【摘要】：在討論國(guó)際援助時(shí),羅爾斯和一些世界主義者囿于一種"非此即彼式"的簡(jiǎn)單化進(jìn)路,要么將其視為人道主義義務(wù),要么視為正義的義務(wù)。這種進(jìn)路因忽略了兩種性質(zhì)不同的義務(wù)在關(guān)注對(duì)象、援助目標(biāo)以及優(yōu)先性等方面的明顯差異,容易造成理解上的偏頗,而轉(zhuǎn)向一種基于責(zé)任原則的分析進(jìn)路可有效避免這種弊端。依據(jù)該進(jìn)路,在后果責(zé)任與補(bǔ)救責(zé)任的區(qū)分及其內(nèi)在關(guān)聯(lián)被正確認(rèn)識(shí)的基礎(chǔ)上,通過(guò)對(duì)導(dǎo)致國(guó)家貧困的根本原因的綜合分析,國(guó)際援助義務(wù)的性質(zhì)就得到合理認(rèn)定。其到底是正義的還是人道的,這種進(jìn)路不僅為國(guó)際援助義務(wù)的認(rèn)定提供了依據(jù),而且在理論上滿足責(zé)任原則的適用性、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的連貫性和平等觀念的重要性,對(duì)國(guó)際援助實(shí)踐具有啟示意義。
[Abstract]:In discussing international aid, Rawls and some cosmopolitans were confined to a "one or the other" simplistic approach, either as a humanitarian obligation or as a duty of justice. This approach, which ignores the obvious differences between the two obligations of different nature in terms of object of concern, aid objectives and priorities, can easily lead to misunderstandings. Turning to an analytical approach based on the principle of responsibility can effectively avoid this malpractice. According to this approach, on the basis of the correct understanding of the distinction between the responsibility of consequence and the responsibility of remedy and their internal relations, the nature of international aid obligation is reasonably recognized through the comprehensive analysis of the root causes leading to national poverty. Whether it is just or humane, this approach not only provides a basis for the determination of the obligation of international assistance, but also theoretically meets the applicability of the principle of responsibility, the consistency of the judgment criteria and the importance of the concept of equality, It has enlightening significance to the practice of international aid.
【作者單位】： 南京工業(yè)大學(xué);南京大學(xué)哲學(xué)系;
【基金】：國(guó)家社會(huì)科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目(12BKS009)
【分類號(hào)】：B82-051
，

本文編號(hào)：2249805