后冷战时代的武装人道主义干涉：北约干涉科索沃案例分析（1999）

发布时间：2018-07-03 07:57

本文选题：冲突 + 人道主义干涉　；参考：《吉林大学》2011年博士论文

【摘要】：自从1648年结束了三十年战争的威斯特伐利亚条约签订之后,主权和不干涉原则成为了国际政治的支配原则。主权意味着国家之上无更高的权威,除非这个国家自愿加入某个组织并服从其管理。不干涉原则意味着国家在处理本国的事务时不受外国的干涉。二十世纪末,几起外国干涉他国内政的事件使得国际社会对威斯特伐利亚体系提出了质疑——主权不再是神圣不可侵犯的。许多政治领导人以及理论家认为,人道主义干涉不仅是合法行为,而且在政府侵犯本国公民人权的情况下也是必需的。本文以1999年科索沃战争为例,分析了爆发在塞尔维亚联邦共和国、前南斯拉夫以及北大西洋公约组织(NATO)之间的武装冲突,凸显了围绕人道主义干涉所产生的诸多问题。本文分为5个部分: 第一章主要用来介绍研究的背景。国家间以及国内冲突的增多成为了后冷战时代所面临的主要挑战之一,所谓的武装人道主义干涉也伴随着冲突而出现。干涉或不干涉,如何对爆发国内战争的国家进行干涉,这成为了困扰后冷战时代世界的难题。本文以科索沃战争为例,批判性地考察了这场战争。在第一章中指出了本研究所关注的问题:科索沃冲突爆发的历史和政治背景是什么?北约干涉科索沃冲突是否正确?除了人道主义之外,北约的干涉是否还有其他利益的考虑?科索沃冲突的经验教训以及对后冷战时代国家治理的启示是什么?本研究以正义战争理论为理论框架来思考以上这些问题。正义战争理论以战争与冲突的道德哲学基础为前提,提供了判断战争以及战争方式是否正义的标准。这一理论被应用于考察国家在使用暴力时的道德义务。传统的观念认为战争以及战争行为总是受道德条件的约束。正义战争理论可以追溯到奥古斯丁,其大体分为两类:国家诉诸战争的权利;国家合法地争取战争的可能。人道主义干涉被界定为正义行为必须符合这样的条件:实行者有着正确的意图、受到合法的授权。在这一章中,笔者梳理了相关的文献以及众多学者关于干涉理论、后冷战时代冲突的本质与特征、科索沃战争的研究成果,为本研究搜集了大量的数据,比较研究的方法也使得本研究的成果较为丰富。第二章对冷战时代的本质与特征进行了深入的分析,澄清了人道主义干涉的概念。虽然冷战的结束对世界和平产生了有利的影响,但同时也造成了冲突的增多。冷战结束所残留下的大量武器出现在了地区以及国家内部的冲突之中,这种现象愈发严重。毫无疑问,后冷战时代充斥着大量的冲突与战争。与普遍的预期不同的是,冷战的结束并没有为世界绝大部分地区带来永远的和平与稳定。世界并没有从冷战的结束中获得和平,冲突却随之而来。从巴尔干到东帝汶,从非洲大陆到欧洲局部,世界目睹了种族冲突的程度和强度,这些冲突威胁了国家的生存,导致了国家的崩溃,也使得诸如“失败国家”这样的表述得以流行。安全分析家也倾向于同意冲突的本质在冷战结束之后已经发生转变这一观点。20世纪90年代,很多冲突都是发生在国家内部而非国家之间,后冷战时代的冲突也与冷战时代有着显著的不同。后冷战时代的冲突对平民(尤其是妇女和儿童)造成了严重的伤害,这也成为了后冷战时代冲突的特征之一。在这些冲突中,武装集团无视国际法对于战争行为的约束,而平民所遭受的苦难也引发了国际社会的同情。国家治理的失败与社会秩序的崩溃意味着国际社会的努力必须超越军事以及人道主义范畴,通过和解以及重建有效政府的措施来解决冲突。联合国负责处理世界范围内的冲突,并且在次区域的层级上管理冲突,而持续增多的国内冲突加重了联合国的压力,同时也使得研究次区域组织的活动成为了必需。通过对冲突管理的考察,以增强世界迎接挑战的能力。第三章是考察科索沃冲突爆发的历史原因。科索沃冲突是后冷战时代众多冲突之一。随着1980年长期担任南斯拉夫领导人的铁托去世,科索沃阿尔巴尼亚族与南斯拉夫政府的关系开始明显恶化。整个80年代,科索沃阿族和南斯拉夫政府的关系一直紧张。这种紧张关系在1989年达到高峰,塞尔维亚共和国总统斯洛博丹米洛舍维奇正式撤销科索沃在塞尔维亚共和国的自治地位。这一行为加剧了本已动荡不安的局势,并进一步导致了塞尔维亚和科索沃冲突的爆发。对于南斯拉夫政府在政治上的边缘化,1990年科索沃阿族宣布科索沃从南斯拉夫独立。两年后,科索沃选举了议会并任命卜拉欣鲁戈瓦为总统。直到90年代中期,科索沃阿族一直坚持鲁戈瓦所倡导的和平抵抗政策。然而到1996年,因无法继续获得国际社会对科索沃阿族事业的支持,鲁戈瓦和他的非暴力反对政策越来越不得人心。内部的反对势力开始采取更为激进的方式进行反抗,反对势力——科索沃解放军出现。随着科索沃解放军的兴起,对阿尔巴尼亚人的人权侵犯事件增加,包括任意逮捕和法外处决。以美国为首的北约和联合国,受命通过外交手段解决危机,提出朗布依埃协议,作为和平解决冲突的方案。阿尔巴尼亚族和科索沃解放军最终选择了谈判的道路,但是塞族拒绝签署协议。因而北约声称别无选择,为了拯救科索沃,不得不进攻塞尔维亚。第四章以正义战争理论来考察北约的干涉行为。根据正义战争理论,北约干涉科索沃冲突是得不偿失的。北约以人道主义为借口,违背了联合国宪章的规定,制造了一个不好的先例。除了宣传的维护人道主义之外,北约的行为也有着其他的目的。北约违背联合国宪章、未经授权就在他国的领土上进行干涉行动,这一行为不仅损害了美国,也损害了世界。北约自1949年建立以来,被定位于一个联盟,用以保障联盟成员的国家安全。北约规定有保护成员的义务,但是南斯拉夫联盟共和国作为一个主权国家,其并非北约成员,同时也没有攻击北约成员国,但是却遭到了北约的空袭,因而在干涉科索沃冲突上,北约的行为从历史逻辑上来讲是矛盾的。联合国是国际上公认的唯一可以授权进行军事干涉的国际组织,但是北约的行为并未受到联合国的授权,也并未遵从国际法的规定。正确的做法是联合国宪章第39条中的规定:“安全理事会应断定任何和平之威胁、和平之破坏、或侵略行为之是否存在,并应作成建议或抉择依第四十一条及第四十二条规定之办法,以维持或恢复国际和平及安全。” 第五章是本文的结论部分。通过对科索沃冲突的剖析,可以看出以美国为首的西方国家试图绕开联合国或者假借联合国的名义来推行霸权主义的行径。诸如北约这样的军事行动极大地削弱了联合国的威信,这也使得欧洲以外地区,包括部分欧洲地区面临着不合法的军事干涉的威胁。本文认为北约和美国对待世界的态度需要发生一个大的转变,不再以充满敌意的眼光看待世界。联合国确实需要很多改革,但是到目前为止,其还是维护世界和平最主要的力量。我们应该积极地在联合国的基础上建立一个良好的国际秩序,而不是忽视或者削弱联合国的作用。虽然联合国有着缺陷和不足,但是从世界范围来看,其仍是国际合法性的代表,人道主义干涉需经过联合国的授权这一原则应该始终坚持。北约对塞尔维亚的军事行动因为一开始就绕过了联合国安理会,因而受到了谴责。同时,联合国安理会中那些拥有否决权的国家对于是否进行军事干涉的投票也可能会变成另外一种干涉的形式。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：K153

【相似文献】