The United States and Libya： The Contradictions of Intervention and Disengagement

This paper deals with US-Libya relations in the context of the Arab Spring. The US foreign policy and its contradictions both in Libya and the Arab World are critically examined. The specific international relations issue in question is that of intervention based on the principle of the Responsibility to Protect （R2P）. The paper sheds light on how this principle was applied to justify the US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization （NATO） military intervention in Libya in 2011 and argues that despite the noble aim of getting rid of a nasty dictator like Muammar Gaddafi, the R2P was actually abused for the interests of the intervening powers. The US tried to ＂hit two birds with a single stone＂： getting rid of Gaddafi and supportive of simultaneous of the Libyan people and their long yearning for democracy. However, the results provide a testimony that discredits the primacy of any noble assertions since the intervention has actually undermined the genuine popular uprising in Libya.

The Implementation Mode of No-Fly Zones in International Relations

A No-Fly Zone(NFZ)is a unique mode of humanitarian intervention which is understudied in international relations.This article focuses on the political dimension of NFZs in international relations and investigates their implementations by empirically reviewing all three cases of NFZs to date.There may be efforts by intervening states to highlight humanitarian crises among certain targets to secure UN authorization for the NFZs;yet the implementation of NFZs is also driven largely by the security interests of enforcing states.As a result,there is the potential for those states implementing NFZs to transcend legal authorization and sometimes use excessive force,with likely calamitous results for local populations,or in extreme cases,accomplishing regime change by supporting opposition parties in target states.

“人道干涉”神话与美国意识形态

近年来“人道于涉”论在西方甚嚣尘上,其实,所谓“人道干涉”并无人道可言,“人道干涉”论只是西方为确立美国霸权下的世界新秩序所做的舆论准备,以此为法理依据的关国新干涉主义对非西方国家的安全和主权造成了极大威胁。美国海外干涉往往具有多重动机,包括国家利益和意识形态,后者除政治意识形态如民主、人权外,还包括民族意识形态即关国的道德优越感和全球使命感。美国意识形态与国家利益和国家实力三者之间的互动关系是理解美国外交政策尤其是美国新干涉主义的关键。

Is a Human Right to Democracy Justifiable？

In this article, I examine the view that there is a human right to democracy, and consider why we should regard this issue as decisive in solving the problems of foreign interference in the protection of human rights. I also note that there has been almost no discussion about the holder of the human right to democracy, that is, who is to hold this right. After comparing John Rawls＇ argument against the human right to democracy and Thomas Christiano＇s argument for it and showing similarities and critical differences among their arguments, I insist that we ought to be sensitive when proclaiming that democracy--be it a minimally egalitarian democracy or a more exacting one--is a universal value. We have sufficient cause to consider carefully not only the political circumstances but also the political infrastructure of the country before we proceed to an even limited intervention in the name of the protection of a human right to democracy. If the human right to democracy is not just a right to vote, but a right to the whole process of establishment and enjoyment of democracy, it should be understood as a group right that pertains to a human population that legitimately claims political self-determination. Any human population that insists on the democratic self-determination of their political will is both able and entitled to establish and administer democratic institutions, regardless of the diversity of its ascribed or cultural characteristics. The establishment of such a group with a firm political identity should be considered as the political infrastructure to claim and exercise the human right to democracy.

On the Great Power Intervention in the Middle East Upheaval and Political Trend in the Middle East

During the political upheaval in the Middle East in 2011,the Western countries adopted a policy focusing on both military intervention and the so-called“humanitarian interference”in the Middle East countries.Europe,the US and other Western powers distorted the“legitimacy”authorized by the UN and took military means to impose regime change in Libya,seriously disrupting the order of international relations.Their intervention efforts in this have far exceeded the ones before the Cold War.In the Intervention,they tried to secure legalization of their intervention,to take collective intervention,as well as nurture and support the country’s opposition parties to cause the“civil war”approach as the model of intervention.Their intervention has been blatant,fraudulent,hidden,and mandatory.From the development trend,because of the importance of the geopolitical position and strategic energy position of the Middle East and North Africa,as well as Western powers’pursuit of global geopolitical interests,the Western powers’intervention in the Middle East and North Africa will continue.These countries will still be faced with the historical responsibility to oppose power intervention.Their self-development and ability to maintain their own security will continue to face serious challenges.