本文選題：民族自決權 + 困境�。� 參考：《遼寧大學》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：民族自決權原則是國際法所確立的基本原則之一。在二戰(zhàn)后推動殖民地解放運動,民族獨立運動中起了重要作用。然而在當代,殖民地幾乎已經(jīng)不存在,作為打擊殖民主義的理論武器,民族自決權因失去土壤而面臨困境。本文從概念爭議、與國家主權原則的沖突、價值困境三個方向深入研究民族自決權的現(xiàn)實困境,并進一步分析民族自決權的當代價值。民族自決權的現(xiàn)實困境主要體現(xiàn)在以下三個方面:(1)概念爭議,這也是其他困境出現(xiàn)的根源。因為民族自決權的相關條文作為概括性、原則性條文不宜規(guī)定的太過細致,語言本身的表達局限,帶來了民族自決權概念的模糊,產(chǎn)生爭議。(2)與國家主權原則的沖突,是民族自決權原則在當代最突出的困境。國家主權原則位階更高,應優(yōu)先使用,但一部分群體行使民族自決權,通常會損害另一部分群體的利益。民族自決權原則的行使在涉及兩個國家的情況下,通常會損害國家主權原則。在實踐中,民族自決權原則已經(jīng)突破了國家主權原則,從而產(chǎn)生兩者之間的沖突。(3)價值困境,這是民族自決權困境的核心。有觀點認為民族自決權已經(jīng)過時,應回歸本意,即回歸到殖民地時代的民族自決權。但這等于在實際層面上否定民族自決權在當代的一切價值,徹底廢除當代民族自決權。還有觀點認為,民族自決權在當今的發(fā)展,應集中在經(jīng)濟、社會、文化等非政治領域。但這等于拋棄了民族自決權的政治價值,并且將民族自決權的發(fā)展延伸進國內(nèi)法。這兩種觀點都存在不足。筆者提出的解決方法是:完善概念、與國際法、國內(nèi)法結合發(fā)展。在概念上,將民族自決權適用的主體擴展為,出現(xiàn)人道主義危機的群體。并且主體是否遭遇人道主義危機,需要經(jīng)過聯(lián)合國權威機構的調(diào)查和確認,具體行使的方式應由利益各方通過非暴力方式和平協(xié)商產(chǎn)生。具體的形式需要根據(jù)具體事件具體制定。將民族自決權與國際法、國內(nèi)法結合適用。如果受侵害主體愿意讓渡出部分權利,給予行使自決權的主體以民族自決權,并且有自愿簽訂的規(guī)范性文件作為法律支撐,那么這種方式可以成為一種合法行使民族自決權的途徑。這種規(guī)范性文件可以是國際條約、雙邊協(xié)定甚至是國內(nèi)憲法等國內(nèi)法律。這種實例在國際社會中已經(jīng)出現(xiàn)。筆者希望通過對民族自決權現(xiàn)實困境和當代價值的研究,使民族自決權的發(fā)展成為理論先導,成為指導國際社會民族自決行為的法理參照。
[Abstract]:The principle of national self-determination is one of the basic principles established by international law. The national independence movement played an important role in promoting the colonial liberation movement after World War II. However, as a theoretical weapon to fight against colonialism, the right to self-determination of the nation is confronted with difficulties because of the loss of soil. This paper studies the realistic dilemma of national self-determination from three aspects: concept dispute, conflict with the principle of national sovereignty and value dilemma, and further analyzes the contemporary value of national self-determination. The realistic dilemma of the national self-determination is mainly reflected in the following three aspects: 1) concept dispute, which is also the root of other difficulties. Because the relevant provisions of the right of national self-determination are general, the provisions of principle should not be specified too carefully, and the expression of language itself is limited, which brings about the ambiguity of the concept of national right of self-determination, resulting in the conflict between the concept of the right of national self-determination and the principle of national sovereignty. It is the most prominent dilemma of the principle of national self-determination in contemporary times. The principle of national sovereignty is higher and should be used first, but the exercise of the right of national self-determination by some groups usually undermines the interests of others. The exercise of the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, in cases involving two States, usually undermines the principle of national sovereignty. In practice, the principle of national right of self-determination has broken through the principle of national sovereignty, resulting in a conflict between the two value dilemma, which is the core of the dilemma of national self-determination. Some people think that the right to self-determination is out of date and should be returned to its original intention, that is, the right to self-determination in colonial times. However, this is tantamount to negating all the values of the right of national self-determination in the contemporary society and abolishing the right of self-determination of the contemporary nation. It is also argued that the development of national self-determination should focus on non-political fields such as economy, society and culture. However, this is tantamount to abandoning the political value of the right of national self-determination and extending the development of the right of national self-determination into domestic law. There are shortcomings in both views. The solution proposed by the author is to perfect the concept and develop in combination with international law and domestic law. Conceptually, the subject of national self-determination is extended to the group of humanitarian crisis. And whether the subject is confronted with humanitarian crisis needs to be investigated and confirmed by the United Nations authority, and the specific way of exercise should be produced by the non-violent peaceful negotiation between the parties concerned. Specific forms need to be formulated according to specific events. The right to self-determination of peoples should be applied in combination with international law and domestic law. If the aggrieved subject is willing to cede part of the right, the subject exercising the right of self-determination shall be given the right of national self-determination, and shall be supported by voluntary normative documents. Then this approach can be a legitimate way to exercise the right to national self-determination. Such normative documents may be international treaties, bilateral agreements or even domestic laws such as domestic constitutions. Such examples have emerged in the international community. The author hopes to make the development of national self-determination become a theoretical guide and a legal reference to guide the behavior of national self-determination in the international community through the study of the realistic dilemma and contemporary value of the national self-determination.
【學位授予單位】：遼寧大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D992

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前3條

1 馬寅;;民族自決權理論溯源及其內(nèi)涵嬗變[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(下旬);2010年03期

2 張友國;;民族自決的兩難困境及其解決[J];首都師范大學學報(社會科學版);2009年05期

3 朱倫;民族共治論——對當代多民族國家族際政治事實的認識[J];世界民族;2001年04期

相關碩士學位論文 前1條

1 張宜海;民族自決思想歷史與現(xiàn)狀[D];鄭州大學;2004年

，

本文編號：1906385