| dc.contributor | 行政院國家科學委員會 | en_US |
| dc.contributor | 國立政治大學國際關係研究中心 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 蕭琇安 | zh_TW |
| dc.date (日期) | 2008 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 30-十一月-2012 15:07:25 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 30-十一月-2012 15:07:25 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 30-十一月-2012 15:07:25 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/56228 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 2001 年12 月，「干預與國家主權國際委員會」公布《保護責任》(Responsibility to Protect)研究報告。該報告指出保護責任概念有兩層意義： 第一， 主權與責任為一體兩面， 主權國家應首先負起保護人民的責任； 第二， 當一個國家因內戰或其它理由無力或不願保護該國人民而使其人權遭受嚴重傷害， 國際法應允許國際社會進行人道干預， 以負起保護責任。此一概念提出後先後獲得前聯合國祕書長安南以及2005 年世界首腦會議成果文件等原則性的支持。支持者甚至抱持一種理想主義，認為透過保護責任概念作為新的國際法規範，當前國際秩序中對於國家武力使用之權力分際，以及人道干預等爭議，便可獲得解決。然而，如果將2001 年《保護責任》報告與2005 年《首腦會議成果》文件中保護責任概念與程序內容加以對照，將會發現兩者間之內涵與程序上顯然有所差別。也因此，即使聯合國安理會在2006 的一項決議中，首次引用了保護責任的概念，但保護責任是否可作為人道干預新的國際法基礎，仍值得進一步的探討。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | In December 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty delivered a report entitled The Responsibility to Protect. According to the report, the responsibility to protect has the following meanings: (1) sovereignty means responsibility. Sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe; (2) but when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states. The notion received support from the former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as was recognized in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document. Supporters envisioned that ideally, an emerging norm of the responsibility to protect will help resolve existent controversies over the permissibility of force, and humanitarian intervention. However, the comparison between the 2001 report and the concept of responsibility to protect set out in the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document suggests remarkable differences between the content and procedure of the notion contained in each document. Consequently, despite the U.N. Security Council has referred to the responsibility to protect in a resolution in 2006, issues remain as to whether the notion can now serve as a legal basis for humanitarian intervention, and its exact normative contents. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 基礎研究 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 學術補助 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究期間:9708~ 9807 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 研究經費:389仟元 | en_US |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 行政院國家科學委員會 | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 計畫編號NSC97-2410-H004-076 | - |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 保護責任;主權;人道干涉;武力使用;國際法;人類安全 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Responsibility to Protect; Sovereignty; Humanitarian Intervention;Use of Force; International Law; Human Security | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 保護責任---國際法下的意含、影響與規範形成之挑戰 | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Responsibility to Protect--- Notion, Impact and Norm-Creating Challenges under International Law | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | report | en |
