论国际人道法视野下的人体盾牌问题

发布时间：2018-01-24 16:45

本文关键词： 人体盾牌直接参加敌对行动平民保护战争罪　出处：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：人体盾牌已经成为现代战场上广泛采用的策略,但现在还没有国际条约对这一问题进行规制。1人体盾牌是否绝对被禁止使用?如果武装冲突一方使用了人体盾牌,构成了违反国际法的行为,那么冲突的另一方是否就可以毫无顾忌的对人体盾牌进行攻击?人体盾牌是平民还是战斗员?抓获人体盾牌后,其是否具有战俘地位?2自愿充当人盾的行为是否构成战争罪?抓获后应该提交国际刑事法庭审判,还是依据国内法进行审判?古希腊哲学家亚里士多德曾说:“法律是免除一切情欲影响的神祗和理智的体现。”3我国先贤管仲也说:“法律政令者,吏民规矩绳墨也。”4可见,法律对规制人类行为具有重要作用。对于人类生活具有严重影响的战争行为,当然更需要法律进行规制。本文依托国际法的理论,对人体盾牌这一空白领域展开讨论。试图在法律上找到保护平民和维护军事利益的平衡点,对上述问题进行回答,最终实现法律对战争的规制。人体盾牌应分为两类:自愿人体盾牌和非自愿的人体盾牌。并将这种二分法作为立论的基石。接着讨论人盾使用方和应对方在作战方法上应受到的限制,使用方应当绝对禁止使用非自愿人体盾牌,即禁止强迫平民充当人盾。另一方面,武装冲突的一方强迫平民掩护军事目标构成战争罪,武装冲突另一方不得因为对方的违法行为,对非自愿人盾展开攻击。 “直接参与敌对行动”的概念可以用来澄清人盾的法律地位;当人盾没有直接参与敌对行动,应当具有平民身份,免受军事攻击;相反,若直接参与了敌对行动,则丧失了作为平民免受攻击的保护。5他们这种身份的界定,同样还会影响区分原则,比例原则和以合理、谨慎的方法进行攻击原则的适用,即应对方应禁止采用可以引起过度的附带伤害的攻击方法,并采取必要措施降低平民伤害。先贤孟子认为徒善不足以为政,徒法不足以自行,强调了法律从文本转化为实践的意义。既然国际法为使用方和应对方设定了法定义务,对法律义务的违反必然导致法律责任,这就要求以战争罪的形式来实现法律的价值。
[Abstract]:Human shield has become a widely used strategy in modern battlefield. However, there is no international treaty to regulate this issue. 1 is the use of human shield absolutely prohibited? If one party to an armed conflict uses a human shield, which constitutes a violation of international law, can the other party to the conflict attack the human shield without scruples? Are human shields civilians or combatants? After the capture of the human shield, does it have the status of a prisoner of war? (2) does the act of voluntary human shield constitute a war crime? Should they be brought before the International Criminal Court after their arrest, or should they be tried in accordance with domestic law? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once said: "the law is the embodiment of the gods and reason which exempts all the influence of desire." (3) Guan Zhong, the forerunner of our country, also said: "the law dictates that the officials and the people obey the rules of the law." 4 it can be seen. Law plays an important role in the regulation of human behavior. The war behavior which has serious impact on human life, of course, need to be regulated by law. This paper relies on the theory of international law. This paper discusses the blank field of human shield and tries to find a balance between protecting civilians and safeguarding military interests in law, and then answers the above questions, and finally realizes the regulation of war by law. Human shields should be divided into two categories: voluntary human shields and involuntary human shields. This dichotomy is regarded as the cornerstone of the argument. The user should absolutely prohibit the use of involuntary human shields, that is, forcing civilians to act as human shields... on the other hand, forcing civilians to cover military targets by a party to an armed conflict constitutes a war crime. The other party to the armed conflict shall not launch an attack against an involuntary human shield for the other party's violation. The concept of "direct participation in hostilities" could be used to clarify the legal status of human shields; When human shields are not directly involved in hostilities, they should have the status of civilians and be immune from military attacks; On the contrary, by taking a direct part in hostilities, the definition of their status as civilians protected from attack would be lost, as would the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionality and reasonableness. A prudent approach to the application of the principle of attack is that the other side should prohibit the use of attack methods that can cause excessive collateral damage and take necessary measures to reduce civilian harm. Since international law imposes legal obligations on both the user and the opposite party, the breach of the legal obligation will inevitably lead to legal liability. This requires the realization of the value of law in the form of war crimes.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D995;D998.2

【参考文献】