打击恐怖主义对国际战争的影响

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
Frederik Naert'
{"title":"打击恐怖主义对国际战争的影响","authors":"Frederik Naert'","doi":"10.2143/EP.11.2.504944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Following an introduction to international law regarding the use of force, the author examines the impact of post-9/11 practice, focusing on the right of self-defence. After critically reviewing operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. National Security Strategy, the ‘Yemen strike’ and the war in Iraq, including the justifications offered for these actions and the international responses to them, as well as developments in NATO and the EU, he concludes that there is a tendency towards a broader interpretation of the right of self-defence, in that this right may be extended to attacks by non-state actors and such attacks may be more easily attributed to states that support such actors. However, the author submits that this interpretation has not yet been sufficiently affirmed to have changed the law, that the rules of the UN Charter still accurately reflect the law and that there is insufficient support for a right of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence. Finally, he recommends strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Council and regional organizations such as the EU and NATO to avoid the risk of a true deregulation of the use of force.","PeriodicalId":54109,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Perspectives","volume":"11 1","pages":"144-161"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2004-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/EP.11.2.504944","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of the fight against terrorism on the ius ad bellum\",\"authors\":\"Frederik Naert'\",\"doi\":\"10.2143/EP.11.2.504944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Following an introduction to international law regarding the use of force, the author examines the impact of post-9/11 practice, focusing on the right of self-defence. After critically reviewing operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. National Security Strategy, the ‘Yemen strike’ and the war in Iraq, including the justifications offered for these actions and the international responses to them, as well as developments in NATO and the EU, he concludes that there is a tendency towards a broader interpretation of the right of self-defence, in that this right may be extended to attacks by non-state actors and such attacks may be more easily attributed to states that support such actors. However, the author submits that this interpretation has not yet been sufficiently affirmed to have changed the law, that the rules of the UN Charter still accurately reflect the law and that there is insufficient support for a right of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence. Finally, he recommends strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Council and regional organizations such as the EU and NATO to avoid the risk of a true deregulation of the use of force.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54109,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethical Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"144-161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2143/EP.11.2.504944\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethical Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.11.2.504944\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2143/EP.11.2.504944","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在介绍了有关使用武力的国际法之后,作者审查了后9/11实践的影响,重点是自卫权。在批判性地审查了持久自由行动、美国国家安全战略、“也门袭击”和伊拉克战争,包括为这些行动提供的理由和国际社会对这些行动的反应,以及北约和欧盟的事态发展之后,他得出结论,有一种对自卫权进行更广泛解释的趋势。因为这项权利可以扩展到非国家行为者的攻击,而这种攻击可能更容易归咎于支持这种行为者的国家。然而,发件人认为,这一解释尚未得到充分肯定,不足以改变法律,《联合国宪章》的规则仍然准确地反映了法律,并且没有充分支持预先或先发制人的自卫权。最后,他建议加强安全理事会和诸如欧盟和北约等区域组织的效力,以避免真正解除对使用武力的管制的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The impact of the fight against terrorism on the ius ad bellum
Following an introduction to international law regarding the use of force, the author examines the impact of post-9/11 practice, focusing on the right of self-defence. After critically reviewing operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. National Security Strategy, the ‘Yemen strike’ and the war in Iraq, including the justifications offered for these actions and the international responses to them, as well as developments in NATO and the EU, he concludes that there is a tendency towards a broader interpretation of the right of self-defence, in that this right may be extended to attacks by non-state actors and such attacks may be more easily attributed to states that support such actors. However, the author submits that this interpretation has not yet been sufficiently affirmed to have changed the law, that the rules of the UN Charter still accurately reflect the law and that there is insufficient support for a right of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence. Finally, he recommends strengthening the effectiveness of the Security Council and regional organizations such as the EU and NATO to avoid the risk of a true deregulation of the use of force.
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
CiteScore
0.50
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