【作者】 徐进；

【导师】 阎学通；

【作者基本信息】 清华大学 ， 国际关系， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 在19世纪下半叶以前,战争中的暴力权是国家的合法权利,国际社会对国家在战争中的暴力运用缺乏系统的法律限制。此后,欧洲各国政府开始通过建立国际规范的方式来相互限制战争中的暴力行为。他们的努力直接催生并促进了近代战争法的发展。理清战争法的演化逻辑对于其未来的发展,对于国际社会维护和平、限制暴力的努力都有重要意义。战争法是国家间对战争中的暴力行为适当性的共享信念。战争法规范变迁的根本动因来源于人类理性的变化。人类理性可分为价值理性与工具理性两种。价值理性相当于国家间对战争中的暴力行为适当性的共享信念。国家间拥有共同的价值理性才能维持旧规范或催生新规范。战争法规范的变迁是价值理性与工具理性共同作用的结果,或者说是“人道主义”原则和军事必要性原则进行平衡的结果。价值理性由原先的“无限暴力”原则转向“有限暴力”原则(或者说是“人道主义”原则),从而推动国家对战争中的暴力行为的共享信念发生变化,使国家认为战争中的一些暴力行为具有过度暴力特征,必须予以限制或者禁止。价值理性的变化虽然可以决定战争法的总体变化方向,但具体规范的变化还受到工具理性(军事必要性)的干预性影响。过强的军事必要性会阻碍新战争法规范的形成。而一旦军事必要性由强变弱,新法规范的确立就会比较顺利。价值理性变化源于西方世界的政治变革。自由主义理念及其触发的西方国家的政治变革促使西方国家逐渐改变了对于战争中的暴力行为适当性的价值理性,并导致它们在19世纪下半叶愿意通过建立新的战争法规范来互相限制暴力。导致军事必要性强弱发生改变的原因既可以是纯军事因素,如军事技术、军事理论的变化,也可以是政治因素,如新政治制度的建立。另外,文化和意识形态因素将影响战争法的效力范围和执行力度。一个国家的文化(或意识形态)与西方文化(或自由主义)一致性程度越高,该国就越是严格地遵守战争法,反之,该国就越有可能违反或拒绝遵守战争法。这是因为战争法的哲学基础抽象人性论是西方近代文艺复兴、启蒙运动和自由主义革命的产物,不完全适用于非西方世界。而且抽象人性论也无法彻底抵消种族主义等政治思潮的影响力。所以,当西方国家与非西方国家发生战争时,双方仍有可能违反或不执行战争法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Before the second half of 19th centuary, the use of violence in the war was a legal right of nations. There were no decent endeavors to restrict the use of violence in the international community. However, the European governments and the international lawyers began intentionally to restrict the use of violence in the war by establishing international norms from then on. Their endeavours drove directly the birth and development of the laws of war. Digging out the logics of evolution of the laws of war is of vital importance to its future development and the international efforts of peace-maitaining and violence-restricting.The laws of war are a sort of international norms and can be considered as the shared beliefs among the states about the appropriateness of the violence in the war. Human rationality can be divided into wertrationalitt and zweckrationalitt. Wertrationalitt equals to the shared beliefs among the states about the appropriateness of the violence in the war. It is necessary for the states to share the common wertrationalitt for their efforts to maintain an old international norm or establish a new one. The evolutionary process of the laws of war is shaped simultaneously by the wertrationalitt and zweckrationalitt. When wertrationalitt changes from the original“unrestricted violence”principle to the“restricted violence”principle (“humanitarian”principle), which means the states change their judgements to the violence from admiration and worship to denouncement and abhorrence, the shared beliefs among the states about the appropriateness of the violence in the war will alter accordingly. The states will deem some behaviors in the war an excess of violence and hence should be restricted or forbidden. Although the change of Wertrationalitt shapes the general track of development of the laws of war as a whole, the evolution of an individual law is influenced by the zweckrationalitt (the military necessity). If the military necessity is quite high, the new laws will be difficult to establish, although they can restrict the extent of violence. Once the military necessity abates, the new law will come on successfully.The change of wertrationalitt can be traced to political revolution in the western world. The ideas of liberalism and the resulting political revoltion facilitated the western governments to change their the beliefs about the appropriateness of the violence in the war, which in consequence made them to build up some international laws to restrict the violence. The causes that result in the change of military necessity either come from some pure military factors, such as the progress of military technology, the emergence of a new military doctrine, or are the conseuqences of the political revolutions (reforms), such as the establishment of the new political systems.Moreover, the culture and ideology have the impact on the validity boundary and the abidance of the laws of war. The more homogeneous a specific culture (or a specific ideology) enjoys with the western culture (or liberalism), the more strictly abidance of the laws of war will be expected by the state with the specific culture (or the specific ideology). Whereas, the more heterogeneous a specific culture (or a specific ideology) is, the more probably the state with the specific culture (or the specific ideology) will violate, even refuse to abide by the laws of war. That is because the humanism which is the philosophical foundation of the laws of war roots in the western civilization and the outcome of renaissance, enlightment movement and liberal democracy. It cannot be applicable to all states, especially the non-western world. Besides, the humanism cannot totally counteract the influence of racism or nazism. Therefore, when the war breake out between western countries and non-western countries, the belligenrents still will possibly violate or refuse to comply with the laws of war.更多还原