国际法上关于反恐两种法理路径的比较研究
发布时间：2018-11-04 12:16
【摘要】：发生在21世纪初的“9·11”事件,对国际关系的发展产生了巨大影响,反恐成为全球化过程中的一个重要课题。此前虽然国际社会出于对地区性恐怖活动的关注,制定了不少国际公约和议定书,但是联合国会员国加入的比例很低。“9·11”事件之后,恐怖活动的国际化使得加入比例快速上升,国际反恐立法也在此背景下得到更快发展。“9·11”事件也催生了利用国际法上的自卫权理论打击恐怖主义活动这一全新实践。虽然“9·11”事件已经过去近十年,但是国际反恐立法仍然在发展,关于2001年美国出于自卫对阿富汗发动反恐战争的争论仍然没有停止,而关于2003年美国以“预先自卫”为由对伊拉克发动的反恐战争的争论更是激烈。笔者认为目前国际法上反恐的思路大致有两种,一是通过国际立法合作进行反恐,二是利用自卫权理论作为打击恐怖主义活动的法律基础,这两种思路既相互依赖,又各有所不同。目前的国际反恐合作的法律领域呈现以下两个特征:一是对以新手段进行的恐怖主义活动进行定罪没有异议,这方面的公约也进展顺利,丰富完善了国际反恐立法;二是一些长期以来的争议问题仍然没有得到解决,这也反映出了目前国际法上反恐的现状,虽然国际反恐立法已初成体系,并且还有新发展,但是国际反恐立法所能解决的问题仍然有限,其固有的滞后性的特征无法满足及时打击恐怖主义活动的需要;利用自卫权打击恐怖主义活动虽然能够及时地维护受害国的权益,但是反恐战争极易突破应有的限度,原因就在于并没有关于监督自卫权行使的国际立法。为了充分说明这两条法理路径及二者之间的关系,笔者对大量有争议的问题进行了分析并给出了自己的结论。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：外交学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D997.9
本文编号：2309790
[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.
【学位授予单位】：外交学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D997.9
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 何秉松,廖斌;恐怖主义概念比较研究[J];比较法研究;2003年04期
2 林丽;;上海合作组织框架下中国新疆与周边国家恐怖主义犯罪及打击对策[J];兵团教育学院学报;2009年03期
3 简基松;关于反对国际恐怖主义的若干国际法问题研究[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;2002年04期
4 马进保;论国际犯罪中的国家责任[J];法律科学.西北政法学院学报;1995年06期
5 肖平;;论恐怖主义的法律性质[J];福建政法管理干部学院学报;2009年03期
6 简基松;“反恐”军事行动对国家自卫权规则的突破[J];法学杂志;2002年02期
7 赵秉志;杜邈;;在联合国法律框架内进行反恐斗争——“全球反恐法律框架”学术研讨会综述[J];法学杂志;2008年03期
8 梁西;国际法律秩序的呼唤——“9.11”事件后的理性反思[J];法学评论;2002年01期
9 汪自勇;美国反恐自卫权理论之批判——从阿富汗战争到伊拉克战争[J];法学评论;2003年04期
10 王立民;完善反恐立法 有效打击恐怖主义犯罪[J];法学;2003年06期
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 李华;国际恐怖主义与反恐国际立法问题研究[D];大连海事大学;2007年
2 刘睿;国际反恐合作对联合国集体安全机制的影响[D];北京交通大学;2010年
，本文编号：2309790
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/guojifa/2309790.html
