No description available.

Having soberly reflected upon the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the author observed that though international law and treaties restrict pre-emptive war, they do allow for war in self-defense. Consequently, some powerful nations have used this as a justification for launching pre-emptive strikes. The threats posed by the powerful nations using self-defense as a justification for pre-emptive strikes and the inability of weaker nations to do the same, greatly account for the unprecedented explosion of global terrorism. The author thinks that confronting terrorism therefore requires a pro-pacifist ethical framework whose principles have to be applied with international law to narrow the legitimacy of self-defense wars. Hence, he proposes "Moral Consistency" as a required condition for launching pre-emptive strikes with two main aims - to reduce violent conflicts and to draw a substantial distinction between reason and justification, and between crime and criminal justice.

Having soberly reflected upon the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the author observed that though international law and treaties restrict pre-emptive war, they do allow for war in self-defense. Consequently, some powerful nations have used this as a justification for launching pre-emptive strikes. The threats posed by the powerful nations using self-defense as a justification for pre-emptive strikes and the inability of weaker nations to do the same, greatly account for the unprecedented explosion of global terrorism. The author thinks that confronting terrorism therefore requires a pro-pacifist ethical framework whose principles have to be applied with international law to narrow the legitimacy of self-defense wars. Hence, he proposes "Moral Consistency" as a required condition for launching pre-emptive strikes with two main aims - to reduce violent conflicts and to draw a substantial distinction between reason and justification, and between crime and criminal justice.

The time is ripe for a re-examination of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and in particular, of its legal basis in international law. This thesis attempts to draw attention to the significance of the decision to justify humanitarian intervention in a certain way, and to some of the implications of that decision. / The thesis compares the two justificatory options which seem to be most appropriate to the multilateralism of the post-Cold War era: collective humanitarian intervention under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and mulitilateral humanitarian intervention under customary international law. It reviews recent state practice, arguing that a mulitilateral right to intervene for the protection of human rights is emerging at custom. / After critically analysing humanitarian intervention's justification under the Charter, the thesis concludes that the better way to justify the doctrine, both in principle and in practice, is under customary law.

No description available.

Magister Legum - LLM

1945年《聯合國憲章》賦予國家有義務針對彼此爭端協議和平解決爭端之方法，並且有權自由選擇和平方法解決爭端。1982年《聯合國海洋法公約》進一步確認《聯合國憲章》的和平解決爭端規範，並在尊重國家主權原則的前提下，特別載明一套關鍵維持世界海洋法制穩定存續的強制爭端解決規定。 中國大陸與東協各國於2002年針對日益激化的南海爭端簽訂《南海各方行為宣言》，其中明文重申《聯合國憲章》以及《海洋法公約》等國際法規範下的和平解決爭端原則。爾後，南海爭端隨著大國政治的發展與抗衡而顯得更加動盪，菲律賓進一步在2013年初將與中國大陸的南海爭端提交到《海洋法公約》強制仲裁程序來解決。因此，本文探討既存的《南海行為宣言》是否構成強制仲裁庭的管轄權障礙，來保障國家有自主選擇爭端解決方式的權利？又《南海行為宣言》在陸菲南海爭端中扮演何種和平解決爭端的角色，並且其意義與不足之處為何？ 在此問題意識下，首先就爭端標的進行分析，採取以國際關係及仲裁庭的角度來檢視陸菲南海爭端的性質。以國際關係的角度來檢視能發揮以下三個作用：一、理解爭端國在國際政治中的實力評估；二、檢視小國採取司法利用，以及與大國結盟以增加抗衡大國之談判籌碼及獲取法律正當性的策略；三、同時考量所涉爭端的政治與法律性質。另一方面，以仲裁庭的角度來檢視則能瞭知法院如何以國際公法原則來判斷爭端性質。 其次整理《海洋法公約》爭端解決機制以及《南海行為宣言》的內容，分析《海洋法公約》強制爭端解決機制設計的立意與《南海行為宣言》的制訂脈絡，得出《南海行為宣言》在《海洋法公約》的規範下僅為一載有「斡旋」精神的協議，爭端解決的責任仍舊交由簽署國解決。 此外，進一步再藉由仲裁庭的裁判，來分析《南海行為宣言》的法律性質。最後本文發現，中國大陸與東協各國所制訂的《南海行為宣言》僅為一重申既存和平解決規範精神的不具法律拘束力之文件，且未替簽署國創設必須由談判來解決爭端的義務。 最後，對於《南海行為宣言》作出整體評價，其彰顯具有國際法所承認之斡旋精神，展現其類似軟法性質的衝突預防之功能，然而《南海行為宣言》不具有法律實質拘束力，因而無法排除基於《海洋法公約》所提起的強制司法管轄。縱然如此，在「跨國法制歷程」概念中，《南海行為宣言》並非毫無建樹，其為透過各國「互動」而產生一行為模式之規範，然而《南海行為宣言》制訂後至仲裁庭啟動期間，並未使得相關國家對該規範進行有力「內化」的工程，使得該項規範的原則無法發揮效用。然此部分之推論尚待進一步詳細論證分析。 綜上所述，本文透過對於《南海行為宣言》之相關分析，認為我方在擬定未來南海政策時應在尊重各國主權原則的前提下，提升自身國家綜合實力以增加對外談判之籌碼，同時應增進國際法中關於和平解決爭端之研究，有效在各種方面落實國際法爭端解決規範的內化進程。

Le statut juridique de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme, qui a fait l'objet de controverses lors de son adoption, a évolué depuis. Sur le plan international, la Déclaration universelle fait désormais partie du corpus juridique du droit interne de l'ONU et a été reconnue comme un instrument obligatoire par la doctrine et les organes judiciaires et quasi-judiciaires. Sur le plan national, elle a été incorporée dans de nombreux ordres internes en suivant des dynamiques propres à quatre espaces transrégionaux (Common Law, Amérique Latine, Europe et Afrique). Cette double évolution a modifié le statut intrinsèque de la DUDH, qui fait désormais partie des sources non-conventionnelles du droit obligatoire, bien que certains ordres juridiques refusent d'admettre sa force contraignante. Son applicabilité repose ainsi sur la formulation des droits qu'elle énonce. / The legal status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was subject to controversy at the time it was adopted, has evolved since then. At the international level, the Universal Declaration has become part of the United Nations legal corpus and has been recognized as a binding instrument by publicists and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. At the national level, it has been incorporated into many domestic legal systems following dynamics related to four trans-regional areas (Common Law, Latin America, Europe and Africa). This double evolution has changed the intrinsic status of the UDHR, which is now part of the non-conventional sources of mandatory law, though some legal systems deny its binding force. Its applicability is therefore based on the formulation of the rights it contains.