羅爾斯的國際正義論與戰爭的正當性

羅爾斯在他的晚期著作程，試圖把正義理論的應用範圍從民族國家擴展至國際社會，並勾勒出他的國際正義理論的基人輪廓，本文的目的在於分析羅爾斯關於「戰爭的正當性」的議論及其視實意涵，並提供一些初步的反省知批評，羅爾斯表示，他的主要論點不外乎是對二次戰後國際法基本精神的一項闡釋；相對於今日不少其他自由主義者而言，他為戰爭設置了較高的正當性門檻，反對動輒以伸張人權為由發動戰爭。人文以「戰爭的正當性」為軸，分析羅爾斯的基本論點及相關論述，並特別針對他在「人道干預」問題上的含糊之處，以及他的「法外國家」概念約適當性，進行一些細部考察與批評。本文亦指出，羅爾斯的戰爭興和平思考，不但不像許多批評者所認為的那般保守，反而稱得上具有基進的批判意涵。

關鍵字

戰爭；正義；人權；人道干預；法外國家

並列摘要

This article examines one major aspect, in The Lao of Peoples, of Rawls's theory of international Justice: namely, what Rawls has to say about the legitimacy of war. According to Rawls, the violation of basic human rights is, next to self-defense, one of the only two reasons that are capable of justifying military intervention as, a last resort. These rights set a limit to a regime's internal autonomy, and only regimes that respect these rights can he considered immune from the threat of military intervention. On closer look, however, Rawls is reluctant to justify military intervention whenever basic human rights are being violated. 'Humanitarian intervention' in his view can only be justified if certain other important conditions are also met. This article aims to clarify Rawls's arguments with regard to war and peace, while pointing out two major weaknesses in his approach. It is argued that his account of humanitarian intervention remains too abstract to be practical, and that his notion of 'outlaw states' is misleading and liable to be misused. Coherent though it is, Rawls's ideal theory' arguably is not without certain conceptual and practical difficulties. Far from being conservative as many critics would have it, however, Rawls's approach to war and peace calls for radical reformation of the current world order.