再论胁迫作为国际法中被禁止干预的要素

IF 2.7 2区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Marko Milanovic
{"title":"再论胁迫作为国际法中被禁止干预的要素","authors":"Marko Milanovic","doi":"10.1017/ajil.2023.40","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"International law prohibits states from intervening in the internal and external affairs of other states, but only if the method of intervention is coercive. This Article argues that coercion can be understood in two different ways or models. First, as coercion-as-extortion, a demand coupled with a threat of harm or the infliction of harm, done to extract some kind of concession from the victim state—in other words, an act targeting the victim state's will or decision-making calculus. Second, as coercion-as-control, an action materially depriving the victim state of its ability to control its sovereign choices. This may be done even through acts like cyber operations that the victim state is entirely unaware of. The Article argues that many of the difficulties surrounding the notion of coercion arise as a consequence of failing to distinguish between these two different models.","PeriodicalId":47841,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law\",\"authors\":\"Marko Milanovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/ajil.2023.40\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"International law prohibits states from intervening in the internal and external affairs of other states, but only if the method of intervention is coercive. This Article argues that coercion can be understood in two different ways or models. First, as coercion-as-extortion, a demand coupled with a threat of harm or the infliction of harm, done to extract some kind of concession from the victim state—in other words, an act targeting the victim state's will or decision-making calculus. Second, as coercion-as-control, an action materially depriving the victim state of its ability to control its sovereign choices. This may be done even through acts like cyber operations that the victim state is entirely unaware of. The Article argues that many of the difficulties surrounding the notion of coercion arise as a consequence of failing to distinguish between these two different models.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47841,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.40\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2023.40","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际法禁止一国干涉他国的内政和对外事务,但前提是干预的方式是强制性的。本文认为,强制可以有两种不同的理解方式或模式。首先,作为胁迫-勒索,一种要求加上伤害或造成伤害的威胁,旨在从受害国那里获得某种让步——换句话说,一种针对受害国意志或决策考量的行为。第二,作为强制即控制,一种实质上剥夺受害国控制其主权选择的能力的行动。这甚至可能是通过受害者国家完全不知道的网络行动来实现的。文章认为,围绕强制概念的许多困难都是由于未能区分这两种不同的模式而产生的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Revisiting Coercion as an Element of Prohibited Intervention in International Law
International law prohibits states from intervening in the internal and external affairs of other states, but only if the method of intervention is coercive. This Article argues that coercion can be understood in two different ways or models. First, as coercion-as-extortion, a demand coupled with a threat of harm or the infliction of harm, done to extract some kind of concession from the victim state—in other words, an act targeting the victim state's will or decision-making calculus. Second, as coercion-as-control, an action materially depriving the victim state of its ability to control its sovereign choices. This may be done even through acts like cyber operations that the victim state is entirely unaware of. The Article argues that many of the difficulties surrounding the notion of coercion arise as a consequence of failing to distinguish between these two different models.
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
3.50
自引率
16.30%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: AJIL is a leading peer-reviewed journal, published quarterly since 1907. It features articles, essays, editorial comments, current developments, and book reviews by pre-eminent scholars and practitioners from around the world addressing developments in public and private international law and foreign relations law. The Journal also contains analyses of decisions by national and international courts and tribunals as well as a section on contemporary U.S. practice in international law. AJIL and AJIL Unbound are indispensable for all professionals working in international law, economics, trade, and foreign affairs.
×
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