美国例外论中的非例外论

Sabrina Safrin
{"title":"美国例外论中的非例外论","authors":"Sabrina Safrin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1018142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article challenges the prevailing view that the United States acts exceptionally by examining the insufficiently considered legal exceptionalism of other countries. It puts U.S. Exceptionalism in perspective by identifying European exceptionalism as well as noting developing country exceptionalism, pointing to the exceptional rules sought by the European Union and by developing countries in numerous international agreements and institutions. It argues that most nations seek different international rules for themselves when they perceive themselves to have an exceptional need. Indeed, in cases of exceptional need, numerous countries believe themselves entitled to exceptional legal accommodation and may even perceive other countries' unwillingness to accommodate their needs as unfair. Requests for special treatment even exhibit patterns. I conclude by suggesting that the present emphasis on U.S. exceptionalism is overstated at best, misguided and even dangerous at worst. Furthermore, having shown that most nations seek exceptional legal accommodation, or double standards, in certain situations, I identify some parameters for future work on the proper place for exceptionalism in international law.","PeriodicalId":196892,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Un-Exceptionalism of U.S. Exceptionalism\",\"authors\":\"Sabrina Safrin\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1018142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article challenges the prevailing view that the United States acts exceptionally by examining the insufficiently considered legal exceptionalism of other countries. It puts U.S. Exceptionalism in perspective by identifying European exceptionalism as well as noting developing country exceptionalism, pointing to the exceptional rules sought by the European Union and by developing countries in numerous international agreements and institutions. It argues that most nations seek different international rules for themselves when they perceive themselves to have an exceptional need. Indeed, in cases of exceptional need, numerous countries believe themselves entitled to exceptional legal accommodation and may even perceive other countries' unwillingness to accommodate their needs as unfair. Requests for special treatment even exhibit patterns. I conclude by suggesting that the present emphasis on U.S. exceptionalism is overstated at best, misguided and even dangerous at worst. Furthermore, having shown that most nations seek exceptional legal accommodation, or double standards, in certain situations, I identify some parameters for future work on the proper place for exceptionalism in international law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1018142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Comparative Law & Analysis (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1018142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文通过考察其他国家未充分考虑的法律例外主义,挑战了美国例外行为的主流观点。它通过识别欧洲例外论和注意发展中国家例外论来透视美国例外论,指出欧盟和发展中国家在许多国际协议和机构中寻求的例外规则。它认为,当大多数国家认为自己有特殊需要时,它们会为自己寻求不同的国际规则。事实上,在特殊需要的情况下,许多国家认为自己有权得到特殊的法律便利,甚至可能认为其他国家不愿意照顾它们的需要是不公平的。对特殊待遇的要求甚至表现出了模式。最后,我认为,目前对美国例外论的强调往好了说有些言过其实,往坏了说有些误导,甚至有些危险。此外,在表明大多数国家在某些情况下寻求例外的法律便利,或双重标准之后,我为未来关于例外主义在国际法中的适当位置的工作确定了一些参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Un-Exceptionalism of U.S. Exceptionalism
This article challenges the prevailing view that the United States acts exceptionally by examining the insufficiently considered legal exceptionalism of other countries. It puts U.S. Exceptionalism in perspective by identifying European exceptionalism as well as noting developing country exceptionalism, pointing to the exceptional rules sought by the European Union and by developing countries in numerous international agreements and institutions. It argues that most nations seek different international rules for themselves when they perceive themselves to have an exceptional need. Indeed, in cases of exceptional need, numerous countries believe themselves entitled to exceptional legal accommodation and may even perceive other countries' unwillingness to accommodate their needs as unfair. Requests for special treatment even exhibit patterns. I conclude by suggesting that the present emphasis on U.S. exceptionalism is overstated at best, misguided and even dangerous at worst. Furthermore, having shown that most nations seek exceptional legal accommodation, or double standards, in certain situations, I identify some parameters for future work on the proper place for exceptionalism in international law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信