The extent to which humanitarian intervention has become a legitimate practice in post-cold war international society is the subject of this book. It maps the changing legitimacy of humanitarian intervention by comparing the international response to cases of humanitarian intervention in the cold war and post-cold war periods. Crucially, the book examines how far international society has recognised humanitarian intervention as a legitimate exception to the rules of sovereignty and non-intervention and non-use of force. While there are studies of each case of intervention - in East Pakistan, Cambodia, Uganda, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo - there is no single work that examines them comprehensively in a comparative framework. Each chapter tells a story of intervention that weaves together a study of motives, justifications and outcomes. The legitimacy of humanitarian intervention is contested by the 'pluralist' and 'solidarist' wings of the English school, and the book charts the stamp of these conceptions on state practice. Solidarism lacks a full-blown theory of humanitarian intervention and the book supplies one. This theory is employed to assess the humanitarian qualifications of the cases of intervention analysed in the book, and this normative assessment is then compared to the moral practices of states. A key focus is to examine how far humanitarian intervention as a legitimate practice is present in the diplomatic dialogue of states. In exploring how far there has been a change of norm in the society of states in the 1990s, the book defends the broad based constructivist claim that state actions will be constrained if they cannot be legitimated, and that new norms enable new practices but do not determine these. The book concludes by considering how far contemporary practices of humanitarian intervention support a new solidarism, and how far this resolves the traditional conflict between order and justice in international society.
伊拉剋對庫爾德人的鎮壓是伊拉剋北部人道主義危機的根本原因。而存在兩個可能的解決辦法來確保對庫爾德人的長期人權保護。第一個也是最激進的辦法是為庫爾德人建立某種形式國際保護之下的國傢。西方國傢從未考慮過這個辦法,因為與此相關的任何提議都會在擁有大量庫爾德少...
評分如何對待一個主權國傢內部存在的人道主義危機?是不應乾預還是可以乾預?對於這一問題,自二戰結束以來,一些國際法學者和國際關係學者一直為之爭論不休,《拯救陌生人——國際社會中的人道主義乾涉》一書的作者威爾士大學國際關係學院教授尼古拉斯·惠勒對之作瞭相當深入的探...
評分如何對待一個主權國傢內部存在的人道主義危機?是不應乾預還是可以乾預?對於這一問題,自二戰結束以來,一些國際法學者和國際關係學者一直為之爭論不休,《拯救陌生人——國際社會中的人道主義乾涉》一書的作者威爾士大學國際關係學院教授尼古拉斯·惠勒對之作瞭相當深入的探...
評分如何對待一個主權國傢內部存在的人道主義危機?是不應乾預還是可以乾預?對於這一問題,自二戰結束以來,一些國際法學者和國際關係學者一直為之爭論不休,《拯救陌生人——國際社會中的人道主義乾涉》一書的作者威爾士大學國際關係學院教授尼古拉斯·惠勒對之作瞭相當深入的探...
評分如何對待一個主權國傢內部存在的人道主義危機?是不應乾預還是可以乾預?對於這一問題,自二戰結束以來,一些國際法學者和國際關係學者一直為之爭論不休,《拯救陌生人——國際社會中的人道主義乾涉》一書的作者威爾士大學國際關係學院教授尼古拉斯·惠勒對之作瞭相當深入的探...
moral or legal, duty or interests will always be the questions
评分moral or legal, duty or interests will always be the questions
评分索馬裏部分對美國和UN的行動進行瞭全麵而客觀的反思。在我看來可以稱得上是一部理論與實踐相互補充論證的佳作。
评分索馬裏部分對美國和UN的行動進行瞭全麵而客觀的反思。在我看來可以稱得上是一部理論與實踐相互補充論證的佳作。
评分索馬裏部分對美國和UN的行動進行瞭全麵而客觀的反思。在我看來可以稱得上是一部理論與實踐相互補充論證的佳作。
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 onlinetoolsland.com All Rights Reserved. 本本书屋 版权所有