剖析国际法条约和其他法律渊源对於使用武力设立了很多限制.pptVIP

* Court held: not pre-emptive self-defense because no imminent threat of attack on El Salvador, let alone on US法庭認為：這並非先發制人的自衛，因為薩爾瓦多並沒有即將受到[叛亂者]的攻擊威脅，美國更加沒有受到威脅Question of whether state may use force to protect nationals and property abroad究竟國家可否使用武力保護海外國民和財產 * Before World War II, 第二次世界大戰前1. war was a conflict between two or more states using armies戰爭是兩國或多國之间使用軍隊的衝突2. war had as its purpose, one side vanquishing the other and imposing terms of peace.如同其目標，戰爭中一方摧毀了另一方並強加和平條款3. war was what followed a declaration of war戰爭發生在宣戰以後Since World War II, however, no declarations of war自第二次大戰，便再沒有宣戰了 * Question whether war is an action or a status問題是究竟戰爭是一個行動或是一种狀態As an action, war ends when states no longer fight如果是一個行動，戰爭在國家不再戰鬥時結束Kawaski case (UK 1938) considered word “war” in shipping contractKawaski案﹝1938﹞考慮了船約中的「戰爭」 Held: UK ship did not have to carry cargo to China after Japanese invasion, even though Japan didnt declare war判決認為：英國船隻在日本侵華後不須再運貨到中國，即使日本沒有宣戰 * If war is an action, then its existence depends on:如果戰爭是一個行動，它的存在視乎：1. dimensions of conflict爭執的層面2. intention of contestants參戰者的目的3. attitude of non-contestants非參戰者的態度War as status shown by continued state of war between Japan and Russia日俄之間持续的戰爭表明了戰爭是一種狀態 * Question if war must involve force問題是戰爭是否必須使用武力Half of countries that declared war during WWII never fought一半在第二次世界大戰中宣戰的國家从来没有參與戰鬥Study armed conflict, not war now現在研究的是武裝衝突，而不是戰爭Formerly, colonial powers could use force to crush independence struggles; now states cannot早前，殖民勢力可使用武力粉碎爭取獨立的抗争；現在的國家不可以 * But can people seeking self-determination lawfully use force?但人們可否合法使用武力尋求自決Under 1977 Additional Protocol, Geneva Convention of 1949, protecting prisoners of war and civilians in wartime applies to some self-determination armed struggles根據1949年《日內瓦公約》的《附加議定書》 (1977年)，保護戰時的戰犯和平民適用於一些尋求自決的武裝抗爭Question whether 3d party can help people fighting for self-determination問題是第三者可否幫助人們爭取自決 * Some UN resolutio