东南亚的“保护责任”之争:拒绝还是规范抵抗?

IF 0.8 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Zain Maulana, E. Newman
{"title":"东南亚的“保护责任”之争:拒绝还是规范抵抗?","authors":"Zain Maulana, E. Newman","doi":"10.1163/1875-984x-14010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article explores the engagement of Southeast Asian states with the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P) in relation to the Rohingya in Myanmar and the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines. It finds a form of contestation based upon subsidiary principles and local interests in which states have offered normative resistance to international scrutiny in order to justify their limited response to the atrocities. Elite stakeholders have emphasised that asean already has principles and frameworks to address abuses – which reflect the historical experience, social context, and political culture of the region – in order to support their resistance to R2P. While existing debates about the R2P principle in Southeast Asia tend to be oriented around the opposing poles of incremental adaptation and adoption versus outright rejection, our conclusion is distinct: R2P is consciously contested in Southeast Asia on normative grounds which must be understood in the context of the region.","PeriodicalId":38207,"journal":{"name":"Global Responsibility to Protect","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contesting the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in Southeast Asia: Rejection or Normative Resistance?\",\"authors\":\"Zain Maulana, E. Newman\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/1875-984x-14010001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article explores the engagement of Southeast Asian states with the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P) in relation to the Rohingya in Myanmar and the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines. It finds a form of contestation based upon subsidiary principles and local interests in which states have offered normative resistance to international scrutiny in order to justify their limited response to the atrocities. Elite stakeholders have emphasised that asean already has principles and frameworks to address abuses – which reflect the historical experience, social context, and political culture of the region – in order to support their resistance to R2P. While existing debates about the R2P principle in Southeast Asia tend to be oriented around the opposing poles of incremental adaptation and adoption versus outright rejection, our conclusion is distinct: R2P is consciously contested in Southeast Asia on normative grounds which must be understood in the context of the region.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Responsibility to Protect\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-14010001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Responsibility to Protect","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-14010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了东南亚国家在缅甸罗兴亚人和菲律宾“毒品战争”方面与保护责任原则(R2P)的关系。它发现了一种基于附属原则和地方利益的争论形式,在这种形式中,各国对国际审查提出了规范的抵制,以证明它们对暴行的有限反应是合理的。精英利益相关者强调,东盟已经有了解决滥用问题的原则和框架,这些原则和框架反映了该地区的历史经验、社会背景和政治文化,以支持他们对R2P的抵制。虽然关于东南亚R2P原则的现有辩论往往围绕着逐渐适应和采用与彻底拒绝的两极,但我们的结论是明确的:在东南亚,R2P在规范的基础上受到有意识的质疑,这必须在该地区的背景下理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Contesting the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ in Southeast Asia: Rejection or Normative Resistance?
This article explores the engagement of Southeast Asian states with the Responsibility to Protect principle (R2P) in relation to the Rohingya in Myanmar and the ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines. It finds a form of contestation based upon subsidiary principles and local interests in which states have offered normative resistance to international scrutiny in order to justify their limited response to the atrocities. Elite stakeholders have emphasised that asean already has principles and frameworks to address abuses – which reflect the historical experience, social context, and political culture of the region – in order to support their resistance to R2P. While existing debates about the R2P principle in Southeast Asia tend to be oriented around the opposing poles of incremental adaptation and adoption versus outright rejection, our conclusion is distinct: R2P is consciously contested in Southeast Asia on normative grounds which must be understood in the context of the region.
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
Global Responsibility to Protect
Global Responsibility to Protect Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
44.40%
发文量
42
×
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