第三国“非交战状态”的法律性质——从俄乌冲突说起

The legal nature of the third state's"non-belligerency"—A view from the Russia-Ukraine armed conflict

在俄乌冲突中,除了俄乌两国之外,还有大量的第三国以某种方式卷入其中,这些方式包括向交战国提供各类军事援助。部分第三国声称自己处于“非交战状态”。传统立法中不存在“非交战状态”,这一概念产生于一战后的国家实践,与有关战争的国际法规则的变化密切相关。梳理有关国家实践后可以发现,“非交战状态”并不为实在国际法所接受,而只是一种委婉的说法,涵盖了各种违反中立法的行为。声称处于“非交战状态”的国家实际上是违反中立义务的中立国。中立法在现代国际法体系中处于边缘地位为“非交战状态”之说的流行提供了契机。有必要在当今的国际法体系中思考如何重新编纂中立法,以适应时代的发展。

In the armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine,in addition to the two belligerent states of Russia and Ukraine themselves,a large number of third states have been involved in one way or another,which includes military aids of all kinds to belligerent sates.Some third states have claimed to be in a"non-belligerency".In traditional legislation,there was no such a status as"non-belligerency".This concept originated from state practice after World War I and has been closely related to the changes in international legal rules of war.Surveying relevant national practice reveals that"non-belligerency"has not been accepted by positive international law,and it is only a disguise to cover various violations of law of neutrality.Those states that claim to be in a"non-belligerency"are actually neutral states that violate the obligation of neutrality.The marginalization of law of neutrality in modern international legal system provides an opportunity for the prevalence of"non-belligerency"doctrine.It is necessary to consider how the law of neutrality may be re-codified in order to adapt to the developments in the contemporary international legal system.