ブックタイトル佐藤栄作論文集９～１６

概要

佐藤栄作論文集９～１６

第16回佳作that the UN grapples. There is seemingly little consensus between and within stateson the intervention in the affairs of other states. There is a rising school of thought,particularly among western states, that entertains the right of intervention in theaffairs of other states in the name of humanity, regardless of state consent or legaljurisdiction. However there are those that proclaim that illegal intervention to controlethnic conflicts are merely efforts of expanding western imperialism. The welfare ofthe citizens, civil uprisings, movements toward self-determination, or ethnic conflictsare seen to be matters internal to the state and not open to external influence.The two case studies undertaken in this paper are East Timor and Kosovo and arecharacteristic of many ethnic conflicts throughout the world. The ethnic conflict inEast Timor is a long-term struggle of independence and self-determination against animperial power and is likened to movements in Aceh and Irian Jiyah from Indonesia,Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and Mongolia from China, Bougainville from Papua NewGuinea, Basque from Spain, Northern Ireland from England. The ethnic conflict inKosovo on the other hand involves religious and cultural differences. Automatically,Sierra Leone, Angola, Rwanda and Algiers come to mind as similar examples.Much of the difficulty in resolving or pre-empting ethnic conflict is its ambiguousstatus under international law. A common refrain is‘why didn’t the UN act earlier’when many lives could have been saved?’However because of the legal constraintsof national sovereignty, pre-emptive force is not a legally justifiable form of war. Evenwhen there is reported to have been strong evidence of potential onslaught as in thecase East Timor（where there was compelling evidence from human rights groups ofa militia being recruited and trained to kill）there is no legal compulsion to act. 1（Onlya moral compulsion and that is seemingly restrained by practical self-interests of thestates.）（The most commonly held belief as to why the international community failed1 Mendlovitz and Fousek“Enforcing the Law on Genocide”Alternatives 21（1996）p. 251.883