战争与防卫--能否援引个人防卫权为国家战争权进行辩护  

War and Defense:Can the Individual Right of Self-defense Justify the State’s Right of War

作　　者：张楠 ZHANG Nan(School of Philosophy,Inner Mongolia University)

机构地区：[1]内蒙古大学哲学学院

出　　处：《当代中国价值观研究》2022年第3期100-111,共12页Chinese Journal of Contemporary Values

摘　　要：战争是一项高强度的暴力活动,会引发大规模的人员伤亡,这增加了为发动战争进行辩护的难度。在当代西方的战争伦理学中,有论者试图援引个人进行自我防卫的权利,来为国家战争权进行辩护。这一辩护策略试图作出两个论证:一是把国家的防御性战争行为还原为个人进行正当自我防卫的行为,二是论证设置国家战争权有助于总体上增进个人安全。但反对者认为,对于国家的侵犯(如对国家非核心领土的侵犯)并不总能构成对个体安全的侵犯,因而个体的自我防卫权无法为一国所有的交战行为提供辩护。这可以反驳第二个论证,从结果上看,对国家领土的侵犯并不总是构成对个人安全的侵犯。但对于第一个论证,这一反驳并不成立,因为侵犯行径中所隐含的有条件威胁已然触发了挑衅例外原则,因此构成了对个人安全的潜在侵害。War means the killing in large scale,resulting in the burdensome justification for a right of war.One of the strategies of justifying the right of war appeals to the individual right of selfdefense,according to which,the right of war is justified because of either(1) the conduct of war is the collective exercise of individual rights of self-defense,or(2) to attribute the state with a right of war contributes to the individual right of self-defense.Nonetheless,the critics argued that since the infringement of a state does not always constitute the infringement of individuals’ self-defense,it is improper to justify the right of war upon the right of self-defense.This criticism makes sense in(2),since the consequence of infringing the state’s territory does not necessarily constitute the infringement of individual rights of self-defense.For(1),this criticism fails since the infringement to state implies the conditional threat of lethal force,which,in the light of the provocation exception of self-defense,actually constitutes the infringement to individuals’ security.

关 键 词：战争权 自我防卫权 政治性侵害 挑衅例外原则 

分 类 号：B82[哲学宗教—伦理学]