本文關(guān)鍵詞： 人體盾牌 直接參加敵對(duì)行動(dòng) 平民保護(hù) 戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪　出處：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：人體盾牌已經(jīng)成為現(xiàn)代戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上廣泛采用的策略,但現(xiàn)在還沒有國(guó)際條約對(duì)這一問題進(jìn)行規(guī)制。1人體盾牌是否絕對(duì)被禁止使用?如果武裝沖突一方使用了人體盾牌,構(gòu)成了違反國(guó)際法的行為,那么沖突的另一方是否就可以毫無(wú)顧忌的對(duì)人體盾牌進(jìn)行攻擊?人體盾牌是平民還是戰(zhàn)斗員?抓獲人體盾牌后,其是否具有戰(zhàn)俘地位?2自愿充當(dāng)人盾的行為是否構(gòu)成戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪?抓獲后應(yīng)該提交國(guó)際刑事法庭審判,還是依據(jù)國(guó)內(nèi)法進(jìn)行審判?古希臘哲學(xué)家亞里士多德曾說:“法律是免除一切情欲影響的神祗和理智的體現(xiàn)。”3我國(guó)先賢管仲也說:“法律政令者,吏民規(guī)矩繩墨也。”4可見,法律對(duì)規(guī)制人類行為具有重要作用。對(duì)于人類生活具有嚴(yán)重影響的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)行為,當(dāng)然更需要法律進(jìn)行規(guī)制。本文依托國(guó)際法的理論,對(duì)人體盾牌這一空白領(lǐng)域展開討論。試圖在法律上找到保護(hù)平民和維護(hù)軍事利益的平衡點(diǎn),對(duì)上述問題進(jìn)行回答,最終實(shí)現(xiàn)法律對(duì)戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的規(guī)制。 人體盾牌應(yīng)分為兩類:自愿人體盾牌和非自愿的人體盾牌。并將這種二分法作為立論的基石。接著討論人盾使用方和應(yīng)對(duì)方在作戰(zhàn)方法上應(yīng)受到的限制,使用方應(yīng)當(dāng)絕對(duì)禁止使用非自愿人體盾牌,即禁止強(qiáng)迫平民充當(dāng)人盾。另一方面,武裝沖突的一方強(qiáng)迫平民掩護(hù)軍事目標(biāo)構(gòu)成戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪,武裝沖突另一方不得因?yàn)閷?duì)方的違法行為,對(duì)非自愿人盾展開攻擊。 “直接參與敵對(duì)行動(dòng)”的概念可以用來(lái)澄清人盾的法律地位;當(dāng)人盾沒有直接參與敵對(duì)行動(dòng),應(yīng)當(dāng)具有平民身份,免受軍事攻擊;相反,若直接參與了敵對(duì)行動(dòng),則喪失了作為平民免受攻擊的保護(hù)。5他們這種身份的界定,同樣還會(huì)影響區(qū)分原則,比例原則和以合理、謹(jǐn)慎的方法進(jìn)行攻擊原則的適用,即應(yīng)對(duì)方應(yīng)禁止采用可以引起過度的附帶傷害的攻擊方法,并采取必要措施降低平民傷害。先賢孟子認(rèn)為徒善不足以為政,徒法不足以自行,強(qiáng)調(diào)了法律從文本轉(zhuǎn)化為實(shí)踐的意義。既然國(guó)際法為使用方和應(yīng)對(duì)方設(shè)定了法定義務(wù),對(duì)法律義務(wù)的違反必然導(dǎo)致法律責(zé)任,這就要求以戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)罪的形式來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)法律的價(jià)值。
[Abstract]:Human shield has become a widely used strategy in modern battlefield. However, there is no international treaty to regulate this issue. 1 is the use of human shield absolutely prohibited? If one party to an armed conflict uses a human shield, which constitutes a violation of international law, can the other party to the conflict attack the human shield without scruples? Are human shields civilians or combatants? After the capture of the human shield, does it have the status of a prisoner of war? (2) does the act of voluntary human shield constitute a war crime? Should they be brought before the International Criminal Court after their arrest, or should they be tried in accordance with domestic law? The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once said: "the law is the embodiment of the gods and reason which exempts all the influence of desire." (3) Guan Zhong, the forerunner of our country, also said: "the law dictates that the officials and the people obey the rules of the law." 4 it can be seen. Law plays an important role in the regulation of human behavior. The war behavior which has serious impact on human life, of course, need to be regulated by law. This paper relies on the theory of international law. This paper discusses the blank field of human shield and tries to find a balance between protecting civilians and safeguarding military interests in law, and then answers the above questions, and finally realizes the regulation of war by law. Human shields should be divided into two categories: voluntary human shields and involuntary human shields. This dichotomy is regarded as the cornerstone of the argument. The user should absolutely prohibit the use of involuntary human shields, that is, forcing civilians to act as human shields... on the other hand, forcing civilians to cover military targets by a party to an armed conflict constitutes a war crime. The other party to the armed conflict shall not launch an attack against an involuntary human shield for the other party's violation. The concept of "direct participation in hostilities" could be used to clarify the legal status of human shields; When human shields are not directly involved in hostilities, they should have the status of civilians and be immune from military attacks; On the contrary, by taking a direct part in hostilities, the definition of their status as civilians protected from attack would be lost, as would the principle of distinction, the principle of proportionality and reasonableness. A prudent approach to the application of the principle of attack is that the other side should prohibit the use of attack methods that can cause excessive collateral damage and take necessary measures to reduce civilian harm. Since international law imposes legal obligations on both the user and the opposite party, the breach of the legal obligation will inevitably lead to legal liability. This requires the realization of the value of law in the form of war crimes.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D995;D998.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 程宏;私人財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)的法律保護(hù)[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年02期

2 秦偉;戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)規(guī)制與戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)法[J];現(xiàn)代國(guó)際關(guān)系;2003年03期

3 廖扶搖,劉健;論國(guó)際條約在中國(guó)的適用[J];天水行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 宋云霞;國(guó)家海上管轄權(quán)研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1460511