【作者】 刘静；

【导师】 何志鹏；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 法律， 2013， 硕士

【摘要】 “国际人道主义干涉”是当代世界政治的时髦名词，西方国家更热衷于对此进行大肆宣扬。人道主义干涉最早是由“现代国际法之父”格老秀斯提出的，在国际人道主义干预中，包括两种方式：一是使用和平手段，二是采取包括武力在内的强制性手段，但是究竟采取哪种手段来解决人道主义危机一直存在着争议。随着冷战结束以来，人道主义问题的上升、被干预国局势的复杂化等原因，各国越来越倾向于用武力干涉来解决问题。然而随着时代的变迁，21世纪的国际政治和经济格局与格老秀斯时代相比已经完全不同。每个国家根据自己的利益需要，基于不同的政治、经济等目的，对人道主义干涉的界定也存在着争议。无论是在人类社会还是在自然界，弱肉强食都是自然法则，强国欺凌弱国家已经成为“国际社会”的普遍现象，且向来都在冠冕堂皇的理由下进行。随着全球化日益发展的今天，国家之间的相互依赖程度不断加深，所以对国家的自我权利进行必要的限制是势在必行的。如果漠视国家主权就会造成一定的混乱，以美国为首的西方国家以“人道主义原则”的名义采取的一系列军事干涉行动大多都导致了国际无政府状态。人道主义军事干涉是国际关系领域中以武力介入他国事务以期改变现状的现象或行为。军事干涉的出现与存在，是与国际社会中被世界各国所普遍接受的国际法基本原则的“国家主权”、“不干涉它国内政”、“禁止以武力相威胁或使用武力”等相违背的。但是在冷战结束后，不断出现的种族矛盾、恐怖主义、独裁暴政等多方面原因所引发的人道主义危机，使现有的国际法律制度没有能够充分阻止军事干涉的产生。在实践中，军事干涉并不是一个完全纯粹使用武力的过程，军事行动还受到干涉者政治目标的支配。为了推行正义而在“人道”的幌子下使用武力是军事干涉的外在表现，而实现干涉国国家利益的目的则是军事行动的内在追求，而且干涉国还往往在军事行动的同时，以政治压力、经济制裁等手段使军事干涉成为一种相辅相成的行动。军事干涉主要是为了增强干涉者对被干涉地区的影响力和控制力，并从而改变了一定范围的地缘政治结构。从结果来看，军事行动在表面上几乎都能有效地制止危机，但也带来了很多内在的新问题，一国的真正和平与安定的局面并不一定会出现。在21世纪人类所希望看到的是一个安全、和平和发展的世界，而只有充分尊重不同国家文明和不同意识形态以及不同价值取向的人民的选择，给它们创造一个有更多发展空间的国际新秩序，人类社会才能实现长久和平和发展。因此，要想使当前的人道主义军事干涉走出重重困境，联合国集体安全体制的适当改革和某些大国政治姿态的调整是必不可少的。“人道主义”是高尚的，但人道主义“国际军事干涉”则需要警惕。更多还原

【Abstract】 "The International Humanitarian Intervention" is a fashionable word used in thefield of politics of contemporary world, which western countries are especially keenon advertising. The “father of modern international law” Grotius is the first personwho proposed humanitarian intervention. There are two kinds of ways in theinternational humanitarian intervention: one is to use peaceful means, and the other isto take violent means, including military action. But there is still dispute in takingwhich kinds of means to solve the humanitarian crisis. Since the end of the Cold War,because of the seriousness of humanitarian problems and the complicated situation ofthe interfered country, more and more countries are inclined to use militaryintervention to solve this problem. While with the changes of the times, there is ahuge difference between the21stcentury and the era of Grotius in the internationalpolitical and economic landscape. Based on different purposes, such as the aspects ofeconomy or politics, each country has their own interests. So there is no doubt thatdifferent countries have different definitions of humanitarian intervention. No matterin the human society or in the nature, the law of the jungle is the natural law.Powerful countries bullying the weak countries has become a common phenomenonin the international society, which always been carried on under the high-soundingreasons.With globalization becoming a trend, the mutual dependence between countrieshas been deepened. So there is a must that we should restrict the self rights of eachcountry against the other one. There must be some kinds of confusion if we ignore thenational sovereignty. Western countries, especially the USA taking a series ofmilitary intervention actions in the name of "humanitarian principle" will lead to theinternational anarchy. Humanitarian military intervention is such kind of phenomenonor action that it interfere with other countries’ affairs in the way of military action inorder to change the current situation. As for the military intervention, it’s conflictedwith the basic principle of the international law, such as the principle of “national sovereignty”,“not interfering in the internal affairs of States” and “prohibition of thethreat of force or the use of force”, which have been widely accepted by the countriesall over the world. But in the end of the Cold War, there are many aspects of reasons,such as the growing racial conflicts, terrorism, tyranny and so on, which lead to thehumanitarian crisis. The current international legal system has no ability to fullyprevent the generation of the military intervention. In practice, military intervention isnot a completely pure process of using force, which is also under control of thepolitical purpose of the intervener. The external performance of military interventionis to promote justice and under the guise of “humane” using force. And on the otherhand, the ultimate goal of the military intervention is the realization of theintervener’s national interest. Apart from that, the interveners always take not onlymilitary action but also some political pressure or economic sanctions, which makethe military intervention, become a kind of complementary tool to each other.Military intervention is aimed to enhance the influence and control power of theinterfered region, and thus changes the geopolitical structure of certain limits. Fromthe result, we can see that on the surface almost all military operations can effectivelyprevent the crisis, but there are still a lot of internal problems. Sometimes a country’sreal peace and security situation will not necessarily appear. In the21stcentury,people want to live in a world of safe, peace and development. Only fully respectingthe choice of the people of different value orientations in the different countries anddifferent ideology, creating a new international order with more development spacefor them, can people achieve long-term peace and development? Therefore, in orderto get the current humanitarian military intervention out of the trouble, there is a needto reform the UN Collective Security System and political attitude adjustment ofsome great powers. Thus it can be seen, although humanitarian is noble, theinternational military intervention still requires vigilance.更多还原