干涉的威脅。本文認(rèn)為北約和美國(guó)對(duì)待世界的態(tài)度需要發(fā)生一個(gè)大的轉(zhuǎn)變,不再以充滿敵意的眼光看待世界。聯(lián)合國(guó)確實(shí)需要很多改革,但是到目前為止,其還是維護(hù)世界和平最主要的力量。我們應(yīng)該積極地在聯(lián)合國(guó)的基礎(chǔ)上建立一個(gè)良好的國(guó)際秩序,而不是忽視或者削弱聯(lián)合國(guó)的作用。雖然聯(lián)合國(guó)有著缺陷和不足,但是從世界范圍來(lái)看,其仍是國(guó)際合法性的代表,人道主義干涉需經(jīng)過(guò)聯(lián)合國(guó)的授權(quán)這一原則應(yīng)該始終堅(jiān)持。北約對(duì)塞爾維亞的軍事行動(dòng)因?yàn)橐婚_(kāi)始就繞過(guò)了聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì),因而受到了譴責(zé)。同時(shí),聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)中那些擁有否決權(quán)的國(guó)家對(duì)于是否進(jìn)行軍事干涉的投票也可能會(huì)變成另外一種干涉的形式。
[Abstract]:Since the signing of the thirty year war of Westphalia in 1648, the principle of sovereignty and non intervention has become the dominant principle of international politics. Sovereignty means that there is no higher authority over the state, unless the country voluntarily joins an organization and obeys its management. At the end of the twentieth Century, several foreign interference in the internal affairs of the country led the international community to challenge the Westphalia System - sovereignty is no longer sacred and inviolable. Many political leaders and theorists believe that humanitarian intervention is not only a legal act, but also a government violation of its citizens. In the case of human rights, this article, taking the Kosovo war in 1999 as an example, analyzed the armed conflicts that broke out between the Federal Republic of Serbia, the former Yugoslavia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and highlighted the many questions surrounding the humanitarian intervention.
This article is divided into 5 parts:
The first chapter is mainly used to introduce the background of the study. The increase of inter state and domestic conflicts has become one of the major challenges in the post Cold War era. The so-called armed humanitarian intervention is also accompanied by conflict. Interference or non-interference, how to intervene in the countries of the outbreak of domestic war, has become a post Cold War era. This paper, taking the Kosovo war as an example, examines the war critically. In the first chapter, it points out the concerns of this study: what is the historical and political background of the outbreak of the conflict in Kosovo? Is NATO interfering in Kosovo's conflict correctly? Is there any other interests of NATO's intervention besides humanitarianism? What is the experience and lessons of the conflict in Kosovo and what is the enlightenment to the post cold war state governance? This study uses the theory of just war as the theoretical framework to think about these problems. The theory of just war, based on the moral philosophical basis of war and conflict, provides a criterion for judging the justice of war and the way of war. It is used to examine the moral obligation of the country in the use of violence. The traditional idea holds that war and war are always bound by moral conditions. The theory of just war can be traced back to Augustin, which is divided into two categories: the right of state to resort to war; the possibility of the state to fight for war legally. The humanitarian intervention is defined as The act of justice must conform to such conditions: the performer has the right intention and is legally authorized. In this chapter, the author combs the relevant literature and many scholars on the theory of interference, the nature and characteristics of the post cold war conflict, the study of the Kosovo war, and has collected a large number of data for this study, and compared it. The method also makes the results of this study more abundant.
The second chapter makes an in-depth analysis of the nature and characteristics of the Cold War era and clarifies the concept of humanitarian intervention. Although the end of the cold war has had a favorable impact on world peace, it has also resulted in the increase of conflicts. The large number of weapons left behind by the end of the cold war have appeared in the region and in the internal conflict. There is no doubt that the post Cold War era is full of conflicts and wars. Unlike general expectations, the end of the cold war has not brought ever peace and stability to the vast majority of the world. The world has not obtained peace from the end of the cold war, but the conflict has followed. From the Balkans to East Timor, from Africa On the continent to Europe, the world witnessed the extent and intensity of racial conflicts that threatened the survival of the country, the collapse of the country, and the popularity of such statements as "failed states". Security analysts also tended to agree that the nature of the conflict had changed in the.20 century after the end of the cold war. In 90s, many conflicts occurred within and not between countries, and the post cold war conflict was significantly different from the Cold War era. The post cold war conflict caused serious harm to civilians (especially women and children), which became one of the characteristics of the post cold war conflict. In these conflicts, the armed groups. Ignoring the constraints of international law on war behavior, and the suffering of the civilian population has also aroused the sympathy of the international community. The failure of national governance and the collapse of the social order mean that the efforts of the international community must go beyond the military and humanitarian categories and resolve conflicts through reconciliation and the reconstruction of effective government measures. The United Nations is responsible for the conflict. Dealing with conflicts around the world and managing conflicts at the subregional level, and the increasing number of domestic conflicts have aggravated the pressure of the United Nations and also made it necessary to study the activities of subregional organizations. Through a review of conflict management, the ability of the world to meet the challenges is enhanced.
The third chapter is the historical cause of the outbreak of the Kosovo conflict. The Kosovo conflict is one of the many conflicts in the post Cold War era. With the death of Tito, a long-term Yugoslavia leader in 1980, the relationship between the Albania and Yugoslavia governments in Kosovo began to deteriorate markedly. In 80s, the Kosovo Albanian and Yugoslavia governments Tensions have been strained. This tension reached its peak in 1989, and the president of the Republic of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, officially revoked Kosovo's autonomy in the Republic of Serbia. This act aggravated the already volatile situation and further led to the outbreak of the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo. The Ralf government was politically marginalized, in 1990 Kosovo Albanian declared Kosovo to be independent from Yugoslavia. After two years, Kosovo elected parliament and appointed Ibrahim Rugova as president. Until the mid 90s, the Kosovo Albanians persisted in the policy of peaceful resistance advocated by Rugova. However, by 1996, it was unable to continue to get International. The society's support for the Kosovo Albanian cause has become increasingly unpopular with his non violent opposition policies. The opposition forces have begun to take a more radical way of fighting, the opposition forces, the Kosovo Liberation Army, and the rise of the Kosovo Liberation Army and the increase in human rights violations in Albania. The United States led NATO and the United Nations, led by the United States, were ordered to resolve the crisis through diplomatic means and put forward the langbuier agreement as a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Albania and Kosovo Liberation Army had finally chosen the way to negotiate, but the Serbs refused to sign the agreement. To save Kosovo and have to attack Serbia.
The fourth chapter examines NATO's interference with the theory of just war. According to the theory of just war, NATO's interference in the conflict in Kosovo is not worth the loss. NATO, on the pretext of humanitarianism, violates the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and creates a bad precedent. Besides the propaganda of humanitarianism, NATO has other actions. NATO's violation of the Charter of the United Nations and unauthorized interference in the territory of his country. This act not only undermines the United States, but also damages the world. Since its establishment in 1949, NATO has been positioned in an alliance to safeguard the national security of the members of the alliance. The North treaty provides for the obligation to protect members, but the Yugoslavia Union As a sovereign state, as a sovereign state, it is not a member of NATO, nor is it attacked by NATO members, but it has been attacked by NATO, so in the conflict of Kosovo, NATO's behavior is historically contradictory. The United Nations is recognized internationally as the only international organization that can authorize military interference. But the conduct of NATO has not been authorized by the United Nations and does not comply with the provisions of international law. The correct practice is in the thirty-ninth article of the Charter of the United Nations: "the Security Council shall determine any threat of peace, the destruction of peace, or the existence of an act of aggression, and should be made in accordance with the forty-first and forty-two articles of article forty-two. Prescribed measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. "
The fifth chapter is the conclusion of this article. Through the analysis of the conflict in Kosovo, it can be seen that the western countries led by the United States attempt to carry out hegemonism in the name of the United Nations or the name of the United Nations. Military actions such as NATO have greatly weakened the prestige of the United Nations, which also made the region outside Europe, including Part of the European region is facing the threat of unlawful military interference. This article believes that the attitude of NATO and the United States to the world needs a big change, no longer a hostile view of the world. The United Nations does need a lot of reform, but so far, it is the most important force in maintaining world peace. We should To build a good international order actively on the basis of the United Nations, not to ignore or weaken the role of the United Nations. Although the United Nations has shortcomings and shortcomings, it is still a representative of international legitimacy in the world, and the principle of humanitarian intervention should always be adhered to by the United Nations. Serbia's military action has been condemned by the UN Security Council at the beginning. At the same time, those countries with veto power in the UN Security Council may become another form of interference for military interference.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：K153

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 章儉;管有勛;;科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的幾點(diǎn)啟示[J];軍營(yíng)文化天地;2006年03期

2 肖敬民,高鵬;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)看超級(jí)霸權(quán)主義對(duì)世界和平的威脅[J];軍事歷史;1999年04期

3 王玉東,倪玉;美國(guó)在科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的宣傳戰(zhàn)[J];政工學(xué)刊;1999年10期

4 黃殿偉,王虎成;簡(jiǎn)析俄羅斯在科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中的根本立場(chǎng)[J];軍事歷史;1999年03期

5 黃恒;;科索沃停炸后的歷史怎么寫[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)導(dǎo)刊;1999年07期

6 姜富霞;;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)淺析鐵托時(shí)期“輸血”政策的失誤[J];懷化學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年02期

7 馬加力;;馬桶效應(yīng)[J];時(shí)事報(bào)告;2009年12期

8 高放;;米洛舍維奇:“巴爾干屠夫”或“塞族民族英雄”——兼與金重遠(yuǎn)教授商榷[J];探索與爭(zhēng)鳴;2006年09期

9 么永儒;;《書摘》給我晚年以幸福[J];書摘;2002年09期

10 柯春橋;格局的影響及其走向科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)對(duì)世界戰(zhàn)略[J];軍事歷史;1999年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 高英杰;張策;;科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)給世人的啟示[A];邁向新世紀(jì)[C];1999年

2 劉友良;;科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的回顧與思考[A];2002中國(guó)未來(lái)與發(fā)展研究報(bào)告[C];2002年

3 于水;葉常青;;貧鈾武器對(duì)科索沃環(huán)境的影響評(píng)價(jià)[A];中華醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)放射醫(yī)學(xué)與防護(hù)學(xué)分會(huì)第三次全國(guó)中青年學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文匯編[C];2001年

4 談明光;朱國(guó)英;李玉蘭;趙淑權(quán);陳建敏;;植入貧鈾后的大鼠體內(nèi)鈾的分布[A];第十一屆全國(guó)活化分析學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要匯編[C];2006年

5 楊陟華;朱茂祥;曹珍山;張榮芳;;大鼠吸入貧鈾氣溶膠后的內(nèi)分泌變化及DMSO的防治作用[A];第七屆全軍防原醫(yī)學(xué)專業(yè)委員會(huì)第五屆中國(guó)毒理學(xué)會(huì)放射毒理專業(yè)委員會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2004年

6 徐國(guó)范;;定向能武器[A];'99十一�。ㄊ校┕鈱W(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];1999年

7 錢七虎;;從阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)特點(diǎn)看美國(guó)軍事高技術(shù)和作戰(zhàn)理論新動(dòng)向[A];錢七虎院士論文選集[C];2007年

8 范泉水;;外軍軍犬應(yīng)用概況[A];中國(guó)畜牧獸醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)養(yǎng)犬學(xué)分會(huì)第十二次全國(guó)養(yǎng)犬學(xué)術(shù)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2007年

9 陸錦榮;吳報(bào)鴻;唐本;;試述粟裕的“炮戰(zhàn)”論——現(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)作戰(zhàn)方法[A];宏愿付青山——粟裕大將百年誕辰紀(jì)念文集[C];2006年

10 何奇松;;冷戰(zhàn)后的法國(guó)軍事轉(zhuǎn)型[A];和諧世界 和平發(fā)展與文明多樣性——上海市社會(huì)科學(xué)界第四屆學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)文集（2006年度）（世界經(jīng)濟(jì)·國(guó)際政治·國(guó)際關(guān)系學(xué)科卷）[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉衛(wèi)東 何維保 黃河 整理;國(guó)內(nèi)外專家學(xué)者對(duì)“戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平”及相關(guān)問(wèn)題的看法[N];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院院報(bào);2007年

2 軍事科學(xué)院《軍事學(xué)術(shù)》主編 胡文龍 本報(bào)記者 溫慶生 整理;精神的引領(lǐng)[N];光明日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

3 田龍生;航空炸彈：美“寶石路”借戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)打廣告[N];中國(guó)國(guó)防報(bào);2008年

4 李　劍　李守林;日漸縮短的“殺傷鏈”[N];中國(guó)國(guó)防報(bào);2005年

5 周長(zhǎng)華 陳志剛 本報(bào)記者 王業(yè)洲;一“網(wǎng)”情深為打贏[N];人民武警;2010年

6 張志偉 李海軍;現(xiàn)實(shí)總比預(yù)測(cè)意外得多[N];解放軍報(bào);2007年

7 王朝暉;美軍圍著資源打仗[N];中國(guó)國(guó)防報(bào);2010年

8 章念生;考驗(yàn)歐盟外交的難題[N];人民日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

9 楊志清;為科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)辯解[N];光明日?qǐng)?bào);2000年

10 劉瀅;科總理販賣器官傳言有待證實(shí)[N];工人日?qǐng)?bào);2011年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 賈曦;保守主義理念與冷戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)對(duì)外軍事行動(dòng)[D];華東師范大學(xué);2008年

2 韓慶娜;冷戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)對(duì)外軍事行動(dòng)的動(dòng)因研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2008年

3 章遠(yuǎn);宗教功能單位與地區(qū)暴力沖突[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

4 王高;窄脈沖激光波長(zhǎng)測(cè)試技術(shù)研究[D];中北大學(xué);2005年

5 王浩;地方大學(xué)生軍事?lián)駱I(yè)心理研究[D];第四軍醫(yī)大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 朱冰;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)看美國(guó)新干涉主義[D];外交學(xué)院;2000年

2 龐玉良;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)看國(guó)際法上的人道主義干涉問(wèn)題[D];外交學(xué)院;2001年

3 梁軍;冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后民族分離主義研究[D];新疆大學(xué);2008年

4 阮金之;關(guān)于美國(guó)《新聞周刊》科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)報(bào)道的分析[D];暨南大學(xué);2007年

5 葛亞平;科索沃問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

6 姜富霞;從科索沃戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)看鐵托時(shí)期民族政策的失誤[D];曲阜師范大學(xué);2007年

7 趙晨;科索沃民族問(wèn)題中的利益分析[D];中央民族大學(xué);2009年

8 馬翠琴;論歐盟共同安全與防務(wù)政策[D];華中師范大學(xué);2009年

9 李華光;冷戰(zhàn)后美國(guó)新軍事變革分析：案例研究[D];中國(guó)人民解放軍外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院;2006年

10 張鵬;歐盟防務(wù)一體化：進(jìn)程與反思[D];暨南大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2092952