International Relations Essay范文-社會(huì)建構(gòu)主義與冷戰(zhàn),本篇Essay將以建構(gòu)主義(社會(huì)建構(gòu)主義)的概念為關(guān)鍵理論框架,回答聯(lián)合國(guó)安全理事會(huì)如何改變其運(yùn)作以應(yīng)對(duì)不斷變化的世界格局的問題,尤其是在冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后。一般來說,建構(gòu)主義是一種社會(huì)理論,關(guān)注主體和結(jié)構(gòu)之間的關(guān)系和過程。因此,Essay范文提出觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,為了應(yīng)對(duì)世界政治的變化,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)(被稱為行動(dòng)者)相應(yīng)地通過與其他行動(dòng)者合作構(gòu)建規(guī)范或所謂的“國(guó)際規(guī)范”(被稱之為結(jié)構(gòu))來改變其運(yùn)作,以此作為前提條件,以使任何變化的運(yùn)作合法化和支持工具。為了發(fā)展我的論點(diǎn),本篇Essay將分為三個(gè)部分。首先,第一節(jié)將簡(jiǎn)要介紹問題的背景、世界政治變化的概況以及聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的主要目標(biāo),包括其運(yùn)作,作為分析部分的平臺(tái)。在第二部分中,將在解釋聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)如何改變其任務(wù)時(shí)考慮到的建構(gòu)主義思想,特別是芬尼摩爾和錫金的規(guī)范生命周期概念,將在這里詳細(xì)闡述。第三部分將通過將人道主義干預(yù)作為聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)當(dāng)代行動(dòng)之一的案例研究來跟進(jìn),以展示建構(gòu)主義框架提供的見解。請(qǐng)參考。
Introduction 引言
This essay will answer the question on ‘how’ the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has changed its operations to tackle with the changing world landscape, especially after the end of the Cold War, by holding the concept from Constructivism (Social Constructivism) as a key theoretical framework. Generally, Constructivism is a social theory which is concerned about the relationship and process between agents and structures (Barnett, 2008; Jackson & Sorensen, 2007). Therefore, the essay will argue that, in response to the shifts in world politics, the UNSC (noted as an actor) accordingly has changed its operations by constructing norms or so called, ‘international norms,’ (noted as a structure), in collaboration with other actors, as preconditions in order to be legitimizing and supportive tools for any changing operations. To develop my argument, the essay will be structured into three sections. Firstly, the background of the question, the snapshot of the shifts in world politics and the main objective of UNSC including its operations will be provided briefly in the first section as a platform for the analytical section. In the second part, the ideas of Constructivism which will be taken into account for the explanation of how the UNSC has changed its tasks, especially with the Finnemore and Sikkink’s concept of the life-cycle of norms (1998, pp. 894-905), will be elaborated here. The third section will follow up by using the case study of humanitarian intervention as one of the UNSC’s contemporary operations to demonstrate the insights provided by the Constructivist’s framework.
The Shifts in World Politics and the UNSC’s Operations 世界政治的變化與聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的運(yùn)作
When or which period can be defined as a turning point of the shifts in world politics is the first question I have to address in order to make the argument clearer in terms of period of time. To do so in this essay, I will take opinions of many political scientists (Taylor & Curtis, 2008; Weiss & Daws, 2007) who have commonly spotted the turning point of the changes in world politics to the end of the Cold War. Then, what are the changes of the UNSC’s operations correlating with the changes in world politics will be explained in a snapshot here.
什么時(shí)候或哪一個(gè)時(shí)期可以被定義為世界政治轉(zhuǎn)變的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn),這是我必須解決的第一個(gè)問題,以便在一段時(shí)間內(nèi)使?fàn)幷摳忧逦?。為了在這篇文章中做到這一點(diǎn),我將聽取許多政治科學(xué)家的意見,他們共同發(fā)現(xiàn)了冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束前世界政治變化的轉(zhuǎn)折點(diǎn)。那么,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的運(yùn)作與世界政治的變化有哪些變化,我們將在這里簡(jiǎn)要介紹。
After the end of the World War II, the United Nations (UN) and The UNSC were established in 1945. The UNSC was reinvented not only to solve the problems of the League of Nations Council but also intentionally to maintain international peace and security as the main responsibility (Taylor & Curtis, 2008, p. 315). That is the goal the UNSC has not changed until nowadays even though its operations have changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War period, which Realists had seen as the bipolar system, the world addressed themselves to issues and problems regarding with state-centric notion. The role of sovereignty and the principle of self-determination had been actively mobilized throughout the world. Therefore, most of issues and operations of the UNSC at that time totally related to those ideas. The operation about decolonization and inter-state conflicts are explicit examples. Cameron R. Hume (2004, p. 607) also reiterated that the era of decolonization was coincident with the Cold War. Additionally, the Cold War thwarted the functioning of the UNSC, especially with the vetoes of the two majors (Taylor & Curtis, 2008, p. 319). The veto game between the US and the USSR produced an inefficiency of the UNSC’s function particularly on the use of force in relevant to Chapter VII (Ibid.). There were a few cases that the Council passed the resolution to call up the use of force and the first one has to wait until 1966 in the case of Rhodesia (Boyd, 1971, p. 223). These are the situation in brief before the end of the Cold War.
第二次世界大戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后,聯(lián)合國(guó)和聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)于1945年成立。聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的重塑不僅是為了解決國(guó)際聯(lián)盟理事會(huì)的問題,也是為了維護(hù)國(guó)際和平與安全作為主要責(zé)任。這是聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)直到今天都沒有改變的目標(biāo),盡管冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的運(yùn)作發(fā)生了重大變化。在冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期,現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者將其視為兩極體系,世界致力于解決以國(guó)家為中心的問題。主權(quán)的作用和自決原則已在全世界積極動(dòng)員起來。因此,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)當(dāng)時(shí)的大多數(shù)問題和運(yùn)作完全與這些想法有關(guān)。關(guān)于非殖民化和國(guó)家間沖突的行動(dòng)就是明顯的例子。卡梅倫·R·休謨也重申,非殖民化時(shí)代與冷戰(zhàn)同時(shí)到來。此外,冷戰(zhàn)阻礙了聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的運(yùn)作,尤其是兩大巨頭的否決。美國(guó)和蘇聯(lián)之間的否決博弈導(dǎo)致聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的職能效率低下,特別是在與第七章相關(guān)的武力使用方面。在少數(shù)情況下,安理會(huì)通過了呼吁使用武力的決議,第一次必須等到1966年羅得西亞。這些是冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束前的簡(jiǎn)要情況。
After the end of the Cold War, world politics has shifted precisely out of the state-centric debates and issues as stated. It is the beginning of the decrease of the role of state sovereignty in many ways. As same as Weiss & Daws (2007), they concluded that even there is no refusal about the sacred of borders in international relations but their importance is less than in 1945. Reversely, the world stage has welcomed some trends ignoring to the notion of state sovereignty, which also affected to the role of the UNSC and its operations. According to Hume (2004, pp. 609-610), there are three important trends in the world politics that have been changing the work of the UNSC since the early 1990s. Firstly, regarding the type of conflict, there was a shift from the inter-state conflicts to intra-state conflicts, and leading to the problem of failing states. The second trend is the more regional initiatives and cooperation and their role to resolve conflicts within particular regions. And the last one is the arrival of transnational issues such as environmental issues, climate change, and terrorism. In the aspect of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, there are six categories of the new emerging threats in world affairs: the economics and social threats such as poverty and climate change; inter-state conflict; intra-state conflict such as civil war; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and transnational organized crime (The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004). From all above mentioned changes, it can be conceptualized into one grand trend emerging after the collapse of the Cold War. It is the individual consciousness or so-called, ‘the humanitarian impulse,’ (Weiss, The Humanitarian Impulse, 2004). In accordance to Weiss (2004, pp. 48-49) and David M. Malone (Security Council, 2007), the dominance of the humanitarian impulse has changed the decision-making process of the UNSC since the end of the Cold War. Also, the range of its operations has to take increasingly the relevance of humanitarian values and individual consciousness into account. To be specific, “it appears that human rights are no longer likely to disappear from the Council’s radar screen anytime soon” (Weschler, 2004, p. 67). To sum up, it is the shift of world politics from state-centric notion to individual consciousness or humanitarian notion.
冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后,世界政治已經(jīng)完全脫離了以國(guó)家為中心的辯論和問題。這是國(guó)家主權(quán)在許多方面作用減弱的開始。與Weiss&Daws一樣,他們得出的結(jié)論是,即使在國(guó)際關(guān)系中,邊界的神圣性也沒有被拒絕,但其重要性卻不如1945年。相反,世界舞臺(tái)歡迎一些忽視國(guó)家主權(quán)概念的趨勢(shì),這也影響了聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的作用及其運(yùn)作。休謨認(rèn)為,自20世紀(jì)90年代初以來,世界政治有三個(gè)重要趨勢(shì)一直在改變聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的工作。首先,關(guān)于沖突的類型,從國(guó)家間沖突轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)閲?guó)家內(nèi)部沖突,并導(dǎo)致了失敗國(guó)家的問題。第二個(gè)趨勢(shì)是更多的區(qū)域倡議和合作及其在解決特定區(qū)域內(nèi)沖突方面的作用。最后一個(gè)是跨國(guó)問題的到來,如環(huán)境問題、氣候變化和恐怖主義。在聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)的威脅、挑戰(zhàn)和變化問題高級(jí)別小組方面,世界事務(wù)中新出現(xiàn)的威脅有六類:經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)威脅,如貧困和氣候變化;國(guó)家間沖突;內(nèi)戰(zhàn)等國(guó)內(nèi)沖突;核武器、放射性武器、化學(xué)武器和生物武器;恐怖主義和跨國(guó)有組織犯罪。從上述所有變化來看,它可以被概念化為冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后出現(xiàn)的一個(gè)大趨勢(shì)。這是個(gè)人意識(shí)或所謂的“人道主義沖動(dòng)”。根據(jù)Weiss和David M.Malone的說法,自冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束以來,人道主義沖動(dòng)的主導(dǎo)地位改變了聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的決策過程。此外,其行動(dòng)范圍必須日益考慮到人道主義價(jià)值觀和個(gè)人意識(shí)的相關(guān)性。具體而言,“人權(quán)似乎不太可能在短期內(nèi)從理事會(huì)的雷達(dá)屏幕上消失”??偠灾@是世界政治從國(guó)家中心觀念向個(gè)人意識(shí)或人道主義觀念的轉(zhuǎn)變。
Consequently, the UNSC must change many of its operations accordingly to tackle this main shift which particularly by taking into account the notion of humanitarianism. However, my argument is to answer the question of ‘how’ its operations has changed by applying the Constructivists’ ideas which logically can be applied and generalized to those of many changing operations. Therefore, I firstly will ignore the question of what those changing operations look like, when and where the changing occurs. Secondly, I will focus only on the UNSC’s operation on the use of force, not all its operations. Lastly, I will use humanitarian intervention, as one of the operation on the use of force, to be my case study because it is emerged directly in response to ‘humanitarian impulse’ (Weiss, The Humanitarian Impulse, 2004).
因此,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)必須相應(yīng)地改變其許多行動(dòng),以應(yīng)對(duì)這一主要轉(zhuǎn)變,特別是考慮到人道主義的概念。然而,我的論點(diǎn)是通過應(yīng)用建構(gòu)主義者的思想來回答“如何”改變其運(yùn)作的問題,這些思想在邏輯上可以應(yīng)用并推廣到許多變化的運(yùn)作中。因此,我首先將忽略這些變化操作是什么樣子、何時(shí)何地發(fā)生變化的問題。其次,我將只關(guān)注聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)關(guān)于使用武力的行動(dòng),而不是其所有行動(dòng)。最后,我將使用人道主義干預(yù)作為使用武力的行動(dòng)之一,作為我的案例研究,因?yàn)樗侵苯禹憫?yīng)“人道主義沖動(dòng)”而出現(xiàn)的。
Theoretical Framework: Constructivism and the Life-Cycle of Norms 理論框架:建構(gòu)主義與規(guī)范的生命周期
This section will provide a brief general concept of Constructivism and the Life-Cycle of Norms as a theoretical framework of the essay. Constructivism is the school of thought that has been recently put in place more significantly in describing the international relations since the beginning of the 1980s or almost the end of the Cold War (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007, p. 162). Broadly, constructivism is a social theory dealt with the relationship between actors/agents and structures. According to Michael Barnett (2008, p. 162), Constructivism in the context of international relations commonly “concerns with how ideas define the international structure; how this structure shapes the identities, interests, and foreign policies of states; and how state and non-state actors reproduce or transform that structure.” International structure is seen as a group of thought and ideas, including a set of norms, which has been constituted by the process of intersubjective awareness among actors at specific time and place (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007). Together with, Constructivism emphasized on the process of understanding things or actions and assigning meaning to them (Ibid.). Besides, Constructivists also mentioned about the concept of social construction of reality which is the operation to produce social facts such as norms. Social facts will be constructed by human agreement and at the same time will provide the legitimization of those facts like some universal norms such as jus in bello (Barnett, Social Constructivism, 2008). Then, these social facts can also constrain and shape the behavior of actors. Noticeably, the main characteristic of Constructivism is a cyclical process. This is similar to Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm which is a theoretical tool to explain in the later section how the UNSC has changed its operation as argued before. This concept explained how norm as a structure is institutionalised or internationalized before diffusing and constraining actors’ behaviour which reversely can affect to the status of such norm in terms of reproducing, reforming or even constructing new norm. This cycle consists of three stages; norm emergence, norm cascade and norm internalization. In order to make clearer understanding of this concept in conjunction with the argument, I will give details of each stage in parallel with the case study of humanitarian intervention in the last following section.
本節(jié)將簡(jiǎn)要介紹建構(gòu)主義的一般概念和規(guī)范的生命周期,作為本文的理論框架。建構(gòu)主義是自20世紀(jì)80年代初或冷戰(zhàn)幾乎結(jié)束以來,在描述國(guó)際關(guān)系時(shí),最近出現(xiàn)的一種更為重要的思想流派。從廣義上講,建構(gòu)主義是一種社會(huì)理論,處理行動(dòng)者/代理人和結(jié)構(gòu)之間的關(guān)系。根據(jù)邁克爾·巴內(nèi)特的說法,國(guó)際關(guān)系背景下的建構(gòu)主義通?!瓣P(guān)注思想如何定義國(guó)際結(jié)構(gòu);這種結(jié)構(gòu)如何塑造國(guó)家的身份、利益和外交政策;以及國(guó)家和非國(guó)家行動(dòng)者如何再現(xiàn)或改造這種結(jié)構(gòu)?!保ㄒ惶滓?guī)范,這是由演員在特定時(shí)間和地點(diǎn)的主體間意識(shí)過程構(gòu)成的。與一起,建構(gòu)主義強(qiáng)調(diào)理解事物或行為并賦予其意義的過程。此外,建構(gòu)主義者還提到了現(xiàn)實(shí)的社會(huì)建構(gòu)的概念,這是產(chǎn)生規(guī)范等社會(huì)事實(shí)的操作。社會(huì)事實(shí)將由人類協(xié)議構(gòu)建,同時(shí)將提供這些事實(shí)的合法化,如一些普遍規(guī)范,如戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)法。然后,這些社會(huì)事實(shí)也可以約束和塑造演員的行為。值得注意的是,建構(gòu)主義的主要特征是一個(gè)循環(huán)過程。這與Finnemore和Sikkink的“規(guī)范生命周期”概念相似,后者是一個(gè)理論工具,在后面的章節(jié)中解釋聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)如何改變其運(yùn)作,如前所述。這一概念解釋了規(guī)范作為一種結(jié)構(gòu)是如何在擴(kuò)散和約束行為人的行為之前制度化或國(guó)際化的,而行為人的這種行為反過來會(huì)影響到這種規(guī)范在復(fù)制、改革甚至構(gòu)建新規(guī)范方面的地位。這個(gè)周期包括三個(gè)階段:;規(guī)范出現(xiàn)、規(guī)范級(jí)聯(lián)和規(guī)范內(nèi)化。為了結(jié)合論點(diǎn)更清楚地理解這一概念,我將在下一節(jié)的最后一節(jié)中與人道主義干預(yù)的案例研究同時(shí)詳細(xì)介紹每個(gè)階段。
Case Study: Humanitarian Intervention 案例研究:人道主義干預(yù)
However, before taking the concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm in hand to explain and analyze how the UNSC has changed its operations by using the case study of humanitarian intervention, the very brief background of the UNSC’s operations on the use of force should be described here. In reference to UN Charter, there are only two legally-accepted categories for the use of force as an operation of the UNSC; self-defence and authorization by the UNSC relating to Chapter VII (Roberts, 2004). Nevertheless, after the end of the Cold War, there are two more emerging doctrines of the use of force which importantly differ from the two traditional and legal ones. Both debated doctrines are humanitarian intervention and preemtive measures against emerging threats. These two new doctrines not only were seen as the challenge to principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention in Article 2(4) of the UN Chater (Ibid.) but also unavoidably as pending-to-be new operations of the UNSC. Later on, I will apply the concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm in details to explain the process that the UNSC constructs a norm as a precondition in order to legitimize humanitarian interventionas as as its new operation.
然而,在使用規(guī)范生命周期的概念來解釋和分析聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)如何通過人道主義干預(yù)的案例研究來改變其行動(dòng)之前,這里應(yīng)該描述聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)使用武力行動(dòng)的非常簡(jiǎn)短的背景。根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的行動(dòng)中使用武力只有兩種合法接受的類別;聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)關(guān)于第七章的自衛(wèi)和授權(quán)。然而,冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后,又出現(xiàn)了兩種新的使用武力的理論,這兩種理論與傳統(tǒng)的和法律的理論有著重要的區(qū)別。兩種爭(zhēng)論的理論都是人道主義干預(yù)和針對(duì)新威脅的預(yù)防措施。這兩種新理論不僅被視為對(duì)《聯(lián)合國(guó)憲章》第2(4)條中國(guó)家主權(quán)和不干涉原則的挑戰(zhàn),而且不可避免地被視為聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的新行動(dòng)。稍后,我將詳細(xì)應(yīng)用規(guī)范生命周期的概念,解釋聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)將規(guī)范作為一個(gè)先決條件,以使人道主義干預(yù)作為其新行動(dòng)合法化的過程。
Now, bringing back the Life-Cycle of Norm concept, the first stage, “Norm emergence,” is the stage that “the norm entrepreneurs” try to convince flock of actors to welcome their new norms until reaching the critical or tipping point (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Normally, at the first period, there will be a nature of competition between norms including the old and the other new ones. The entrepreneurs can be state, non-state actor, individual or international organizations and they need launching platforms to start promoting their norms which usually are international organizations (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). At this point, according to Finnemore (Finnemore M. , 1993), she reiterated that international organizations are able to be tools to promote and diseminate emerging norms. Besides, in terms of methods, the entrepreneurs will use many ways such as speeches, conferences, and advertisements to promote the new way of thinking about and understanding issues or new norms.
現(xiàn)在,回到規(guī)范的生命周期概念,第一個(gè)階段,“規(guī)范出現(xiàn)”,是“規(guī)范企業(yè)家”試圖說服一群演員歡迎他們的新規(guī)范,直到達(dá)到臨界點(diǎn)或臨界點(diǎn)的階段。通常,在第一階段,包括舊規(guī)范和其他新規(guī)范在內(nèi)的規(guī)范之間會(huì)存在競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性質(zhì)。企業(yè)家可以是國(guó)家、非國(guó)家行為者、個(gè)人或國(guó)際組織,他們需要啟動(dòng)平臺(tái)來開始推廣他們通常是國(guó)際組織的規(guī)范。在這一點(diǎn)上,根據(jù)Finnemore的說法,她重申國(guó)際組織能夠成為促進(jìn)和消除新興規(guī)范的工具。此外,在方法上,企業(yè)家將通過演講、會(huì)議和廣告等多種方式來促進(jìn)思考和理解問題或新規(guī)范的新方式。
Considering the case of humanitarian intervention which has been brought into the focus of world community since the end of the Cold War, we can see the process of norm emergence from the following details. In terms of the constellation of emerging norms, there were many competing meaning and debates about humanitarian intervention in the UNSC and outsides like Joanna Weschler (2004, p. 66) mentioned that the attitude of the UNSC regarding to humanitarian intervention has been spasmodic which is covered with series of progress and decline. For instance, as identified by Ramesh Thakur (2007, p. 388), humanitarian Intervention is “the use of military force on the territory of a state without its consent with the goal of protecting innocent victims of large-scale atrocities.” On the contrary, humanitarian Intervention has been criticized by the Realists as a legitimization of new interventionist norms of Western states and for serving their benefits from the intervention (Chandler, 2004). Also, some of traditional security analysts may argue about the intervention, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo, since the end of the Cold War that such actions were aimed to protect the credibility of NATO and its presence in Europe. However, in the eyes of Constructivists, it is the ignorance of the occurance of humanitarian value as a constructed interest of actors like states (Glanville, 2006, p. 163). Moreover, according to the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), invented by Canadian Government, it proposed another competing idea which is called, ‘the responsibility to protect,’ into the discussion in The UN and the UNSC and now has been accepted by the General Assembly during the 2005 World Summit (Glanville, 2006). Then, in terms of who are norm entreprenours and their strategies, the key entreprenour for promote the issue of humanitarian intervention are international organizations like the UNSC itself and the UN. Alike the ICISS concluded that the most suitable organ to authorize intervention in the case of immense human rights violations is the UNSC (Weschler, 2004, p. 66). However, there are not only the UNSC as an organizations in the construction of norm but also individuals, states, public and media which has been collaboratively promoting humanitarian intervention to be constructed as a new norm. Individually, the role of the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) is a good instance. The first UNSG after the end of the Cold War, Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his work, “Agenda for Peace,” written in early 1992, are examples supporting a more role of the UNSC and the UNSG in coping with armed conflict and humanitarian crisis (Weschler, 2004, p. 63). Together with, in the General Assembly on September 20, 1999, the next UNSG Kofi Annan urged international community to support the principle that massive and structured violations of human rights should not be allowed to occur and ignited the issue of humanitarian intervention (Weschler, 2004, p. 65). The state-actors which have been always supporting this norm in the UNSC are explicitly the US and the UK. Regarding to the role of public and media, in the early 1990s, it is the climax of their enthusiam for humanitarian issues. They have used a number of their sources, platforms and instruments to provide fruitful debates about not only the international right for humanitarian intervention but also the need to do it (Malone, Conclusion, 2004, p. 627). Briefly, it is clear with these empirical evidence that the norm of humanitarian intervention has emerged by the interactive process between diverse actors, with the leading of the UNSC itself.
考慮到冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束以來國(guó)際社會(huì)關(guān)注的人道主義干預(yù)事件,我們可以從以下細(xì)節(jié)中看到規(guī)范出現(xiàn)的過程。就新興規(guī)范的集合而言,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)內(nèi)部對(duì)人道主義干預(yù)有許多相互矛盾的含義和爭(zhēng)論,而像喬安娜·韋施勒這樣的局外人提到,聯(lián)合國(guó)安全理事會(huì)對(duì)人道主義介入的態(tài)度一直是斷斷續(xù)續(xù)的,其中包括一系列的進(jìn)步和衰退。例如,正如拉梅什·塔庫(kù)爾所指出的,人道主義干預(yù)是“為了保護(hù)大規(guī)模暴行的無辜受害者,在未經(jīng)國(guó)家同意的情況下在其領(lǐng)土上使用軍事力量。”相反,人道主義干預(yù)被現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者批評(píng)為西方國(guó)家新干預(yù)主義規(guī)范的合法化,并為其從干預(yù)中獲益。此外,一些傳統(tǒng)的安全分析人士可能會(huì)對(duì)自冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束以來的干預(yù)行動(dòng),特別是在波斯尼亞和科索沃的干預(yù)行動(dòng)提出異議,認(rèn)為這些行動(dòng)旨在保護(hù)北約的信譽(yù)及其在歐洲的存在。然而,在建構(gòu)主義者看來,這是對(duì)人道主義價(jià)值作為國(guó)家等行為體的一種建構(gòu)利益的發(fā)生的無知。此外,根據(jù)加拿大政府發(fā)明的國(guó)際干預(yù)與國(guó)家主權(quán)委員會(huì)的報(bào)告,該委員會(huì)在聯(lián)合國(guó)和聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的討論中提出了另一個(gè)相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的想法,即“保護(hù)的責(zé)任”,現(xiàn)在已在2005年世界首腦會(huì)議期間被大會(huì)接受。然后,就誰是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)企業(yè)家及其戰(zhàn)略而言,促進(jìn)人道主義干預(yù)問題的關(guān)鍵企業(yè)家是聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)和聯(lián)合國(guó)等國(guó)際組織。與ICISS一樣,ICISS得出的結(jié)論是,授權(quán)在大規(guī)模侵犯人權(quán)案件中進(jìn)行干預(yù)的最合適機(jī)構(gòu)是聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)。然而,不僅聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)作為一個(gè)組織參與了規(guī)范的構(gòu)建,而且個(gè)人、國(guó)家、公眾和媒體也一直在合作推動(dòng)人道主義干預(yù)作為一種新規(guī)范的構(gòu)建。就個(gè)人而言,聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)的作用就是一個(gè)很好的例子。冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后的第一個(gè)聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì),布特羅斯·布特羅斯·加利和他于1992年初撰寫的著作《和平議程》就是支持聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)和聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)在應(yīng)對(duì)武裝沖突和人道主義危機(jī)方面發(fā)揮更大作用的例子。1999年9月20日,下屆聯(lián)合國(guó)秘書長(zhǎng)科菲·安南在大會(huì)上敦促國(guó)際社會(huì)支持這樣一項(xiàng)原則,即不應(yīng)允許大規(guī)模和有組織地侵犯人權(quán),并引發(fā)人道主義干預(yù)問題。在聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)一直支持這一規(guī)范的國(guó)家行為體顯然是美國(guó)和英國(guó)。關(guān)于公眾和媒體的作用,在20世紀(jì)90年代初,這是他們對(duì)人道主義問題熱情的高潮。他們利用自己的一些來源、平臺(tái)和工具,不僅就人道主義干預(yù)的國(guó)際權(quán)利,而且就其必要性進(jìn)行了富有成效的辯論。簡(jiǎn)言之,這些經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)清楚地表明,在聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)本身的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)下,人道主義干預(yù)的規(guī)范是由不同行為者之間的互動(dòng)過程形成的。
Continually, the second stage is “Norm cascade”. This stage there will be norm leaders who promoted their norms until gaining the most support and acceptance from other actors. The leaders will try to make other actors to adopt and imitate those norms through a process of socialization (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Also, the leaders or actors who are capable of socializing still can be state, non-state and international organizations.
第二階段是“標(biāo)準(zhǔn)級(jí)聯(lián)”。在這一階段,將有規(guī)范領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者推動(dòng)他們的規(guī)范,直到獲得其他行為體的最大支持和接受。領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者將試圖通過社會(huì)化過程讓其他行動(dòng)者采納和模仿這些規(guī)范。此外,有能力社交的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人或行動(dòng)者仍然可以是國(guó)家、非國(guó)家和國(guó)際組織。
In this stage, the norm leader which is still the UNSC will try to mobilize intersubjective beliefs of the concept of humanitarian intervention among other actors by the process of socialization in order to gain human agreement; then, the idea of humanitarian intervention will be agreed to be a social fact, norm or so-called a structure. On the other hand, international organization, like the UNSC, also serves to legitimize the emerging international norms (Barnett & Finnemore, 2007). So, when humanitarian intervention is constructed as a social fact, it also means that it is one of legitimized norms as well. However, at present, the UNSC’s construction of humanitarian intervention to be a norm is still in this process because some are still not agree to this idea. For example, in the case of Somalia and Haiti, its legality seems to be supported by most states but in the case of Kosovo 1999, it was criticized by many states (Roberts, 2004, p. 147). Also, it can be seen from debates such as about the Iraq War 2003. Likewise, Adam Roberts (Roberts, 2004, p. 146) mentioned radically that all attempts since the early 1990s to legitimize humanitarian intervention have failed.
在這一階段,仍然是聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)的規(guī)范領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者將試圖通過社會(huì)化進(jìn)程,調(diào)動(dòng)其他行動(dòng)者對(duì)人道主義干預(yù)概念的主觀間信念,以獲得人類的認(rèn)同;然后,人道主義干預(yù)的想法將被認(rèn)為是一種社會(huì)事實(shí)、規(guī)范或所謂的結(jié)構(gòu)。另一方面,國(guó)際組織,如聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì),也有助于使新興的國(guó)際規(guī)范合法化。因此,當(dāng)人道主義干預(yù)被構(gòu)建為一種社會(huì)事實(shí)時(shí),這也意味著它也是一種合法化的規(guī)范。然而,目前,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)將人道主義干預(yù)作為一種規(guī)范仍在這一過程中,因?yàn)橐恍┤巳匀徊煌膺@一想法。例如,在索馬里和海地的情況下,其合法性似乎得到了大多數(shù)國(guó)家的支持,但在1999年科索沃的情況下卻遭到了許多國(guó)家的批評(píng)。此外,從2003年伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)等辯論中也可以看出這一點(diǎn)。同樣,亞當(dāng)·羅伯茨從根本上提到,自20世紀(jì)90年代初以來,人道主義干預(yù)合法化的所有嘗試都失敗了。
In the third stage which is called, “Norm internalization,” norms will be automatically adopted by actors and have a quality of taken-for-granted. It is no debate on those institutionalized norms anymore and such norms will be powerful and cannot be ignored (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). In the last stage, the UNSC will be a key player in the process of trasmitting and diffusing the norm of humanitarian intervention, if it passes the second stage in the future. Last but not least, after the third stage, the constituted norm of humanitarian intervention will legitimize the use of force with reference to humanitarian intervention and can constrain the behavior of actors like states. It is similar to what Thakur (2004) has said that the international organization can be the hub for the interplay between changing norms and constraining states’ behaviour. Nontheless, actors’ behavior and their interaction will affect cyclically to the constructed norms and restart the process from the first stage.
在被稱為“規(guī)范內(nèi)化”的第三階段,規(guī)范將被行動(dòng)者自動(dòng)采納,并具有理所當(dāng)然的品質(zhì)。關(guān)于這些制度化規(guī)范的爭(zhēng)論已經(jīng)不再,這些規(guī)范將是強(qiáng)有力的,不容忽視。在最后一個(gè)階段,如果聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)在未來通過第二個(gè)階段,它將成為傳遞和傳播人道主義干預(yù)規(guī)范過程中的關(guān)鍵角色。最后但并非最不重要的是,在第三階段之后,人道主義干預(yù)的既定規(guī)范將使人道主義干預(yù)中的武力使用合法化,并可以約束國(guó)家等行為體的行為。這與Thakur所說的國(guó)際組織可以成為改變規(guī)范和約束國(guó)家行為之間相互作用的樞紐相似。毫無疑問,參與者的行為和他們的互動(dòng)將周期性地影響構(gòu)建的規(guī)范,并從第一階段開始重新啟動(dòng)過程。
Conclusion 結(jié)論
Since the end of the Cold War, the traditional state-centric theme of world politics has been gradually replaced by humanitarian value and individual consciousness. The UNSC, consequently, has to change its operations to control and manage the challenges coming from that shift in world affairs. In order to make such changes accomplished, the UNSC will have to meet preconditions by inventing, promoting, cascading and internalizing international norms to legitimize those changes in its operation. Like Luke Glanville (2006, p. 162) said about humanitarian intervention that the refusal to acknowledge the role of norms will make scholar cannot explain the increment of the cases relating to humanitarian intervention after the end of the Cold War. More importantly, this process of creating norms, according to Barnett & Finnemore (2007), has to incorporate the role of states, non-state actors, individuals and media in order to provide more effectiveness.
Essay范文總結(jié)自冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束以來,傳統(tǒng)的以國(guó)家為中心的世界政治主題逐漸被人道主義價(jià)值和個(gè)人意識(shí)所取代。因此,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)必須改變其運(yùn)作,以控制和管理世界事務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)變帶來的挑戰(zhàn)。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)這些變革,聯(lián)合國(guó)安理會(huì)必須滿足先決條件,創(chuàng)造、促進(jìn)、層疊和內(nèi)部化國(guó)際準(zhǔn)則,使這些變革在其運(yùn)作中合法化。就像盧克·格蘭維爾在談到人道主義干預(yù)時(shí)所說的那樣,拒絕承認(rèn)規(guī)范的作用將使學(xué)者無法解釋冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后人道主義干預(yù)案件的增加。更重要的是,根據(jù)Barnett&Finnemore的說法,這一創(chuàng)建規(guī)范的過程必須納入國(guó)家、非國(guó)家行為者、個(gè)人和媒體的作用,以提高效率。本站提供各國(guó)各專業(yè)Essay代寫或指導(dǎo)服務(wù),如有需要可咨詢本平臺(tái)。
相關(guān)文章
UKthesis provides an online writing service for all types of academic writing. Check out some of them and don't hesitate to place your order.