题名

聯合國「主權保護責任」與「人道軍事干預」規範的社會建構：建構主義的觀點

并列篇名

The Social Construction of the Norms of ＂Responsibility to Protect＂ and ＂Humanitarian Inventions＂ under the United Nations: A Constructivist Perspective

DOI

10.6166/TJPS.62(79-114)

作者

郭雪真(Hsueh-Chen Kuo)

关键词

國際關係理論 ； 建構主義 ； 國際規範 ； 人道干預 ； 主權保護責任 ； International Relations Theory ； Constructivism ； International Norms ； Humanitarian Intervention ； Responsibility to Protect

期刊名称

政治科學論叢

卷期/出版年月

62期（2014 / 12 / 01）

页次

79 - 113

内容语文

繁體中文
中文摘要

國際關係建構主義學者認為國際規範具有社會本體論的特性，即規範是杜會事實（social fact）而非自然事實，國際規範如何普遍運作有效則是國際成員相互建構而成，是一種社會建構（social construction）。國家主權正是一種國際規範、社會建構，其正當性原是奠基於領土疆域的不干涉原則，但由於歷經歷史的情勢發展，由不同成員相互所建構而成。建構主義學者質疑主權是固定、永久不變的本質，具有自然客觀存在的基礎，而認為主權是一種社會建構或人類建構，是隨歷史時空變遷的國際規範與政治論述。國家主權原則是歷史偶發的原則，以往的領土內外與認同異同的區分主權，既不自然也不必要，而是若干歷史的先前意外事件的結果。國家現已相互建構奠基於人道的國家（主權）保護（人民）責任（The Responsibility to Protect）原則，此原則闡述了國家主權意含了責任，首要責任是保護國內人民；以及保護因種族屠殺、內戰、叛亂、壓迫或國家失靈，還有國家遭質疑無意或無能力終止或扭轉此苦難而受苦的人們，不干涉原則不及於國際保護責任。隨著學者提出各種補充的理論基礎及批判，促進了此國際規範的擴散與國際社會化，以及後續在聯合國安理會的決議下，依據此規範而人道軍事干預利比亞、南蘇丹、馬利、中非共和國等國，更說明此原則已經成為具體的國際規範。在此國際規範的社會建構過程中，建構主義理論的描述與解釋顯示出其優點所在。
英文摘要

Constructivists have argued that international norms have a social ontological character, that is, they are a social fact, not a natural fact. The application of international norms is a social construction co-constituted by the members of international society. Therefore, state sovereignty is both an international norm and a social construction, with its legitimacy based on the principle of non-intervention of territory which arose in a particular historical context through the actions of the members of international society. Constructivists problematize the claim that sovereignty is constant, permanent, and with a natural foundation in objective existence, and instead claim that sovereignty is a social or human construction, an international norm, and a political discourse that emerged with historical change of time and space. The principle of state sovereignty is a principle of historical contingences; the division of sovereignty by territory (internal or external) and by identity (similar or different) is neither natural nor necessary. Sovereignty is instead the result of several historical accidents. State actors have also jointly constructed the principle of ＂the responsibility to protect＂ which defines state sovereignty, meaning a primary responsibility to protect their population from genocide, civil war, insurgency, oppression, or state failure. In states where populations suffer from these ills, the willingness and ability of the state to end or reverse this suffering has been questioned. Therefore, the principle of non-intervention is subject to ＂the responsibility to protect＂ norm. Scholars have proposed a new theoretical basis for the diffusion and international socialization of this norm. Furthermore, UN Security Council resolutions on humanitarian intervention in countries such as Libya, South Sudan, Mali, and the Central African Republic have accorded to this norm. Therefore, constructivism has emerged as a useful way to explain the social construction process of this international norm.
主题分类 社會科學 > 社會科學綜合
参考文献
  1. 蔡育岱(2010)。國際人權的擴散與實踐：以《國家保護責任》的倡議為例。問題與研究，49(4)，135-162。
    連結：
  2. 蔡育岱(2010)。人權與主權的對立、共存與規避：論述《國家保護責任》在人道干預上的意涵及重要性。東吳政治學報，28(4)，1-36。
    連結：
  3. Annan, Kofi A. 1999. “Secretary-General Presents His Annual Report to the General Assembly.” in http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/stories/statments_search_full.asp?statID=28. Latest update 13 February 2014.
  4. United Nations Security Council. 1999. “Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda.”in http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/395/47/IMG/N9939547.pdf?OpenElement. Latest update 10 February 2014.
  5. United Nations. 2009. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly. UN Doc.A/RES/63/308.” in http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/63/308&Lang=E. Latest update 12 February 2014.
  6. Haass, Richard N. 2002. “Defining U.S. Foreign Policy in a Post-Post-cold War World: the 2002 Arthur Ross Lecture, Remarks to Foreign Policy Association.” in http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/9632.htm. Latest update 19 February 2014.
  7. Solana, Javier. 1999. “Press Statement (Press Release (1990) 040).” in http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-040e.htm. Latest update 24 March 2013.
  8. Patrick, Steward. 2004. “The Role of the U.S. Government in Humanitarian Intervention.” in http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/31299.htm. Latest update 14 February 2014.
  9. Martin, Paul. 2004. “Statement by The Right Honourable Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada, to the 59th Session of UN General Assembly.” in http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/59/statements/caneng040922.pdf. Latest update 13 February 2014.
  10. Public International Law and Policy Group. 2006. “Earned Sovereignty.” in http://www.publicinternationallaw.org/programs/sovereignty/earned/. Latest update 09 January 2014.
  11. Public International Law and Policy Group. 2007. “PILPG Homepage.” in http://www.publicinternationallaw.org. Latest update 09 January 2014.
  12. Acharya, Amitav(2004).How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.International Organization,58(2),239-275.
  13. Ayub, Fatima,Kouvo, Sari(2008).Righting the course? Humanitarian Intervention, the War on Terror and the Future of Afghanistan.International Affairs,84(4),641-657.
  14. Barnett, Michael(1995).Sovereignty, Nationalism, and Regional Order in the Arab States System.International Organization,49(3),479-510.
  15. Barnett, Michael(2009).Evolution without Progress? Humanitarianism in a World of Hurt.International Organization,63(4),621-663.
  16. Barnett, Michael(2005).Humanitarianism Transformed.Perspectives on Politics,3(4),723-740.
  17. Barnett, Michael(2002).Eyewitness to a Genocide: the United Nations and Rwanda.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  18. Barnett, Michael(2001).Humanitarianism with a Sovereign Face: UNHCR in the Global Undertow.International Migration Review,35(1),244-277.
  19. Baylis, John(ed.),Smith, Steve(ed.)(2001).The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.New York:Oxford University Press.
  20. Bellamy, Alex J.(2008).The Responsibility to Protect and the Problem of Military Intervention.International Affairs,84(4),615-639.
  21. Bellamy, Alex J.(2003).Humanitarian Responsibilities and Interventionist Claims in International Society.Review of international Studies,29(3),321-340.
  22. Bellamy, Alex J.(2013).The Responsibility to Protect: Added Value or Hot Air?.Cooperation and Conflict,48(3),333-357.
  23. Bellamy, Alex J.(2006).Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit.Ethics and International Affairs,20(2),143-169.
  24. Biersteker, Thomas J.,Weber, Cynthia(1996).State Sovereignty as Social Construct.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  25. Bjorkdahl, Annika(2002).Norms in International Relations: Some Conceptual and Methodological Reflections.Cambridge Review of International Affairs,15(1),9-23.
  26. Bjorkdahl, Annika(2002).Lund University.
  27. Bjorkdahl, Annika(2004).Normative Influence in World Politics: Toward a Theoretical Framework of Norm Export and Import.ECPR Joint Sessions,Uppsala:
  28. Brooks, Stephen G.,Wohlforth, William C.(2005).International Relations Theory and the Case Against Unilateralism.Perspectives on Politics,3(3),509-524.
  29. Brunnee, Jutta,Toope, Stephen J.(2010).The Responsibility to Protect and the Use of Force: Building Legality?.Global Responsibility to Protect,2(3),191-212.
  30. Burchill, Scoot(ed.)(2001).Theories of International Relations.New York:Palgrave Publishing.
  31. Chandler, David(2003).New Rights for Old? Cosmopolitan Citizenship and the Critique of State Sovereignty.Political Studies,51(2),323-349.
  32. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(1999).Norms Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe.International Studies Quarterly,43(1),83-114.
  33. Checkel, Jeffrey T.(ed.)(2007).International Institutions and Socialization in Europe.London:Sage Publication.
  34. Chong, Alan(2005).Classical Realism and the Tension Between Sovereignty and Intervention: Constructions of Expediency from Machiavelli, Hobbes and Bodin.Journal of International Relations and Development,8,257-286.
  35. Chopra, Jarat,Weiss, Thomas G.(1992).Sovereignty Is No Longer Sacrosanct: Codifying Humanitarian Intervention.Ethics and International Affairs,6(1),95-117.
  36. Clarke, Walter S.,Herbst, Jeffrey(1996).Somalia and the Future of Humanitarian Intervention.Foreign Affairs,75(2),70-85.
  37. Cooper, Richard H.(ed.),Kohler, Juliette Voïnov(ed.)(2008).Responsibility to Protect: the 21 Century Global Moral Compact.New York:Macmillan.
  38. Crawford, Neta(2002).Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and Humanitarian Intervention.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  39. Cunliffe, Philip(2012).Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory and Practice.London:Routledge.
  40. Deng, Francis M.(1995).Frontiers of Sovereignty: a Framework of Protection, Assistance, and Development for the Internally Displaced.Leiden Journal of International Law,8(2),249-286.
  41. Deng, Francis M.,Kimaro, Sadikiel,Lyons, Terrence,Rothchild, Donald,Zartman, I. William(1996).Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa.Washington DC:Brookings Institution Press.
  42. Devetak, Richard(2007).Between Kant and Pufendorf: Humanitarian Intervention, Statist Anti-cosmopolitanism and Critical International Theory.Review of International Studies,33(S1),151-174.
  43. Dunne, Tim,Wheeler, Nicholas J.(2004).'We the Peoples': Contending Discourses of Security in Human Rights Theory and Practice.International Relations,18(1),9-23.
  44. Finnemore, Martha(1996).National Interests in International Society.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  45. Finnemore, Martha(2003).The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  46. Finnemore, Martha,Sikkink, Kathryn(1998).International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.International Organization,52(4),887-917.
  47. Finnemore, Martin(1993).International Organization as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.International Organization,47(4),565-598.
  48. Glanville, Luke(2014).Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect: a New History.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
  49. Goldstein, Judith(ed.),Keohane, Robert(ed.)(1993).Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  50. Gurowitz, Amy(1999).Mobilizing International Norms: Domestic Actors Immigrants and the Japanees State.World Politics,51(3),413-445.
  51. Hasenclever, Andreas(ed.),Mayer, Peter(ed.),Rittberger, Volker(ed.)(1997).Theories of International Regimes.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  52. Hathaway, Oona A.(2008).International Delegation and State Sovereignty.Law and Contemporary Problems,71(4),115-149.
  53. Holmes, Stephen(200).Humanitarian Intervention: a Forum.The Nations,14,19.
  54. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty(2001).,未出版
  55. Katzenstein, Peter(ed.)(1996).The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics.New York:Columbia University Press.
  56. Keck, Margaret E.,Sikkink, Kathryn(1998).Activities Beyond Borders.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  57. Kikoler, Naomi(2009).Responsibility to Protect.International Conference: Protecting People in Conflict and Crisis: Responding to the Challenges of a Changing World,Oxford:
  58. Klotz, Audie(1995).Norms in International Relations: The Struggle against Apartheid.Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
  59. Krasner, Stephen D.(1982).Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.International Organization,36(2),185-206.
  60. Krasner, Stephen D.(1988).Sovereignty: An Institutional Perspective.Comparative Political Studies,21(1),66-94.
  61. Kratochwil, Friedrich(1989).Rules, Norms, and Decisions: on the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International and Domestic Affairs.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  62. Lagoutte, Stéphanie(ed.)(2007).Human Rights in Turmoil: Facing Threats, Consolidating Achievements.Boston:Martinus Nijhoff.
  63. Lee, Thomas H.(2004).International Law, International Relations Theory, and Preemptive War: The Vitality of Sovereign Equality Today.Law and Contemporary Problems,67(4),147-167.
  64. Legro, Jeffrey W.(1997).Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the 'failure' of Internationalism.International Organization,51(1),31-63.
  65. Lowenheim, Oded(2003).'Do Ourselves Credit and Render a Lasting Service to Mankind': British Moral Prestige, Humanitarian Intervention, and the Barbary Pirates.International Studies Quarterly,47(1),23-48.
  66. Mamdani, Mahmood(2009).Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror.New York:Pantheon Books.
  67. Moses, Jeremy,Bahador, Babak,Wright, Tessa(2011).The Iraq War and the Responsibility to Protect: Uses, Abuses and Consequences for the Future of Humanitarian Intervention.Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding,5(4),347-367.
  68. Onuf, Nicholas(1989).World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations.Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
  69. Pattison, James(2010).Outsourcing the Responsibility to Protect: Humanitarian Intervention and Private Military and Security Companies.International Theory,2(1),1-31.
  70. Pettman, Ralph(2000).Commonsense Constructivism: Or the Making of World Affairs.New York:M. E. Sharpe.
  71. Price, Richard(2008).Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics.International Organization,62(2),191-220.
  72. Puchala, Donald J.(ed.)(2002).Visions of International Relations.Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
  73. Reus-Smit, Christian(2001).Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty.Review of International Studies,27(4),519-538.
  74. Risse, Thomas(2000).'Let's Argue!': Communicative Action in World Politics.International Organization,54(1),1-39.
  75. Risse, Thomas(ed.)(1999).The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  76. Ruggie, John Gerard(1998).Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization.London:Routledge.
  77. Scharf, Michael P.(2003).Earned Sovereignty: Juridical Underpinnings.Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,31(3),373-387.
  78. Seybolt, Taylor B.,Collins, Kathryn,Foley, Owen,Johnson, Rebecca(2009).Does the 'Responsibility to Protect' Encourage Third Party Intervention?.Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association,Toronto, Canada:
  79. Teson, Fernando R.(1997).Humanitarian Intervention: an Inquiry into Law and Morality.Dobbs Ferry:Transnational Publisher.
  80. Thomas, Nicholas,Tow, William T.(2002).The Utility of Human Security: Sovereignty and Humanitarian Invention.Security Dialogue,33(2),177-192.
  81. Thompson, Helen(2006).The Case for External Sovereignty.European Journal of International Relations,12(2),251-274.
  82. United Nations(2000).,未出版
  83. Waal, Alex De(2007).Darfur and the Failure of the Responsibility to Protect.International Affairs,83(6),1039-1054.
  84. Walker, Robert B. J.(ed.),Mendlovitz, Saul H.(ed.)(1990).Contending Sovereignties: Redefining Political Community.Boulder:Lynne Reinner.
  85. Weber, Cynthia(1995).Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and the Symbolic Exchange.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  86. Weldes, Jutta(1996).Constructing National Interests.European Journal of International Relations,2(3),275-318.
  87. Welsh, Jennifer M.(2010).Turning Words to Deed? The Implementation of the 'Responsibility to Protect'.Global Responsibility to Protect,2(1-2),149-154.
  88. Wendt, Alexander(1999).Social Theory of International Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  89. Wendt, Alexander(1992).Anarchy Is What the States Make of It: the Social Construction of Power Politics.International Organization,46(2),391-425.
  90. White, Nigel D.(1996).Commentary on the Protection of the Kurdish Safe-Haven: Operation Desert Strike.Journal of Armed Conflict Law,1(2),197-204.
  91. Williams, Paul R.(2003).Earned Sovereignty: The Road to Resolving the Conflict Over Kosovo's Final Status.Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,31(3),387-430.
  92. Williams, Paul R.,Hooper, James R., III,Scharff, Michael(2003).Resolving Sovereignty-Based Conflicts: The Emerging Approach of Earned Sovereignty.Denver Journal of International Law and Policy,31(3),349-353.
  93. Williams, Paul R.,Pecci, Francesca Jannotti(2004).Earned Sovereignty: Bridging the Gap Between Sovereignty and Self-Determination.Stanford Journal of International Law,40(1),1-40.
  94. Youngs, Tim,Oakes, Mark,Bowers, Paul(1999).Kosovo: NATO and Military Actions.London:House of Common Library.
  95. 梁文韜(2010)。國際政治理論與人道干預：多元主義與團和主義之爭辯。台北:巨流圖書。
  96. 鞠德風、段復初、郭雪真(2008)。國家主權與主權國家的迷思─人道軍事干預、經貿全球化與主權理論的反思。復興崗學報，91，143-16。
被引用次数
  1. 林立(2018)。「民族自決權」能否抗拒「普世人權」的要求？：對瓦爾澤（Michael Walzer）以「自決」反對「人道干預」之批判。台灣國際法學刊，15(1)，43-73。
  2. (2023)。中國劇變與臺灣對策。中華行政學報，33，41-73。
print cancel