主题：【原创】四面楚歌之南亚篇 印度洋之大博弈之一 -- 井底望天

【2008.05.15】To protect sovereignty, or to protect lives? 主权，还是人权？

The UN and humanitarian intervention

联合国与人道干预

Toprotect sovereignty or to protect lives?

主权，还是人权？

May15th 2008

FromThe Economist print edition

2008年5月15日

《经济学人》印刷版

The new notion of global responsibility to alleviate suffering has struggled to win acceptance—and Myanmar will not be the place where it comes of age

关于减灾中国际责任的新看法已努力获得认同，但在缅甸还无法施行

“IT WOULD only take half an hour for the French boats and French helicopters to reach the disaster area.” Those were the wistful words uttered by Bernard Kouchner, France's foreign minister, as his country's diplomats at the United Nations vainly argued that aid might have to be “imposed” on Myanmar if the military regime refused to co-operate.

“法国的船只和直升机距离灾区只有半小时路程”。谈及此，法国外长库什内颇为沮丧。而法国外交官也正在联合国徒劳地试图说服国际社会，如缅甸军政府继续拒绝合作，应对其实施强行援助。

Even as he spoke, diplomats from China,Vietnam, South Africa and Russiawere mocking his idea that the “responsibility to protect” (a new concept in global affairs, implying that saving human lives might in some extreme circumstances override sovereignty) could be invoked in the case of Myanmar's cyclone. China noted acidly that the idea had not been cited in 2003 when France suffered a deadly heatwave.

库什内认为对于缅甸风灾，国际社会应行使“保护责任”（国际事务中的一个新概念，指在极端条件下，可以超越主权挽救生命）。对此，中国、越南、南非以及俄罗斯等国的外交官却颇不以为然。中国不无嘲讽地指出，2003年热浪肆虐法国之时，法国并未提出此说法。

David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, reignited the debate on May 13th. Challenged by a radio interviewer to say whether the new concept (designed to deal with crimes like genocide or ethnic cleansing) could also apply to natural disasters, he replied: “It certainly could, and we have been absolutely clear...that all instruments of the UN should be available.” But nobody expects Britain, France or any other country to fight its way into Myanmar. As Mr Miliband observed,“the regime has 400,000 troops in uniform.” For ordinary people, unfamiliar with the UN's arcane workings, it looks rather depressing. Will there ever be a good moment to cite the notion of a responsibility to protect—unanimously adopted by more than 150 states at the UN World Summit in 2005—as Mr Kouchneris now suggesting?

5月13日，英国外相大卫·米利班又重启辩端。在一家电台对其进行采访时，他被问及这一原本为应对屠杀及种族清洗等罪行而提出的概念能否适用于自然灾害。他答道：“当然可以，我们的立场很明确……联合国应采取所有可能的手段”。至于由英、法或是别国强行进入缅甸，外界并无期望。正如米利班所说：“缅甸正规军军力达40万”。对于不熟悉联合国复杂运作的普通人来说，这一结果令人沮丧。2005年联大会议上，150多个国家不记名投票通过“保护责任”原则。但究竟有没有什么合适时机，正如库什内先生所倡议的，将此原则付诸实施呢？

The tortuous development of that concept is a tale close to the French minister's heart. As a young doctor, he saw the horrors of the Biafran famine triggered by Nigeria'scivil war. Soon afterwards he co-founded Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) and became a leading supporter of the “right of humanitarian intervention” in cases where governments fail their own people.

“保护责任”这一概念的发展一波三折，而且同库什内的心路息息相关。他年轻时从医，曾亲眼见证尼日利亚内战之后Biafran饥荒的惨状。此后不久，他参与创建了“无国界医生”组织。作为“人道干预权”的坚定支持者，他坚持认为应在政府罔顾其治下生民之时行使此权利。

What Mr Kouchner was proposing sounded, in its stronger versions, like a revolutionin global affairs—overturning the 1648 treaty of Westphalia, which upheld the right of sovereign states to act freely within their ownborders. The UN Charter of 1945 also upholds the Westphalia principles, by stating in article 2(7), that “nothing should authorise intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of anystate.” But Chapter VII does entitle the Security Council to take action incases of a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression”.

库什内的倡议如更进一步，可能会成为国际事务中的一项变革，完全推翻1648年威斯特伐利亚条约。该条约认为主权国家有权在其国境内自由施政。1945年的《联合国宪章》依旧奉行该原则，其第二条第七款，“不得授权干涉在本质上属于任何国家国内管辖之事件”。而第七章中又授权安理会在遭遇“和平之威胁，和平之破坏或侵略之存在”时采取行动。

Tension between those two principles—sovereignty versus intervention—has been palpable for decades. Some countries stress the enforcement powers laid down by Chapter VII. Others (mostly in the poor world) insist that state sovereignty always trumps, even in humanitarian emergencies.

主权和干预之争已存在数十载。某些国家强调《联合国宪章》第七章赋予的干预权。而其它国家（贫国居多）则坚持国家主权至上，即便是在发生人道危机之时。

Inpractice, since the end of the cold war the UN has been intervening more often in conflicts within (as opposed to between) states. Sometimes it has happened with, and sometimes without, the consent of the governments concerned.

事实上，从冷战结束至今，联合国已多次干预各国的国内（而非国际）矛盾。有些时候得到了该国政府的同意，有些时候却没有。

In 1999 Tony Blair became the first world leader to assert a moral right to “get actively involved in other people's conflicts”—even without leave from the Security Council—if it was the only way to stop dire suffering. Speaking in Chicago after NATO's war over Kosovo, which the Security Council had declined to endorse, Britain's then prime minister made the case for “just war, based not on territorial ambitions, but on values”.

1999年，托尼·布莱尔在国际上首开先声，他提出，如果“积极介入别国冲突”是阻止伤害的唯一方式，那么在道义上就有权进行，即使没有安理会授权。他是在芝加哥做出上述表示的。当时，科索沃战争尘埃方定，此前北约并未获得安理会授权，而这位英国时任首相认为此次行动“是正义之战，并非出于领土野心，而是基于人类基本价值”。

Four years later, an American-led coalition invaded Iraq, using somewhat similar rhetoric about the need to overthrow a dangerous tyrant for the good ofeveryone. Although it wasn't in any formal or legal sense a test case for responsibility to protect, many people felt that the disastrous outcome in Iraq discredited the entire idea of intervention for “altruistic” purposes.

四年后，美国及其盟国入侵伊拉克，当时的理由颇有几分类似，说推翻一个危险的暴君符合所有人的利益。尽管此次入侵绝非“保护责任”的正式的或法理的实践，但其在伊国内造成的灾难性后果使得很多人对于干预的“利他”动机起疑。

Lessof a right, more of a duty

更多是责任，而不是权利

Meanwhile,Canada had set up an International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty,under the chairmanship of Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign minister,and Mohamed Sahnoun, a former Algerian diplomat. In their report, published in2001, it was they who first suggested changing the discretionary “right to intervene” into a more muscular “responsibility to protect”, or R2P as it is known in diplomatic jargon. Under it, the “international community” (in effect the UN) would be placed under an actual obligation to take, if necessary,coercive action to protect people at risk of grave harm, in accordance with clear criteria.

加拿大成立了一个“干预和国家主权国际委员会”，主席是澳大利亚前外长Gareth Evans和阿尔及利亚前外交官Mohamed Sahnoun。在该委员会2001年出版的一份报告中，首次建议将由各国可自行定义的“干预权”改为更强硬的“保护责任”，也就是外交界所说的“R2P”。根据这一改变，国际社会（亦即联合国）将承担起义务，对公认正遭受严重伤害的人民进行强行救助。

.......

......

Perhaps. But the idea will need some clearer successes than that if it is going to survive. And Myanmar, apparently, is not going to be one of them.

支持者们可能自有其道理。但这“保护责任”如想继续获得承认，仍需要一些更有说服力的成功案例。而缅甸，显然不会成为其中之一。