國際法上關(guān)于反恐兩種法理路徑的比較研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-04 12:16
【摘要】：發(fā)生在21世紀初的“9·11”事件,對國際關(guān)系的發(fā)展產(chǎn)生了巨大影響,反恐成為全球化過程中的一個重要課題。此前雖然國際社會出于對地區(qū)性恐怖活動的關(guān)注,制定了不少國際公約和議定書,但是聯(lián)合國會員國加入的比例很低�！�9·11”事件之后,恐怖活動的國際化使得加入比例快速上升,國際反恐立法也在此背景下得到更快發(fā)展�！�9·11”事件也催生了利用國際法上的自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論打擊恐怖主義活動這一全新實踐。雖然“9·11”事件已經(jīng)過去近十年,但是國際反恐立法仍然在發(fā)展,關(guān)于2001年美國出于自衛(wèi)對阿富汗發(fā)動反恐戰(zhàn)爭的爭論仍然沒有停止,而關(guān)于2003年美國以“預(yù)先自衛(wèi)”為由對伊拉克發(fā)動的反恐戰(zhàn)爭的爭論更是激烈。筆者認為目前國際法上反恐的思路大致有兩種,一是通過國際立法合作進行反恐,二是利用自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論作為打擊恐怖主義活動的法律基礎(chǔ),這兩種思路既相互依賴,又各有所不同。目前的國際反恐合作的法律領(lǐng)域呈現(xiàn)以下兩個特征:一是對以新手段進行的恐怖主義活動進行定罪沒有異議,這方面的公約也進展順利,豐富完善了國際反恐立法;二是一些長期以來的爭議問題仍然沒有得到解決,這也反映出了目前國際法上反恐的現(xiàn)狀,雖然國際反恐立法已初成體系,并且還有新發(fā)展,但是國際反恐立法所能解決的問題仍然有限,其固有的滯后性的特征無法滿足及時打擊恐怖主義活動的需要;利用自衛(wèi)權(quán)打擊恐怖主義活動雖然能夠及時地維護受害國的權(quán)益,但是反恐戰(zhàn)爭極易突破應(yīng)有的限度,原因就在于并沒有關(guān)于監(jiān)督自衛(wèi)權(quán)行使的國際立法。為了充分說明這兩條法理路徑及二者之間的關(guān)系,筆者對大量有爭議的問題進行了分析并給出了自己的結(jié)論。
[Abstract]:The "September 11" incident, which occurred in the early 21st century, has had a great impact on the development of international relations, and anti-terrorism has become an important issue in the process of globalization. Previously, although the international community had drawn up a number of international conventions and protocols out of concern for regional terrorist activities, the proportion of UN member States acceding to the "9 / 11" incident was very low. The internationalization of terrorist activities makes the proportion of participation rise rapidly, and the international anti-terrorism legislation develops more rapidly under this background. The "9 / 11" incident has also spawned a new practice of using the theory of the right of self-defence in international law to combat terrorist activities. Although nearly a decade has passed since the "9 / 11" incident, international anti-terrorism legislation is still developing, and the debate over the 2001 US war on terrorism against Afghanistan in self-defence has not stopped. The controversy over the US war on Iraq on the grounds of preemptive self-defense in 2003 was even fiercer. The author thinks that there are two ways of thinking about anti-terrorism in international law at present, one is to carry out anti-terrorism through international legislative cooperation, the other is to use the theory of the right of self-defence as the legal basis for combating terrorist activities. These two ideas are interdependent. It's different. The current legal field of international counter-terrorism cooperation shows the following two characteristics: first, there is no objection to the conviction of terrorist activities by new means, and the conventions in this respect are also progressing smoothly, enriching and perfecting international anti-terrorism legislation; Second, some long-standing controversial issues remain unresolved, which also reflects the current state of international law on counter-terrorism, although international anti-terrorism legislation has become a system and there are new developments. However, the problems that can be solved by international anti-terrorism legislation are still limited, and its inherent lag characteristics cannot meet the needs of combating terrorism in a timely manner; Although the use of the right of self-defence to combat terrorist activities can safeguard the rights and interests of the injured State in time, the war on terror is easy to break through the limits due to the absence of international legislation on the supervision of the exercise of the right to self-defence. In order to fully explain the two legal paths and the relationship between them, the author analyzes a large number of controversial issues and gives his own conclusions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D997.9
本文編號：2309790
[Abstract]:The "September 11" incident, which occurred in the early 21st century, has had a great impact on the development of international relations, and anti-terrorism has become an important issue in the process of globalization. Previously, although the international community had drawn up a number of international conventions and protocols out of concern for regional terrorist activities, the proportion of UN member States acceding to the "9 / 11" incident was very low. The internationalization of terrorist activities makes the proportion of participation rise rapidly, and the international anti-terrorism legislation develops more rapidly under this background. The "9 / 11" incident has also spawned a new practice of using the theory of the right of self-defence in international law to combat terrorist activities. Although nearly a decade has passed since the "9 / 11" incident, international anti-terrorism legislation is still developing, and the debate over the 2001 US war on terrorism against Afghanistan in self-defence has not stopped. The controversy over the US war on Iraq on the grounds of preemptive self-defense in 2003 was even fiercer. The author thinks that there are two ways of thinking about anti-terrorism in international law at present, one is to carry out anti-terrorism through international legislative cooperation, the other is to use the theory of the right of self-defence as the legal basis for combating terrorist activities. These two ideas are interdependent. It's different. The current legal field of international counter-terrorism cooperation shows the following two characteristics: first, there is no objection to the conviction of terrorist activities by new means, and the conventions in this respect are also progressing smoothly, enriching and perfecting international anti-terrorism legislation; Second, some long-standing controversial issues remain unresolved, which also reflects the current state of international law on counter-terrorism, although international anti-terrorism legislation has become a system and there are new developments. However, the problems that can be solved by international anti-terrorism legislation are still limited, and its inherent lag characteristics cannot meet the needs of combating terrorism in a timely manner; Although the use of the right of self-defence to combat terrorist activities can safeguard the rights and interests of the injured State in time, the war on terror is easy to break through the limits due to the absence of international legislation on the supervision of the exercise of the right to self-defence. In order to fully explain the two legal paths and the relationship between them, the author analyzes a large number of controversial issues and gives his own conclusions.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：外交學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D997.9
【參考文獻】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 何秉松,廖斌;恐怖主義概念比較研究[J];比較法研究;2003年04期
2 林麗;;上海合作組織框架下中國新疆與周邊國家恐怖主義犯罪及打擊對策[J];兵團教育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年03期
3 簡基松;關(guān)于反對國際恐怖主義的若干國際法問題研究[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2002年04期
4 馬進保;論國際犯罪中的國家責(zé)任[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1995年06期
5 肖平;;論恐怖主義的法律性質(zhì)[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2009年03期
6 簡基松;“反恐”軍事行動對國家自衛(wèi)權(quán)規(guī)則的突破[J];法學(xué)雜志;2002年02期
7 趙秉志;杜邈;;在聯(lián)合國法律框架內(nèi)進行反恐斗爭——“全球反恐法律框架”學(xué)術(shù)研討會綜述[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年03期
8 梁西;國際法律秩序的呼喚——“9.11”事件后的理性反思[J];法學(xué)評論;2002年01期
9 汪自勇;美國反恐自衛(wèi)權(quán)理論之批判——從阿富汗戰(zhàn)爭到伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭[J];法學(xué)評論;2003年04期
10 王立民;完善反恐立法 有效打擊恐怖主義犯罪[J];法學(xué);2003年06期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 李華;國際恐怖主義與反恐國際立法問題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年
2 劉睿;國際反恐合作對聯(lián)合國集體安全機制的影響[D];北京交通大學(xué);2010年
，本文編號：2309790
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2309790.html
