聯合國國家保護責任的實踐與前景

為因應冷戰後因為國家內部衝突而頻仍發生的人道危機，以「責任主權」為前提的「國家保護責任」原則於2001年由「ICISS」提出倡議，並透過「2005年世界高峰會議成果文件」的決議成為全球對於解決及防止種族滅絕、族裔清洗、戰爭罪和危害人類罪的政治承諾。本文嘗試透過「戰略研究途徑」的環境分析、行為者分析、權力分析以及運作分析這四個分析層次，研究冷戰後集體安全體系衝突形式改變之後國際社會面對人道危機從「干預的權力」到「保護的責任」的發展，以及各主要行為者在此環境背景下如何運用權力因素在實踐個案中採取相應的行動。透過蘇丹達佛、利比亞、敘利亞這三個干預形式各異的實踐個案研究，檢視「保護的責任」原則的具體實踐、所形成的合作模式、產生的爭議與侷限、以及未來可行的突破與發展。作為符合「保護的責任」原則，需要國際社會介入履行保護責任的三個研究個案，由於受到地緣政治與國際現實的影響，在聯合國框架下未能落實「保護的責任」基於人道主義的理想性與道德高度，而是選擇性的採取截然不同的立場與態度。蘇丹達佛危機喪失早期預警與及時介入的先機，成為21世紀第一場大屠殺，和平進程拖延數年，尚未獲致最後解決。利比亞危機在三個個案中傷亡人數最少，國際社會達成共識的反應速度最快，迅速獲得安理會授權採取軍事干預，在推翻政權之後進入艱難且漫長的國家重建，引發干預不當的爭議；敘利亞內戰傷亡人數最多，施行保護責任的強度卻最低，強制性措施的提案都遭到否決，大國各有所圖在敘利亞境內採取軍事干預行動，期間更導致二戰以來最嚴重的難民危機。在不具備國際法約束力、內涵和實踐規範仍存在分歧、安理會陷於政治現實角力的情況下，導致「保護的責任」在授權與行動過程都受到權力滲透與規範性的異化。軍事行動不受約制、強制性制裁無法通過、問責機制難以落實，使得保護平民的首要責任未被優先考量，同時引發「保護的責任」被濫用、安理會授權機制陷於癱瘓、「保護的責任」功能遭到弱化的疑慮和隱憂。本文透過戰略研究途徑採取以「人」和「行動」為主體的研究取向，認為「保護的責任」究其根本仍須回歸國家保護本國人民的責任承擔，透過三個支柱所界定的實踐綱要落實預防、反應災難的責任和事後重建的責任。因此首要責任是協助動盪國家建立防止大規模暴行的預防機制與能力，透過善政治理以保長治久安。鑒於軍事行動不可控的破壞力，仍須先透過政治和外交途徑化解危機，武力只能是最後手段。此外，「保護的責任」已獲得普遍共識，國際社會集體保護責任的承諾對於暴力犯行將形成威懾力，有利於人權迫害的改善以及聯合國框架下國際人權保護秩序的推動。

關鍵字

人道主義干預；國家保護責任；國家主權；人權；聯合國；安全理事會；區域組織

並列摘要

To cope with the post-cold war humanitarian crisis frequently follow internal conflicts within a nation, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) was initiated by ICISS in 2001 on the premise of Sovereignty as Responsibility. With the resolution of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, the R2P becomes a political promise to resolve and prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity around the globe. In this thesis, there are four layers of analysis in a strategic research approach - environment analysis, actor analysis, power analysis, and operation analysis. In the goal to study how the UN collective security system, facing post-cold war changes to the form of conflicts, has developed from the Right to Intervene to the Responsibility to Protect as an international society, and how the main actors use authority to take corresponding actions in these circumstances. Three practical case studies on Darfur, Libya, and Syria with distinct interventions reveal the practical realization of the R2P principle, the collaboration model it forms, the controversies and restraints it brings, and the potential breakthroughs and developments in the future. Despite falling into the R2P principle that involves the international society to intervene and act with the Responsibility to Protect, all three case studies have shown the impact from Geopolitics and International reality to prevent the full realization of R2P ideals and moral standards based on Humanitarian within the UN framework. On the contrary, these studies reveal the adoption of entirely different stands and attitudes have become optional. The Crisis in Darfur, with the loss of a preliminary alert and the opportunity to intervene in time, had become the first massacre in the twenty-first century. The peace movement had stretched to several years without final resolution. The Libyan Crisis has the least casualties in all three cases, as a result of the fastest response of an international consensus and a quick authorization granted by the Security Council to adopt Military intervention. However, it also led to an arduous and dragging reconstruction of the country after the regime change and sparked criticisms on this improper intervention. The Syrian Civil War had the most casualties, but it had the least interference from the R2P, with all of the enforced measures declined. Each of the powerful countries had its purpose in taking military interventions within the Syrian borders, causing the most severe Refugee crisis since World War II. In the situation with the lack of international law enforcement, the differences in context and regime, and the Security Council being held up in the political strong-arming, the R2P authorization and execution process has been penetrated by authority and regulatory alienation. The absence of controls on military measures, of the consent on mandatory sanctions, and of the formation of accountability have prevented the primary responsibility of protecting civilians from being a priority to consider. Meanwhile, the misusage of R2P, the paralysis on the authorization process in the Security Council, and the weakening function of R2P have led to doubts and concerns. This paper adopts the study orientation to take the strategic research approach and use Human beings and Actions as the research bodies, considering R2P should be fundamentally the responsibility of a nation to protect its populations. In the definition of the Three Pillars, the practice includes the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild. Therefore, the primary responsibility is to assist turbulent countries to build prevention mechanisms and abilities for atrocity crimes as well as a good governance that ensures long-lasting peace. As damage from military actions is uncontrolled, political and diplomatic measures should be first taken to resolve a crisis, while the forces should be the last resort. Besides, R2P has received broad consensus for the international society to form the collective international responsibility to protect, creating a formidable force to acts of violence, a positive impact on Humanitarian, and an international movement of human rights protection under the UN framework.

並列關鍵字

Humanitarian Intervention ； Responsibility to Protect ； National sovereignty ； Human rights ； United Nations ； Security Council ； Regional organization