| 摘要: | 摘 要
這個年代，人權在國際上有了長足的進步。十年前家庭暴力仍屬家務事，警政單位也無法可管；時至今日，家庭暴力已有家暴法可論罪，人道干預也突破了國家主權的界線，得以減輕與阻止人道災難的發生。盧安達種族滅絕事件後，更促使國際刑事法庭對種族滅絕罪進行審判，這個發展無疑是人權進步的象徵；然而，國際社會對於人道干預的標準與干預的方式仍存在歧見，這使得人道干預成為一個燙手山芋，管與不管都不討好，對於和平和人權的貢獻也讓人存疑。
柯林頓政府逢此人道災難最頻繁的時機，必然無法逃避這個課題；基於美國信念與政治文化傳統的影響，柯林頓政府以民主和平論為其人權外交政策指導原則，對人道干預產生關鍵性的影響。為了解民主和平論對美國人權外交政策的影響層面，首先對民主和平論進行分析。結果顯示，民主和平論本身矛盾與爭議過大，人道干預與民主和平論在學理上亦有諸多不符；再以四個人道干預個案分析美國對人道干預之決策原則，結果顯示其人道干預缺乏人道考量，大國利益更高於國際人權；美國在符合利益下才對人道災難作出反應，人權被美國作為外交工具，正義與公正性都不足，因此引發國際社會不滿，國際局勢也更加不穩；雖實行擴展民主政策使得美國在國家利益與領導地位上獲益最大，但也招致更多敵人，國家安全受到嚴重威脅。
再者，柯林頓政府施行擴展民主政策至今已有十年之久，但以目前的情況來看，國家重建成效不彰，民主和平現象仍侷限於歐美國家之內，顯示「和平區」難以擴張，美國要用「民主以致和平」實際上滯礙難行；整體分析結果亦說明了美國以民主和平論作為人權外交政策主軸的做法是弊大於利。對於和平與國際人權貢獻不但有限，反而凸顯美國將人權與外交政策掛勾所產生的矛盾，損人又不利己。
當前的世界局勢，己無法憑一己之力解決所有問題。人權既是一項國際社會的共同議題，就應尋求國際社會共識，因此，美國的人權外交政策首先要尋求國際共識與廣泛合作，世界和平才有希望。有鑒於此，本論文提出關於人道干預以及人權外交政策上的諸項建議，以求在追求和平的路上有更多選擇；最後，美國人權外交政策之成效與評價固然有正反兩面，但更重要的是取其精華去其糟粕，能在批判中反省，進而對民主與和平的關係有更正確與深入的認識，才能期許不因錯誤認知而錯過更多通往和平的其他道路。
A Study On the Human Rights Policy Of US-Clinton Administration From The Perspective Of Democratic Peace - Review On The Four Humanitarian Intervention Cases
Abstract
In this age, human rights have made great progress internationally. A decade ago, domestic violence remained a family matter; even the police units were unable to monitor it. Nowadays, domestic violence has been convicted by the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, while humanitarian interventions has exceeded the boundaries of national sovereignties, and has reduced and prevented the happening of humanitarian catastrophes. The genocide in Rwanda has urged the International Criminal Court to put the crime of genocide in trial. This development is undoubtedly a symbol of progress on human rights. However, disagreements in the method and standard of humanitarian intervention still exist in the international community, and have made humanitarian intervention a hot potato. The thankless task not only is troublesome but also leaves doubts in the contribution on peace and human rights.
Facing the peak of humanitarian disasters, the Clinton administration inevitably could not escape the challenge. Based on the faith of the United States and influenced by American political culture and traditions, the Clinton administration made the democratic peace theory the guiding principle for its foreign policy, and had made a crucial impact on the humanitarian intervention. To understand the impact level of democratic peace theory on the U.S. human rights foreign policy, first off, we conduct the analysis of the democratic peace theory, and then the U.S. decision-making principles in humanitarian intervention by the four cases. The results reveal that its humanitarian intervention is lack of humanitarian considerations, which means the interests of big powers were more important than international human rights. When the U.S. only respond to humanitarian disasters under beneficial conditions, and human rights were used as a diplomatic tool, the insufficient of justice and impartiality caused the dissatisfaction in international community and lead to a more unstable international situation. Although the implementation of democraticenlargement policy has brought the most benefit in national interest and international leadership to the U.S., but it also led to more enemies and serious threats in national security.
Moreover, although the Clinton administration has been implementing the democraticenlargement policy for one decade, according to the current situation, the nation-building isn't effective. Democratic peace phenomenon is still limited to the United States and European countries, which shows that "peace zone" is having difficulty expanding. The use of U.S. "democracy to peace" is facing serious obstructs in reality. The overall results of the analysis also show that the U.S. Democratic Peace Theory, as a human rights foreign policy, brings more harm than good. The U.S. using Democratic Peace Theory as a foreign policy principle is not only limiting the contribution in peace and international human rights, but also highlighting the contradictions caused by linking human rights to its foreign policy. In a word, the use does no good to any party.
Under the current world situation, there's no single power that can solve all the problems. Since human rights are common issues in international community, they should be addressed with under consensuses of international community. Only when the U.S. seeks for international consensus and cooperation on human rights foreign policy, the dream of world peace has a chance to come true. For this reason, this paper suggests various proposals on humanitarian intervention and human rights foreign policy, in order to provide more choices on the way to pursue world peace. Finally, although there are pros and cons in the effectiveness and evaluation of U.S. human rights foreign policy, the most important action is to extract the essence and remove the dregs. We should reflect from critics, gain further and more correct understanding in the relationship between democracy and peace, and then we will not miss more paths to peace due to any mistaken awareness. |
