新干預主義－武力使用之合法性與正當性

The New Interventionism: The Legality and Legitimacy of the Use of Force

10.29800/TLSQ.201009.0006

葉錦娟(Chin-Chuan Yeh)

新干預主義 ； 武力使用 ； 合法性 ； 正當性 ； New Interventionism ； use of force ； legality ； legitimacy

台灣國際研究季刊

6卷3期（2010 / 09 / 01）

161 - 183

繁體中文

冷戰結束後，出現新的國際安全局勢和挑戰。對國際和平與安全最大的威脅是來自國家內部的族群衝突、內戰或是政府失靈所造成的人道災難。面對國際安全局勢的轉變，舊時維持國際和平與安全的思維也必須改變，「新干預主義」便是在這樣的背景下興起：如果謹守國際法不干涉他國內政以及禁止使用武力的原則，如何應付發生在波士尼亞、索馬利亞、盧安達、科索沃、東帝汶、蘇丹、剛果以及海地的人道災難？隨著聯合國祕書長的報告和安理會的決議，此主張已擴展至預防衝突和衝突後重建，使新干預主義成爲一套從預防、解決到防止一國內部衝突再生的策略。 新干預主義主張在合法性／正當性的原則下，以武力介入一國內部衝突之預防、解決與衝突後重建，打破國家主權的絕對排它性，以及擴大使用武力的目的與範圍，並接受正當性干預。本文首先將分析國際法的不干涉原則在冷戰結束後如何被修正，而成爲新干預主義干涉他國內部衝突的法理基礎，隨後將分析新干預主義最重要亦是本文的核心議題：武力使用之合法性與正當性。

Since the end of the Cold War, new international security circumstances and challenges have emerged. The most threat to international peace and security is humanitarian catastrophe within states as a result of ethnic conflict, civil war or state failure. To face these challenges, the old thinking about maintains of international peace and security must change. If we continue to observe non-interference in internal affairs and prohibition of use of force, how to deal with those humanitarian disasters has happened in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, East Timor, Congo, Sudan and Haiti? For stopping conflict to dissolve or alleviate such humanitarian crisis, the claim of the New Interventionism is to interfere in internal affairs of those desperate states by use of force. As the United Nations Secretary-General reports and the Security Council resolutions, the New Interventionism not only based on humanitarian reason, not only also stopping conflict, but also to integrate preventive conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction, becoming the maintenance of international peace and the peace complete strategy. In the principle of legality and legitimacy, the New Interventionism is to interfere in internal affairs by force, for preventing and resolving conflict, and post-conflict rebuilding. It breaks the principle of non-intervention in a sovereign state, and expands the scope of use of force; at the same time, it tolerates use of force based on legitimacy. This paper will discuss the transformation of non-intervention at first, and then elaborating the central issue of this article: the legality and legitimacy of the use of force.

1. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). 1992. S/RES/770. Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N92/379/66/IMG/N9237966.pdf?OpenElement) (2010/7/6).
2. UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR). 1950. A/RES/377 (V). Uniting for Peace (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/059/75/IMG/NR005975.pdf?OpenElement) (2010/7/6).
3. Bush, George. 2003. “President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq within 48 Hours.” White House, March 17 (http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html) (2010/4/2).
4. UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR). 1965. A/RES/2131 (XX). Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/94/IMG/NR021894.pdf?OpenElement) (2010/7/6).
5. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). 2008. S/RES/1816. The situation in Somalia (http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/361/77/PDF/N0836177.pdf?OpenElement) (2010/7/6).
6. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR). 1991. S/RES/688. Iraq (http://daccessdds- ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement) (2010/7/6).
7. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros. 1992. An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-keeping (http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html) (2010/7/6).
8. Annan, Kofi A. 2005. In Large Freedom: towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All (http://www.un.org/largerfreedom/report-largerfreedom.pdf) (2010/7/6).
9. Non-Aligned Movement. 1999. Final Communique of the Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Heads of Delegation of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in New York on 23 September (http://www.nam.gov.za/minmeet/newyorkcom.htm) (2007/11/2).
10. UN General Assembly Resolution (UNGAR). 1970. A/RES/2625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (http://daccess among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (http://daccessdds- ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/348/90/IMG/NR034890.pdf?Open
11. Badescu, Cristina G.(2007).Authorizing Humanitarian Intervention: Hard Choices in Saving Strangers.Canadian Journal of Political Science,40(1),51-78.
12. Bellamy, Alex J.,Williams, Paul D.(2005).Who's Keeping the Peace? Regionalization and Contemporary Peace Operations.International Security,29(4),157-195.
13. Bjola, Corneliu(2005).Legitimating the Use of Force in International Politics: A Communicative Action Perspective.European Journal of International Relation,11(2),266-303.
14. Blokker, Niels(2000).Is the Authorization Authorized? Power and Practice of UN Security Council to Authorize the Use of Force by 'Coalitions of the Able and Willing'.European Journal of International Law,11(3),541-568.
15. Boyle, Francis A.(2002).Humanitarian Intervention under International Law.Review of International Affairs,1(4),45-56.
16. Clarke, John N.(2002).Revisiting the New Interventionism.Peace Review,14(1),93-100.
17. Doyle, Michael W.(2001).The New Interventionism.Metaphilosophy,32(1-2),212-235.
18. Falk, Richard(2003).What Future for the UN Charter System of War Prevention?.American Journal of International Law,97(3),590-598.
19. Fleck, Dieter(ed.)(1999).The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts.New York:Oxford University Press.
20. Independent International Commission on Kosovo=IICK(2003).The Kosovo Report.New York:Oxford Scholarship Online.
21. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty=ICISS(2001).The Responsibility to Protect.Ottawa:International Development Research Centre.
22. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty=ICISS(2001).The Responsibility to Protect.Ottawa:International Development Research Centre.
23. Matláry, Janne Haaland(2002).Intervention for Human Right in Europe.New York:Palgrave.
24. Pollack, Kenneth M.(2002).Next Stop Baghdad?.Foreign Affairs,81(2),32-47.
25. Risse, Tomas(2000).'Let's Argue!': Communicative Action in World Politics.International Organization,54(1),1-39.
26. Roberts, Adam(2003).Law and the Use of Force after Iraq.Survival,45(2),31-56.
27. Ruggie, John Gerard(1992).Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution.International Organization,46(3),561-598.
28. Smith, Michael J.(2000).Humanitarian Intervention Revisited-Is There a Universal Policy?.Harvard International Review,22(3),72-76.
29. Stedman, Stephen John(1993).The New Interventionists.Foreign Affairs,72(1),1-16.
30. Stephens, Dale(2005).The Lawful Use of Force by Peacekeeping Force: The Tactical Imperative.International Peacekeeping,12(2),157-172.
31. Talentino, Andrea Kathryn(2006).Military Intervention after the Cold War: The Evolution of Theory and Practice.Athens:Ohio University Press.
32. United Nations Secretary-General''s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change(2004).A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report.New York:United Nations.
33. Voeten, Erik(2005).The Political Origins of UN Security Council's Ability to Legitimize the Use of Force.International Organization,59,527-557.
34. Wilson, Heather A.(1990).International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements.New York:Oxford University Press.
35. Winnefeld, James A.,Harrell, Margaret C.,Howe, Robert,Kanter, Arnold,Nichiporuk, Brian, Steinberg, Paul,Szayna, Thomas S.,Tellis, Ashley J.(1995).Intervention in Intrastate Conflict: Implications for the Army in the Post-Cold War Era.Santa Monica:Rand.
36. 楊永明(2001)。國際法上軍事干涉之研究。政治科學論叢，14，183-200。