人道主义干预的终结:对非盟干涉权的评价

IF 0.1 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Dan Kuwali
{"title":"人道主义干预的终结:对非盟干涉权的评价","authors":"Dan Kuwali","doi":"10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The right to intervene under the AU Act is a radical departure from, and in stark contrast with, the principle of State sovereignty and non-intervention, the very cornerstones of the erstwhile OAU. Although intervention has traditionally been opposed by African States and regarded as imperialism; under the AU Act, AU Member States have themselves accepted sovereignty not as a shield but as a responsibility where the AU has the right to intervene to save lives from mass atrocity crimes. Today, human rights are not a purely domestic concern and sovereignty cannot shield repressive States. Thus, if a State is unable or unwilling to protect its people the responsibility falls on other States. What is certain is that the thresholds for intervention are serious crimes under international law, which are subject to universal jurisdiction. Therefore, Article 4(h) can be viewed as providing for statutory intervention in form of enforcement action by consent to prevent or halt mass atrocity crimes. However, yet to be answered is how to reconcile the AU right to intervene with the provisions of the UN Charter, especially where the AU exercises military intervention. Nonetheless, the AU should reduce the need for costly intervention and focus more on preventive strategies.","PeriodicalId":43186,"journal":{"name":"African Journal on Conflict Resolution","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2010-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The end of humanitarian intervention: Evaluation of the African Union’s right of intervention\",\"authors\":\"Dan Kuwali\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The right to intervene under the AU Act is a radical departure from, and in stark contrast with, the principle of State sovereignty and non-intervention, the very cornerstones of the erstwhile OAU. Although intervention has traditionally been opposed by African States and regarded as imperialism; under the AU Act, AU Member States have themselves accepted sovereignty not as a shield but as a responsibility where the AU has the right to intervene to save lives from mass atrocity crimes. Today, human rights are not a purely domestic concern and sovereignty cannot shield repressive States. Thus, if a State is unable or unwilling to protect its people the responsibility falls on other States. What is certain is that the thresholds for intervention are serious crimes under international law, which are subject to universal jurisdiction. Therefore, Article 4(h) can be viewed as providing for statutory intervention in form of enforcement action by consent to prevent or halt mass atrocity crimes. However, yet to be answered is how to reconcile the AU right to intervene with the provisions of the UN Charter, especially where the AU exercises military intervention. Nonetheless, the AU should reduce the need for costly intervention and focus more on preventive strategies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal on Conflict Resolution\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal on Conflict Resolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal on Conflict Resolution","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/AJCR.V9I1.52165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

摘要

根据《非盟法》进行干预的权利完全背离并与国家主权和不干预原则形成鲜明对比,这些原则是过去非统组织的基石。尽管干预历来受到非洲国家的反对,并被视为帝国主义;根据《非盟法》,非盟成员国自己已接受主权不是盾牌,而是一种责任,即非盟有权进行干预,从大规模暴行罪行中拯救生命。今天,人权不是一个纯粹的国内问题,主权不能保护专制国家。因此,如果一个国家不能或不愿保护其人民,责任就落在其他国家身上。可以肯定的是,干预的门槛是国际法规定的严重罪行,应受到普遍管辖。因此,第4(h)条可被视为规定以同意的强制行动形式进行法定干预,以防止或制止大规模暴行罪行。然而,如何协调非盟的干预权与联合国宪章的规定,特别是在非盟进行军事干预的情况下,还有待回答。尽管如此,非盟应该减少对代价高昂的干预的需要,更多地关注预防战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The end of humanitarian intervention: Evaluation of the African Union’s right of intervention
The right to intervene under the AU Act is a radical departure from, and in stark contrast with, the principle of State sovereignty and non-intervention, the very cornerstones of the erstwhile OAU. Although intervention has traditionally been opposed by African States and regarded as imperialism; under the AU Act, AU Member States have themselves accepted sovereignty not as a shield but as a responsibility where the AU has the right to intervene to save lives from mass atrocity crimes. Today, human rights are not a purely domestic concern and sovereignty cannot shield repressive States. Thus, if a State is unable or unwilling to protect its people the responsibility falls on other States. What is certain is that the thresholds for intervention are serious crimes under international law, which are subject to universal jurisdiction. Therefore, Article 4(h) can be viewed as providing for statutory intervention in form of enforcement action by consent to prevent or halt mass atrocity crimes. However, yet to be answered is how to reconcile the AU right to intervene with the provisions of the UN Charter, especially where the AU exercises military intervention. Nonetheless, the AU should reduce the need for costly intervention and focus more on preventive strategies.
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
33.30%
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