论文部分内容阅读
国家分离问题是近些年来国际法学界的一个焦点话题。2010年国际法院的《科索沃咨询意见》所引发的热议集中体现了这一点。最近发生的克里米亚公投,再次引起了国际社会对相关问题的高度关注。本文从经典案例入手,首先分析了魁北克和科索沃这两个与分离相关的典型案例,同时对相关的国际法概念进行解读,得出当前的国际法并不支持分离的结论。然后对分离问题本身进行研究:笔者认为“分离”这项诉求本身至少涉及“民主”和“领土”这两项子诉求,将二者混为一谈不利于争端的和平解决;“分离”作为一项争端,基于国际法的发展现状,政治解决方式比法律解决方式更合适。最后,本文谈到了国际法道德化现象对这个问题的影响,表达了对道德化趋势的警惕的态度。
The issue of national separation has been a focus topic of international jurisprudence in recent years. This is reflected in the hot debate triggered by the 2010 ICJ Advisory Opinion in Kosovo. The recent referendum on Crimea once again aroused the great concern of the international community on relevant issues. Starting from the classic case, this paper first analyzes two typical cases of separation related to Quebec and Kosovo. At the same time, it interprets the concepts of international law and concludes that current international law does not support the conclusion of separation. Then we study the problem of separation itself: I think the claim of “separation” involves at least the two sub-demands of “democracy” and “territory”, and the confusion between the two is not conducive to the peaceful settlement of the dispute; As a matter of dispute, “separation” is based on the status quo in international law and the political solution is more appropriate than the legal solution. Finally, this article talks about the impact of the moralization of international law on this issue and expresses its vigilance on the trend of moralization.