百家争鸣
郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[政府不得滥杀和平请愿公民的最新国际公约]
郭国汀律师专栏
·质疑东海君之《良知大法》
·祝愿祖国早日实现真正的自由!
·关于司法公正的讨论郭国汀律师在北大法律信息网上发表了非常危险的错误观点应该予以驳斥!
·中共当局封杀言论为那般?
·六四的记忆
·谈中华文化与道德重建(四)
·中国百年最伟大的文字!
·郭国汀:为刘荻女英雄辩护吾当仁不让!
·只有思想言论出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
·只有说真话的民族才有前途
·一个能思想的人才是力量无边的人/南郭
·思想之可贵在于其独立性
·独立思想是最美的
·思想的高度统一是人类社会之大敌
·统一思想之谬误由来已久矣/南郭
·我的心里话--有感于杜导斌先生被捕
***中共专制暴政政治迫害郭国汀律师实录
·郭国汀律师遭遇黑色元宵节
·中共对我的八次政治迫害--在温哥华告别恐惧讨共诉苦座谈会上的发言(上)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(中)
·中共暴政对我的八次政治迫害(下)
·If You Really Want Control Lock up Their Lawyers
·Anti-communist sentiments landed Chinese lawyer in an asylum
·我的思想认识与保证/郭国汀
·郭国汀律师的[悔罪][悔过]与[乞求]
·郭国汀因言论“违宪”行政处罚听证案代理词
·我推崇的浦志强大律师/郭国汀
·我被中共当局非法剥夺执业资格的真实原因
***(24)《共产主义黑皮书》郭国汀编译
·共产党皆变成杀人犯罪团伙的历史与理论分析
·朝鲜的罪恶与恐怖和秘密:共产党暴政罪恶批判系列之一
·古巴共产极权政权的罪恶:共产党暴政罪恶批判之二
·越南共产党暴政罪恶昭彰:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之三
·中欧和东南欧共产党暴政的深重罪孽: 共产党极权暴政罪恶批判之四
·埃塞俄比亚共产党政权的罪孽: 共产党政权罪恶实录之五
·安哥拉和莫桑比克共产党政权的血腥暴力:共产党政权罪恶实录之六
·阿富汉共产党暴政罪大恶极:共产党极权暴政罪恶实录之七
·尼加拉瓜共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录之八
·秘鲁共产党的血腥残暴:共产党暴政罪恶实录之九
·虐杀成性的柬普寨共产党暴政:共产党暴政罪恶实录评论系列之十
·波兰共产党政权的罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十一
·苏联共产党暴政的滔天罪行:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十二
·中国共产党极权流氓暴政的滔天罪孽:共产党暴政罪恶实录系列评论之十三
·论共产党极权暴政的归宿-- 2010年全球支持中國和亞洲民主化斯特拉斯堡大會专稿
·金正日真面目
·韩战真相
***(25)《苏联东欧天鹅绒革命》郭国汀编译
·东欧天鹅绒革命导论
·苏联政治民主革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之一
·罗马尼亚暴力革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析系列评论之二
·匈牙利静悄的革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之三
·捷克戏剧性革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之四
·东德和平革命:共产党国极权暴政崩溃原因分析之五
·波兰自我限制的革命:共产党极权暴政崩溃原因分析之六
·罗马尼亚35天革命成功真相
·社会转媒(国际互联网)对阿拉伯之春革命的巨大作用
·郭国汀:苏共政权垮台的根本原因
·阿拉伯之春埃及部分成功的革命
·阿拉伯之春:突尼斯成功的革命
·觉醒的人民粉碎专制体制:阿拉伯革命
·民主革命决非恐怖主义
·东欧各国追究共产党罪犯的罪责概况
·共产党专制暴政皆依赖秘密政治警察实行极权恐怖统治
·共产党极权暴政利用强制劳改劳教集中营野蛮残暴迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政实质上皆与人民为敌
·共产党极权专政暴政的大清洗
·共产党极权专制暴政皆利用强制劳改集中营野蛮迫害人民
·共产党极权专制暴政皆践踏法律司法暗无天日
·共产党极权专制暴政皆疯狂迫害宗教信仰者
***(26)《共产主义的历史》郭国汀编译
·序《共产主义的历史》
·共产主义的理论与实践批判
·列宁主义批判
·斯大林主义批判
·西方国家的共产主义
·第三世界的共产主义
·共产主义谬误的根源及其注定失败的原因
·共产党政权跨台的理论与实践根源
·马克思确认共产主义是“可怕的妖精”和“鬼魂”及“幽灵”
·共产主义注定败亡的十四项理由
·人类不平等的起源究竟是什么?
·郭国汀马克思主义批判
·宗教是毒药!宗教是引人堕落的意识世界吗?!
·马克思列宁毛泽东为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党政权为何仇恨宗教?
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源
·中共政权极度腐败的宗教根源
·共产党仇恨宗教的根源—与网友的讨论
***(27)《列宁不为人知的故事》郭国汀编译
·列宁不为人知的故事(1)
· 列宁不为人知的故事(2)
·列宁不为人知的故事(3)
·列宁不为人知的故事(4)
·列宁不为人知的故事(5)
·列宁不为人知的故事(6)
·列宁不为人知的故事(7)
·列宁不为人知的故事(8)
·列宁不为人知的故事(9)
·列宁不为人知的故事(10)
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
政府不得滥杀和平请愿公民的最新国际公约

2005年联合国在世界峰会上通过决议:各成员国有义务防止群体屠杀,战争罪,种族清洗及反人类罪行,国际社会有义务协助成员国履行上述责任,国际社会原则上应采取适当的处交和人道及其他和平方式防止上述罪行,若成员国未能履行上述责任或事实上该国本身犯有上述罪行,则国际社会应准备采用强硬措施,包括通过联合国安理会联合采取武力制止上述罪行。政府滥杀和平请愿示威民众的行为,即属反人类罪的一种。事实上,利比亚及叙利亚在阿拉伯之春革命中,均由于滥杀和平抗议示威民众,导致联合国安理会通过决议制裁之。对叙利亚的安理会决议,由于俄国和中国行使否决权未果。

   

   An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect

   

   Recognizing the failure to adequately respond to the most heinous crimes known to humankind, world leaders made a historic commitment to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity at the United Nations (UN) 2005 World Summit. This commitment, entitled the Responsibility to Protect, stipulates that:

   1. The State carries the primary responsibility for the protection of populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

   

   2. The international community has a responsibility to assist States in fulfilling this responsibility.

   

   3. The international community should use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means to protect populations from these crimes. If a State fails to protect its populations or is in fact the perpetrator of crimes, the international community must be prepared to take stronger measures, including the collective use of force through the UN Security Council.

   

   

   In this section, you will find the following topics:

   1. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)

   2. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Promotes RtoP

   3. The AU's Constitutive Act and the Ezulwini Consensus

   4. The 2005 World Summit

   5. Developments at the United Nations Since 2005

   6. The report of the Secretary General: Implementing the Responsibility to Protect

   7. UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/63/308 on the Responsibility to Protect

   8. UN General Assembly Debate and Dialogues on RtoP

   

   Since the end of the Second World War, an international effort has been undertaken to protect civilians in armed conflict and prevent genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In 1948 the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations, and entered into force three years later. The Convention was the steppingstone in the international community’s attempt to ensure the horrors witnessed during the Holocaust would never occur again. However, the resounding promise of “Never Again” would prove to be hollow.

   

   The end of the 20th Century marked a change in the nature of armed conflict: large inter-state wars were replaced by violent internal conflicts, where the vast majority of casualties are now civilians. The genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Bosnia demonstrated massive failures by the international community to prevent mass atrocities. Thus, near the end of the 1990’s there was a recognized need to shift the debate about crisis prevention and response: the security of the community and the individual, not only the state, must be priorities for national and international policies.

   1. International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS)

   The term Responsibility to Protect was first presented in the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) in December 2001. The Commission had been formed in response to Kofi Annan's question of when the international community must intervene for humanitarian purposes. Building on Francis Deng's idea of sovereignty as responsibility, the Commission addressed the question of when state sovereignty - a fundamental principle of international law - must yield to protection against the most egregious violations of humanitarian and international law, including genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. View a Summary of the ICISS Report.

   

   The timing of this reports' release in December 2001 was devastating to its initial reception. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the international debate shifted away from consideration of measures to prevent genocide and mass atrocity toward measures for the prevention and preemption of terrorist activities and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, premised in part on an argument of humanitarian intervention, was even more destructive to the advancement of the RtoP agenda. The invasion heightened concerns that RtoP would be used to further erode the sovereignty of smaller developing countries.

   

   However, although support for RtoP was limited in the initial period after the release of the ICISS report, ongoing humanitarian disasters, including the failure to protect the people of Darfur, signaled that more needed to be done by the international community as a whole to respond to genocide and other threats against populations.

   

   2. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Promotes RtoP

   In September 2003, the Secretary-General called for Member States to strengthen the UN to better advance development, security, and the protection of human rights. In recognition of the urgent need to address the UN's failures to respond to genocide, the Secretary-General challenged Member States to include protection from genocide as part of this UN reform agenda. The Secretary-General then formed the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change to report on how the UN should confront the greatest security threats of the 21st century. In December, 2004, the High-level Panel released its report, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility. Included in the report's 101 recommendations on strengthening the international security framework was an endorsement of an international responsibility to protect populations from grave threats.

   

   After consultations with governments and UN officials, and with input from many civil society organizations, the Secretary-General published his own report entitled In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. Similar to the High-level Panel, the Secretary-General emphasized the need of governments to take action against threats of massive human rights violations and other large scale acts of violence against civilians. He called on governments to embrace the Responsibility to Protect, emphasizing that while it is first and foremost the individual governments responsibility to protect its population, the responsibility shifts to the international community when the state is unable or unwilling to protect their citizens. He also emphasized that the international community must use a range of measures to protect populations, which could include diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, and as a last resort may include the use of military force.

   

   3. The AU's Constitutive Act and the Ezulwini Consensus

   Meanwhile, in 2000, African nations were working to enshrine the principles of R2P within the founding Charter of the African Union (AU). First, the Constitutive Act defines the promotion of peace, security and stability and the promotion and protection of “human and peoples’ rights” as core obejective of the Union. Second, it identifies “respect for democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and good governance”, "respect for the sanctity of human life”, and “condemnation and rejection of impunity” among its core values. Most significantly, Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act states that it is the “right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” This important clause conveys one end of the full R2P spectrum - military intervention - but the Charter shows the commitment of African Nations to protecting populations from atrocity, even if infringement on the sovereignty of its members is required.

   

   The report, known as the ”Ezulwini Consensus”, was expressed at the African Union’s 7th Extraordinary Session of the Executive Council of 1-8 March 2005, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In its report, the AU embraced the Responsibility to Protect and recognized the authority of the Security Council to decide on the use of force in situations of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. It also insisted on the need for an empowerment of regional organizations to take action in such cases. In 2005, with RtoP as part of the proposed recommendations for improving the UN, the African Union responded by its own evaluation of th proposed reforms.

[下一页]
blog comments powered by Disqus

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场