美国与国际法院：1923—1926

发布时间：2018-09-05 17:21

【摘要】： 一战后，美国拒绝了《凡尔赛条约》和国联，重新回到了“孤立主义”。然而，由于历史原因，美国却无法回避与国联有着危险关系的国际法院。是否加入国际法院?以什么条件加入才能避免国联的强制和义务?围绕这两个问题，美国政治家们展开了长期辩论。1923年和1926年，先后出台了休斯保留案和斯旺森决议。文章第一部分介绍了休斯保留案从酝酿到提出的经过，分析了美国加入国际法院的原则：国际法院独立于国联，美国不承担国联义务，不接受强制，但必须享受和国联成员平等的权利。文章第二部分叙述了从“咨询意见”问题的出现到1926年1月23日“斯旺森决议”最终形成的整个过程。在休斯原则的基础上，斯旺森决议，尤其是关于“咨询意见”的第五条，完整而明确地表达了美国的国际法院政策。第三部分分析了国际社会对斯旺森决议的态度以及国际法院运动最终失败的结局。由于“孤立主义”的战略取向，，美国的国际法院政策一开始就陷入矛盾：既想加入国际法院，又不愿受到任何强制，不愿承担任何义务。美国的政策在这种矛盾中发展到了极致，最终甚至不惜摧毁国际法院“咨询意见”这项制度，损害国联的职能，践踏国际机构的权威。1923-1926年美国国际法院运动充分揭示了“孤立主义”外交政策的困境。
[Abstract]:After World War I, the United States rejected the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations and returned to isolationism. For historical reasons, however, the United States cannot avoid the International Court of Justice, which has a dangerous relationship with the League of Nations. Is it a member of the International Court of Justice? What are the conditions under which the League of Nations can be avoided from coercion and obligations? American politicians have long debated these two issues. In 1923 and 1926, Hughes' reservations and Swardson's resolutions were introduced. The first part of the article introduces the history of Hughes' reservation case from brewing to proposing, and analyzes the principle of the United States joining the International Court of Justice: the International Court of Justice is independent of the League of Nations, the United States does not undertake the obligations of the League of Nations, and does not accept coercion. But they must enjoy equal rights with members of the League of Nations. The second part narrates the whole process from the appearance of advisory opinion to the final formation of Swardson Resolution on January 23, 1926. On the basis of the Hughes principle, the Swardson resolution, in particular article V on the advisory opinion, expressed the policy of the United States of the International Court of Justice in a complete and clear manner. The third part analyzes the attitude of the international community to the Swardson resolution and the final failure of the International Court of Justice. Because of the strategic orientation of "isolationism", the policy of the International Court of Justice of the United States is in contradiction from the beginning: it wants to join the Court, it is unwilling to be compelled by any means, and it is unwilling to undertake any obligation. The policy of the United States has developed to the extreme in this contradiction, eventually even destroying the system of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and undermining the functioning of the League of Nations. Trampling the authority of international institutions. 1923-1926 the American International Court of Justice Movement fully revealed the dilemma of "isolationism" foreign policy.
【学位授予单位】：首都师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：K712.52

【共引文献】