باز تفسیر ایالات متحده از کاربرد زور در چارچوب حقوق بین الملل هژمونیک

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران

2 دانشجوی دکترای روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق، الهیات و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران

چکیده

حملات تروریستی 11 سپتامبر 2001 به ایالات متحده نقش چشمگیری در بازتفسیر، و در بسیاری موارد تلاش برای بازتعریف حقوق بین‌الملل، به‌ویژه در زمینه کاربرد زور داشت. این حملات، کارایی رژیم حقوق جنگ منشور ملل متحد در جنگ با ترور و مبارزه علیه گسترش سلاح کشتار جمعی را به چالش کشید. در واقع، این رویداد با تسهیل نادیده انگاشتن قواعد بین‌المللی حاکم بر کاربرد نیروی نظامی، فرصت مطلوبی را برای تلاش یکجانبه ایالات متحده در بازتعریف نظم حقوقی جهانی فراهم ساخت. این نوشتار بر آن است تا به پرسش‌های پژوهشی زیر پاسخ مناسبی بدهد: 1. رویکرد ایالات متحده به کاربرد زور پس از حملات 11 سپتامبر چه بود؟ و 2. تا چه حد این رویکرد در دوران زمامداری جرج دبلیو بوش و باراک اوباما تغییر کرد؟ با بهره‌گیری از نظریه واقع‌گرایی نوکلاسیک، راهبرد امنیت ملی امریکا در این دوران در رابطه با کاربرد زور واکاوی می‌شود. در فرضیه اصلی پژوهش استدلال می‌شود که راهبرد و عملکرد این کشور، تلاش برای کسب آزادی عمل استثنایی در به‌کارگیری زور در یک نظام حقوقی بین‌المللی هژمونیک بوده و به بازگشت حاکمیت توسل به زور در روابط بین‌الملل منجر شده است. برای پاسخ‌گویی به پرسش‌های پژوهش و آزمون فرضیه از روش کیفی تحلیل اسناد دولتی امریکا مانند سند امنیت ملی بوش و اوباما برای درک دیدگاه‌ها و مواضع رسمی این کشور، و اسناد سازمان ملل مانند قطعنامه‌های شورای امنیت برای تعیین جایگاه کاربرد زور در حقوق بین‌الملل استفاده می‌شود. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد که رویداد 11 سپتامبر تأمین منافع ایالات متحده در چارچوب مبارزه با تروریسم را مشروعیت جهانی بخشید و موجب افزایش اعمال زور در روابط بین‌الملل شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The U.S. Reinterpretation of the Use of Force under Hegemonic International Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • mehdi zakerian 1
  • Manizheh Eskandari zanjani 2
1 Associate Professor in International Relations, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
2 A Ph.D. Candidate in International Relations, Faculty of Law, Theology and Political Science, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

As one of the most critical junctures in the contemporary international relations, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 played a significant role in the U.S. reinterpretation, and in many instances, redefinition of international law with regard to the use-of-force in particular. These attacks challenged the UN Charter jus ad bellum regime in matters  related to counter-terrorism and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, the events of 9/11 were the catalyst for the systematic disregard of the established international rules on the use of military force, and provided the ideal opportunity to redefine the global legal order.
Moreover, a significant negative consequence of the September 11 attacks in 2001 was the emergence of a new complex and dangerous security environment that led to the revival of the use of force in international relations. Following these events, the jus cogent principle of prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which the International Court of Justice in its judgment in the ‘case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo’, has declared as the cornerstone of the Charter, was confronted with a great threat.  In responding to the events, the United States declared that the principle of the non-use of force could no longer be considered efficient against the threats originated from terrorist activities and weapons of mass destruction proliferation. Therefore, the United States announced its new national security strategy based on pre-emptive/preventive actions, and challenged the UN Charter jus ad bellum regime. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the American foreign policymakers have signaled that they are thinking about the U.S. hegemonic position and its leadership role in international system. One major objective of this paper is to find answers to the following research questions: 1. What has been the U.S. approach, as a dominant actor in the international system, to the use of force since the attacks of 9/11? 2. How and to what extent had the U.S. policy with regard to the use of force changed during the presidency of Barack Obama as compared to the policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush? 3. To what extent and how has the U.S. policy for the use of military force abroad influenced the international hegemonic legal order and international use of force? To provide answers to these questions, the authors use a neoclassical realist framework, which takes into consideration a combination of the external and systemic, as well as internal and unit-level factors influencing the foreign policy of states. 
In the hypothesis, the authors argue that the post-9/11 U.S. policy and practice regarding counter-terrorism are aimed at obtaining a special status  for the discretionary use of force within a hegemonic international legal system; and this in turn has led to the widespread use of force in international relations. For hypothesis testing, the authors have relied on a qualitative content analysis of the official statements made by the top U.S. leadership, and the U.S. government’s documents such as the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the Bush administration and the 2010 Obama’s NSS in order to gain insight into their complex security decisions regarding the coercive use-of-force instrument of foreign policy. Likewise, the relevant UN documents such as security council resolutions are analyzed to determine the legal status of the use of force in international law. The findings indicate that the 9/11 events legitimized “war on terror” in the international system, and undoubtedly led to an increase in the adoption of the use-of-force policy in international relations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • the United States
  • the Use of Force
  • Hegemonic International Law
  • American Exceptionalism
  • National Security Strategy
  1. الف) فارسی

    1. اسلامی، محسن؛ حجت داوند. (1397) «راهبرد ایالات متحده امریکا در قبال دموکراسی‌خواهی در سوریه و بحرین؛ سردرگمی محصور یا موازنه راهبردی (2016-2011)،» فصلنامه سیاست، 48، 4: 852-835، <DOI:10.22059/ jpq.2018.236629.1007091>
    2. مشیرزاده، حمیرا؛ حسین رجایی. (1398) «مشروعیت‌بخشی به جنگ علیه تروریسم در گفتمان سیاست خارجی امریکا،» فصلنامه سیاست، 49، 4: 1174-1155، <DOI:10.22059/jpq.2020.265604.1007308>

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Alvarez, José E. (2003) “Hegemonic International Law Revisited,” American Journal of International Law 97, 4: 873-87, .
    2. Annan, Kofi. (2003, September 23) “The Secretary-General Address to the General Assembly” the United Nations (org). Available at: http://www.un. org/webcast/ga/58/statements/ sg2eng030923.htm (Accessed 29 August 2019).
    3. Benvenisti, Eyal. (2004) “The US and the Use of Force: Double-Edged Hegemony and the Management of Global Emergencies,” European Journal of International Law 15, 4: 677-700, .
    4. Brennan, John (2011, June 29) “Remarks of John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, on Ensuring Al-Qa’ida’s Demise,” The White House (Whitehouse.gov). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/29/ remarks-john-o-brennan- assistant-president-homeland-security -and-counter (Accessed 23 August 2019).
    5. Brownlie, Ian. (1963) International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    6. Bunn, Elaine M. (2003) “Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect?” Strategic Forum 200: 1–8, .
    7. Bush, George W. (2006, March) “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2006,” The White House (gov). Available at: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006 (Accessed 23 August 2019).
    8. ———. (2002, September 17) “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2002,” The U.S. Department of State (gov). Available at: http:// www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).
    9. ———. (2002) “President Bush Delivers Graduation Speech at West Point,” The White House (gov). Available at: http://archives.gov/ news/releases/2002/06/ 20020601-3.html (Accessed 23 August 2019).
    10. “Death Toll in Syria Surpasses 130,000, Monitoring Group Says,” (2013, December 31) Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2013/12/31/death-toll-syria_n_4524443.html (Accessed 20 August 2019).
    11. Enriquez, Lt. Col. Arnel, B. (2004, Fall) “The US National Security Strategy of 2002: A New Use-of-Force Doctrine?” Air & Space Power Journal 18, 3: 31-40. Available at: https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-18_Issue-1-4/Fal04.pdf (Accessed 23 August 2019).
    12. Farer, Tom J. (2002) “Beyond the Charter Frame: Unilateralism or Condominium,” American Journal of International Law 96, 2: 359-364, .
    13. General Assembly. (2005) “World Summit Outcome Document, UNDoc.A/RES/ 60/1,” The United Nations (org). Available at: http://www. unrol.org/files/ 200%20world%20Summit%20Outcome.pdf (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    14. Ginther, Konrad. (1995) “Hegemony,” in Rudolf Bernhardt, ed. Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 776–780.
    15. Gray, Christine. (2011) “President Obama’s 2010 United States National Security Strategy and International Law on the Use of Force,” Chinese Journal of International Law 10, 1: 35–53, https://doi.org/10.1093/ chinesejil/ jmr005>.
    16. High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and (2004, December 2) “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility,” UN Document A/59/565. The UN Human Rights Office (ohchr.org). Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcoucil/docs/gaA.59. 565_En.pdf (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    17. Johnson, James T. (2014, January 23) “Just War,” Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Available at: http://www.britannica/ EBchecked/308720/just-war (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    18. Katzman, Kenneth. (2013, December 23) “Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and US Policy,” Congressional Research Service Report #RL30588. Available at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/pdf (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    19. Kinacioğlu, Müge. (2012) “War on Terror and Hegemony: International Law-Making Regarding Terrorism after 9/11,” International Relations 8 32: 67-84. Available at: https://uidergisi.com (Accessed 21 August 2019). [in Turkish]
    20. Kitchen, Nicholas. (2010) “Systemic Pressures and Domestic Ideas: A Neoclassical Realist Model of Grand Strategy Formation,” Review of International Studies 36, 1: 117-143, .
    21. Koh, Harold H. (2003) “On American Exceptionalism,” Stanford Law Review 55, 1479-1527, .
    22. Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.
    23. Nye, Joseph S. (2004), “The Decline of America’s Soft Power: Why Washington Should Worry,” Foreign Affairs 83, 3: 16-21, https://doi.org/10.2307/ 20033972>.
    24. ———. (2002) The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    25. Obama, (2009, February 24) “Address to Joint Session of Congress” The White House (Whitehouse.gov). Available at: http://www.whitehouse. gov/the_ press­office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Address-to-Joint-Session-of-Congress (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    26. ———. (2011, February 25) “Executive Order 13566 – Libya,” The White House (gov). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.Gov/the-press-office/2011/02/25/ executive-order-Libya (Accessed  21 August 2019).
    27. ———. (2010, May) “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America 2010,” The White House (gov). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ sites/default/files/rssviewer/nationalsecuritystrategy.pdf (Accessed 20/08 /2019).
    28. Press-Barnathan, Galia. (2004) “The War against Iraq and International Order: From Bull to Bush,” International Studies Review 6, 2: 195-212. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/3699590 (Accessed 20 August 2019).
    29. Rice, Condoleezza. (2002, October 1) “A Balance of Power That Favors Freedom, Remarks by Dr. Condoleezza Rice Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs to the Manhattan Institute’s Wriston Lecture,” The White House (gov). Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/ releases/2002/10/ 20021001-6.html (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    30. Rose, Gideon. (1998) “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy,” World Politics 51, 1: 144-172. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 25054068 (Accessed 20 August 2019).
    31. Secretary-General. (2005) “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All,” The UN Human Rights Office (org). Report of the Secretary-General, UN Document A/59/2005/Add.3. Available at:  http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ Publications/A.59.2005.Add.3.pdf (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    32. Security Council. (2001a, September 12) “Resolution 1368,” org. Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/ UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/ N0153382. pdf? OpenElem-ent (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    33. ———. (2001b, November 14) “Resolution 1378,” The United Nations (org). Available at: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/ GEN/N01/ 638/57/PDF/N0163857.pdf? OpenElement (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    34. ———. (2011, March 17) “Resolution 1973,” The United Nations (org). Available at: http//www.un.org/en/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol= S/RES/1973 (Accessed 21 August 2019).
    35. “Syrian Chemical Attack: What We Know,” (2013, September 24) BBC News (bbc.co.uk). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399. (Accessed 29 August 2019).       
    36. “Syria Death Toll Rises about 100000,” (2013, July 23) BBC News (bbc.co.uk). Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23455760 (Accessed 29 August 2019).
    37. Trump, Donald J. (2017, December) "“The National Security Strategy of the United States of America," The White House (Whitehouse.gov). Available at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12 /NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf (Accessed 29 August 2019).
    38. United Nations. (1945) Charter of the United Nations. New York: The United Nations.
    39. Vagts, Detlev F. (2001) “Hegemonic International Law,” American Journal of International Law 95, 4: 843-48, .
    40. Walzer, Michael. (2006) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books.
    41. Warren, Aiden; and Ingvild Bode. (2014) Governing the Use-of-Force in International Relations, the Post-9/11 US Challenge on International Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    42. Woodward, Bob. (2010) Obama’s Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster.