当代国际法中的承认制度
摘要
二战之后,承认在国际法中的地位有所下降,其主要原因在于,有关承认的传统国际法制度具有较强的霸权主义和殖民主义倾向,武力吞并其他国家或者兼并领土也曾经被作为其重要内容,这些都有悖于《联合国宪章》确认的主权平等、不干涉内政以及禁止使用武力原则,也难以符合非殖民化进程中大量新国家诞生的现实。在这一背景下,传统的承认法律制度面临重大挑战。路易斯·亨金在海牙国际法学院讲演时甚至以“承认的死亡”为题,介绍相关的政治及法律问题。然而,与国际法理论界相对冷漠的态度形成鲜明对比的是,二战结束后直至后冷战时期,有关对国家的承认、对政府的承认以及对新领土、情势等的承认问题从来没有远离过国家实践。因为承认问题触及了国家资格最为重要的方面。
本文基于冷战之后当代国际法的基础和依据发生的变化,探讨这一变化对于国际法中的承认制度所产生的影响和作用。问题的提出源于国际法学者中关于国家的承认行为性质的主张,即认为它本质上是一种政治行为。然而,这一论断带来的疑问远大于其能够解决的问题,其对于国际法的最直接影响就是,如果任由如新国家诞生这样涉及国际法基本主体的问题完全游离于国际法律体系之外,那么我们就很难宣称当代国际法真正成为调整主权国家之间基本关系的法律。对于承认问题的进一步探讨,将我们引入了更为广阔的国际关系及国际法的基本原则和理论的背景之中。承认的目的是解决国际体系或国际社会新成员的资格问题,这既是国家间政治的起点,也是国际法原则和规则适用的基本主体,因此,要想对于承认制度有系统性的了解,就必须要深入探究国家、政府等行为体背后的国际体系、制度的背景,从国际体系或国际社会的演变过程中理解承认制度的发展和变革历程。另一方面,就国际社会的实际状况而言,冷战之后的国际社会正在经历着巨大的系统性的社会变革,在这一进程中,关于国家和政府的传统概念也在经受着重大冲击,具体而言,这一变革主要体现在以下几方面,即全球化进程的深化和各国相互依存关系的加强,人类共同利益的凸显,以及国际组织在规范性和功能性两方面的地位和作用不断提升。本论文分为引言、正文和结束语三个部分,其中正文分为六章,分别从理论分析和国家实践两方面探讨了国际法中的承认制度的当代发展。
第一章对于承认的基本概念和性质进行了分析讨论。长期以来,构成说和宣告说是关于承认的国际法的主要学说,前者主张承认具有构成性法律效力,被承认国只有得到承认,才能够享有作为国际法主体的权利；后者则主张承认的作用仅仅在于对于既定事实的宣告,被承认国的存在是一种事实,它独立于任何其它国家所做出的承认宣示。从国家实践来看,宣告说的基本政策主张得到了更多的采纳。但是,宣告说自身存在着逻辑上的不一致,既然被承认国不必经由承认就已经获得国际法主体的资格,那么承认这一行为本身就失去了意义,或者仅仅成为建立外交关系的宣示,然而,这是与国家实践不相符合的。基于构成说和宣告说中存在的缺陷,劳特派特提出了承认的义务说,试图弥合两种学说之间的巨大分歧,同时完成逻辑上的一致性。但是,给予承认的义务明显违背了国家实践中对其裁量权的尊重和强调。基于针对承认法律性质和国家义务的不同立场,本文提出了三种理论模式或传统,并倾向于处于中间立场的有限度的构成说,一方面,主张国家并不就承认本身承担具体的法律义务,也即其在做出承认行为时拥有较大程度的自由裁量权；另一方面,各国自行做出的承认行为并非孤立的或毫不相关的行为,而是在当前无政府的国际社会中履行国际法职能的行为；同时承认行为所包含的客观事实要素都涉及相关国际法原则、规则和制度,因而承认行为并非可以随意而为而不受法律约束的行为。所有包含在承认决定中的因素都是受到国际法所约束的,因而这只是说明承认是一个复杂的法律问题,并非单一法律标准或要件可以完全解释,同时,在冷战后国际社会共同理念、价值观以及利益的趋同背景下,承认所包含的各种法律问题也在很大程度上凝聚了国际社会所有成员国的共识。
第二章则分析了当前国际社会的变化以及国际法律体系的发展。基于前文中提出的关于承认性质的不同主张的三种理论模式,本章进一步从国际体系和国际法制度相互影响的角度,探讨从承认作为一种法律制度所依赖的国际社会和法律的基础。这一研究的起点是国际体系的无政府状态,这也是主流国际关系理论的前提,新现实主义和新制度主义都从这一假定出发分析国际体系中国家之间的集体行动的可能性,前者从权力分配出发,否认集体行动或国际合作的可能性；后者则基于理性主义的国家利益分析,提出集体行动或国际制度有利于国家利益的最大化。建构主义学派与前二者都不同,其出发点是对于无政府状态的颠覆,该学派认为无政府状态是基于国际体系中的共有观念而形成的,而通过将国家利益的形成内生于国家互动进程,集体行动就可以超越新制度主义的范畴,进而向共同体发展。建构主义的这种诠释为有关国际社会的理论提供了更大的支持。英国学派关于国际社会的格老秀斯传统的论述恰好与国际法中的格老秀斯传统相对应,从不同角度阐述了以主权国家为中心的国际社会中,国际法如何成为规范国家的行为规则。基于普遍性国际社会的发展,国际法的体系化趋势也日趋明显,并体现出以下几个主要特征：国际法前提和基础发生变化,从传统的相互原则走向共同的法律前提,从国家间法逐步走向维护人类共同利益的法；国际法基本规范日益发展完善,全球安全共识的增进促进了集体安全制度的执行力,禁止使用武力和不干涉原则等基本原则也得到巩固；国际法的人本化、人性化、人道化发展趋势日益显著,由国际人权法体系的发展而促进人权的普遍化和国际化进程对国际法的未来发展具有决定性的影响。
第三章分析了承认新国家的法律规定及其实践。对国家的承认是一个与事实状态紧密联系的问题。国家资格所需要具备的条件是否得到满足通常构成新国家成立的必要条件,然而,与国家资格相关的事实问题是从法律意义上而言的,因而它也是必须遵循法律约束的权利。从冷战之后对国家承认的实践来看,自决权和占有原则成为其中非常重要的两个法律要素。在非殖民化时代,人民自决权具有了先验权利的性质,这意味着即使民族解放运动没有获得国家资格所通常要求的有效控制的地位,但是其建立新国家的权利已先期存在了,这种情况下,对于民族解放运动给予的承认不存在过急承认的问题。然而,随着自决权概念成为广泛适用的法律权利,它也造成对主权国家内部秩序以及国际和平的威胁,因而关键在于清楚界定享有自决权的人民的概念。另一方面,占有原则已经成为国际法的既定规则,这显示出在承认新国家时对于边界稳定的重视。这一原则的核心在于强调以和平方式解决边界争端,从而也规定了在以非和平方式改变边界的情况下,对于新的领土情势应当采取不承认行动。
第四章探讨了对政府承认的发展。当一个政府通过宪法之外的手段获得权力时,对这一新政府的承认才是必要的。承认新政府一般是以有效性标准为基础,也即将行使有效统治的政权承认为合法政府。然而,在国际法的历史上,曾经出现过多次试图为承认新政府增加合法性标准的尝试,近来的宪政主义在一定程度上影响到承认新政府的标准,但有效性标准仍旧是最为基本的判定条件。从一些国家的实践看,英美两国都曾对其过往的承认实践做了重新评估,英国1980年特别提出了“不再给予新政府以承认”的新政策,以避免在承认决定可能包含的对于新政府政策的认可或不认可的立场,而只是继续发展正常的政府与政府间的关系。美国也逐步放弃了以前奉行的将承认行为作为表达政治上立场的一种工具,而是更多地从事实上有效控制的层面看待对政府的承认。
第五章探讨了集体承认制度的形成与发展。集体承认具有狭义和广义两种含义。狭义上的集体承认是指以集体形式做出的对新国家或新政府的承认行为。著名国际法学者劳特派特和杰塞普都曾主张,通过设立一个具备公正性和权威性的国际机构以确定承认相关的标准问题。由于受到组织权限和成员国授权二者的制约,即使是联合国这一具备普遍性的全球性组织,也没有权力直接就新国家的产生做出承认行为。而广义上的集体承认行为则允许联合国在其职权范围内,就一些相关的重大事项做出决定,从而产生集体承认的效果。在分权化的国际社会中,这种集体承认加强了每个国家在安全、稳定、秩序等方面的相互信任。传统上,联合国的这种集体承认行为主要表现为联合国成员资格和联合国大会代表全权证书的认可。这也是严格依据联合国组织约章的授权而履行的职能。同时,联合国参与和平重建和领土管理成为近些年来发挥联合国集体承认职能的重要发展。与联合国这一全球性组织相对应,区域主义和区域组织的发展使得区域层面的集体承认行为也日益增多。目前来看,区域组织的集体承认行为更多地集中于对政府的集体承认或不承认之中,这也许是因为承认新政府与区域内国家具有较多的利益联系,而对国家的承认则由于其关系到新国际法主体的产生,需要更多地从全球层面加以考虑。总之,联合国和区域组织在全球和区域两个层面上采取的集体承认行为增强了承认的国际法规则实施的一致性,并有利于消除以单个国家承认行为为主而造成的不平衡的情况。
第六章探讨了承认在国内的法律效力问题。承认在国内的一般法律效力在于,只有获得承认的国家或政府才能在承认国国内行政、司法机构中具有管辖豁免,其法律才可以在承认国国内法院中具有效力。未经承认的政府在国内法院中不具有任何资格。从承认国国内职权的分配来看,行政部门具有做出关于承认的决定的专属性职权,而国内法院则有义务遵照行政部门提供的证明来处理涉及承认问题的案件。然而,基于有效控制而形成的事实上的情势,国内法院在审理涉及私人权利的案件时,如果严格执行一般规则,就有可能面临巨大的困难和不便。因此,在审理有关未经承认的政府的案件时,国内法院当前的态度在发生些许变化,某些情况下也会对于未经承认政府所行使的有效控制程度进行考察,从而对于在维护私人权利方面能够实现更大程度公平和正义。
By the end of the World War II, the status of recognition in the international legal system has relatively declined, which is due to that the traditional rules of recognition has a strong inclination of hegemonism and colonialism. It has taken annexation of territories by the use of force as its important constituent contents. This is in contravention of the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and prohibition on the use of force. And it also cannot conform to the reality of great number of newly borne states after the decolonization process. However, compared with the indifferent attitude of some international lawyers, there has existed large amount of state practices related to recognition of states, government, new territories, and new circumstances.
This paper attempts to explore the impact on the rules of recognition of the change in the foundation of contemporary international law after the end of the Cold War. Generally speaking, the scholars tend to treat the nature of recognition as a kind of political behavior. However, if we leave the issue like the recognition of new international legal personality still outside the scope of international law, then it will be not easy for us to claim that contemporary international has become the law governing the relationship among sovereign states. The aim of recognition is to solve the problem about the qualification of the new member of international society, which is both the point of departure for the inter-state politics and the basic subject of international principles and rules. Therefore, we need to explore deeply the background of international system and institution behind the actors of states and governments, so as to understand the development process of rules of recognition through the evolution of international system or society. At the same time, the world is experiencing great change after the Cold War, which manifests mainly in the areas such as the deepening of globalization, strengthening of interdependence of states, increase of common interest of mankind, and the increasing role of international organizations. This dissertation is divided into three parts of introduction, main part, and concluding remarks. The main part includes six chapters, which have explored the rules of recognition in international law through theoretical analysis and research on state practices.
The first chapter deals with the basic concept and nature of recognition. The constitutive and declaratory theories have been the major ones concerning the rules of recognition, with the former contending that recognition has a kind of constitutive legal effect, which means that the new entity must get recognition before it can really enjoy the rights of international legal person; the latter claiming that the function of recognition only lies in the declaration of a fact, which means that the existence of the new entity is a fact independent of recognition declared by any existing state. These two theories all have their shortcomings. So Professor Lauterpacht presented the theory of duty of recognition. But this is also incompatible with state practices. The author presents three types of theories and agrees with the middle one of restricted constitutive theory. On one hand, it contends that states assume no duty of recognition and have great discretion over the decision of recognition. On the other hand, the separate recognition behaviors of states are interconnected and work as performing the function of international law. With the convergence of ideas, values and interests in international society, the legal issues related to recognition also assimilate great consensus of member states of international society.
The second chapter explores the change of international society and development of international legal system. From the perspective of interaction of international system and international law, the author tries to analyze the social and legal foundation of rules of recognition. Anarchy is the starting point for this study, which is also the precondition of prevailing theories of international relations. The constructivists have different view with the neo-realists and neo-institutionalists. They think that the state of anarchy is based on the common ideas of international system. With the calculation of national interest made endogenous to the interaction of states, the collective actions can surmount the scope described by neo-institutionalists, and move toward the community. In the meantime, the coincidence of views on international society between English school and the Grotius tradition in international law tells us the development of international society. Based on that, the international legal system has become more and more complete. It manifests some characteristics: the change of precondition and foundation of international law, the improvement in the basic norms of international law, and the trend of people-orientated, humanized, and humanitarian international law.
The third chapter deals with the rules relating to recognition of states. The recognition of states is an issue closely connected with facts. The criteria for statehood constitute the necessary conditions for the existence of new states. Yet the statehood is also deeply concerned with legal stipulations. The state practices after the Cold War demonstrates that the people's right to self-determination and the principle of uti possidetis has become two important legal elements in the recognition of states. During the decolonization era, the right to self-determination has the nature of a priori right, which makes the national liberation movement achieves the status of government of a new state even before it fulfils the requirements of statehood. On the other hand, the principle of uti possidetis has become an established norm of international law, which manifests the importance of stability of boundaries during the recognition of states. The core of this principle lies in the emphasis on peaceful settlement of boundary disputes.
The fourth chapter deals with the development of recognition of governments. It's necessary only when a new regime acquires power through means beyond the constitutional method. Generally speaking, the recognition of governments is based on the criteria of effectiveness. However, in the history of international law, there had existed several time attempts at adding of criteria of legitimacy in the recognition of governments. The recent constitutionalism has some impacts on the standards of recognition of governments. But the standard of effectiveness is still the basic testing condition. As for state practice, Both the UK and US have made some reevaluation of their past policies concerning recognition of governments.
The fifth chapter explores the formation and development of collective recognition. In its broader meaning, the collective recognition allows the United Nations make decisions on some material issues based on its mandates, which may have the effect of collective recognition. In a decentralized international society, this collective recognition enhances the mutual trust of states in the aspects of security, stability, and order. Apart from the membership and representation of the UN, its involvement in the process of peacebuilding and international territorial management has shown important developments in the function of recognition. In the meantime, the development of regionalism and regional organizations has increased the collective recognition on the regional level.
The sixth chapter deals with the legal effect of recognition in the recognizing states. Generally speaking, only the recognized states or governments are qualified to claim sovereign immunity in the recognizing states. The unrecognized governments have no legal standing in the court of recognizing states. As for the allocation of powers, the executive branch has exclusive authority over the decision of recognition. However, considering the de facto circumstances based on effective control, the attitudes of courts have changed a little toward the status of unrecognized governments, so as to realize great extent of equity and justice.
本文基于冷战之后当代国际法的基础和依据发生的变化,探讨这一变化对于国际法中的承认制度所产生的影响和作用。问题的提出源于国际法学者中关于国家的承认行为性质的主张,即认为它本质上是一种政治行为。然而,这一论断带来的疑问远大于其能够解决的问题,其对于国际法的最直接影响就是,如果任由如新国家诞生这样涉及国际法基本主体的问题完全游离于国际法律体系之外,那么我们就很难宣称当代国际法真正成为调整主权国家之间基本关系的法律。对于承认问题的进一步探讨,将我们引入了更为广阔的国际关系及国际法的基本原则和理论的背景之中。承认的目的是解决国际体系或国际社会新成员的资格问题,这既是国家间政治的起点,也是国际法原则和规则适用的基本主体,因此,要想对于承认制度有系统性的了解,就必须要深入探究国家、政府等行为体背后的国际体系、制度的背景,从国际体系或国际社会的演变过程中理解承认制度的发展和变革历程。另一方面,就国际社会的实际状况而言,冷战之后的国际社会正在经历着巨大的系统性的社会变革,在这一进程中,关于国家和政府的传统概念也在经受着重大冲击,具体而言,这一变革主要体现在以下几方面,即全球化进程的深化和各国相互依存关系的加强,人类共同利益的凸显,以及国际组织在规范性和功能性两方面的地位和作用不断提升。本论文分为引言、正文和结束语三个部分,其中正文分为六章,分别从理论分析和国家实践两方面探讨了国际法中的承认制度的当代发展。
第一章对于承认的基本概念和性质进行了分析讨论。长期以来,构成说和宣告说是关于承认的国际法的主要学说,前者主张承认具有构成性法律效力,被承认国只有得到承认,才能够享有作为国际法主体的权利；后者则主张承认的作用仅仅在于对于既定事实的宣告,被承认国的存在是一种事实,它独立于任何其它国家所做出的承认宣示。从国家实践来看,宣告说的基本政策主张得到了更多的采纳。但是,宣告说自身存在着逻辑上的不一致,既然被承认国不必经由承认就已经获得国际法主体的资格,那么承认这一行为本身就失去了意义,或者仅仅成为建立外交关系的宣示,然而,这是与国家实践不相符合的。基于构成说和宣告说中存在的缺陷,劳特派特提出了承认的义务说,试图弥合两种学说之间的巨大分歧,同时完成逻辑上的一致性。但是,给予承认的义务明显违背了国家实践中对其裁量权的尊重和强调。基于针对承认法律性质和国家义务的不同立场,本文提出了三种理论模式或传统,并倾向于处于中间立场的有限度的构成说,一方面,主张国家并不就承认本身承担具体的法律义务,也即其在做出承认行为时拥有较大程度的自由裁量权；另一方面,各国自行做出的承认行为并非孤立的或毫不相关的行为,而是在当前无政府的国际社会中履行国际法职能的行为；同时承认行为所包含的客观事实要素都涉及相关国际法原则、规则和制度,因而承认行为并非可以随意而为而不受法律约束的行为。所有包含在承认决定中的因素都是受到国际法所约束的,因而这只是说明承认是一个复杂的法律问题,并非单一法律标准或要件可以完全解释,同时,在冷战后国际社会共同理念、价值观以及利益的趋同背景下,承认所包含的各种法律问题也在很大程度上凝聚了国际社会所有成员国的共识。
第二章则分析了当前国际社会的变化以及国际法律体系的发展。基于前文中提出的关于承认性质的不同主张的三种理论模式,本章进一步从国际体系和国际法制度相互影响的角度,探讨从承认作为一种法律制度所依赖的国际社会和法律的基础。这一研究的起点是国际体系的无政府状态,这也是主流国际关系理论的前提,新现实主义和新制度主义都从这一假定出发分析国际体系中国家之间的集体行动的可能性,前者从权力分配出发,否认集体行动或国际合作的可能性；后者则基于理性主义的国家利益分析,提出集体行动或国际制度有利于国家利益的最大化。建构主义学派与前二者都不同,其出发点是对于无政府状态的颠覆,该学派认为无政府状态是基于国际体系中的共有观念而形成的,而通过将国家利益的形成内生于国家互动进程,集体行动就可以超越新制度主义的范畴,进而向共同体发展。建构主义的这种诠释为有关国际社会的理论提供了更大的支持。英国学派关于国际社会的格老秀斯传统的论述恰好与国际法中的格老秀斯传统相对应,从不同角度阐述了以主权国家为中心的国际社会中,国际法如何成为规范国家的行为规则。基于普遍性国际社会的发展,国际法的体系化趋势也日趋明显,并体现出以下几个主要特征：国际法前提和基础发生变化,从传统的相互原则走向共同的法律前提,从国家间法逐步走向维护人类共同利益的法；国际法基本规范日益发展完善,全球安全共识的增进促进了集体安全制度的执行力,禁止使用武力和不干涉原则等基本原则也得到巩固；国际法的人本化、人性化、人道化发展趋势日益显著,由国际人权法体系的发展而促进人权的普遍化和国际化进程对国际法的未来发展具有决定性的影响。
第三章分析了承认新国家的法律规定及其实践。对国家的承认是一个与事实状态紧密联系的问题。国家资格所需要具备的条件是否得到满足通常构成新国家成立的必要条件,然而,与国家资格相关的事实问题是从法律意义上而言的,因而它也是必须遵循法律约束的权利。从冷战之后对国家承认的实践来看,自决权和占有原则成为其中非常重要的两个法律要素。在非殖民化时代,人民自决权具有了先验权利的性质,这意味着即使民族解放运动没有获得国家资格所通常要求的有效控制的地位,但是其建立新国家的权利已先期存在了,这种情况下,对于民族解放运动给予的承认不存在过急承认的问题。然而,随着自决权概念成为广泛适用的法律权利,它也造成对主权国家内部秩序以及国际和平的威胁,因而关键在于清楚界定享有自决权的人民的概念。另一方面,占有原则已经成为国际法的既定规则,这显示出在承认新国家时对于边界稳定的重视。这一原则的核心在于强调以和平方式解决边界争端,从而也规定了在以非和平方式改变边界的情况下,对于新的领土情势应当采取不承认行动。
第四章探讨了对政府承认的发展。当一个政府通过宪法之外的手段获得权力时,对这一新政府的承认才是必要的。承认新政府一般是以有效性标准为基础,也即将行使有效统治的政权承认为合法政府。然而,在国际法的历史上,曾经出现过多次试图为承认新政府增加合法性标准的尝试,近来的宪政主义在一定程度上影响到承认新政府的标准,但有效性标准仍旧是最为基本的判定条件。从一些国家的实践看,英美两国都曾对其过往的承认实践做了重新评估,英国1980年特别提出了“不再给予新政府以承认”的新政策,以避免在承认决定可能包含的对于新政府政策的认可或不认可的立场,而只是继续发展正常的政府与政府间的关系。美国也逐步放弃了以前奉行的将承认行为作为表达政治上立场的一种工具,而是更多地从事实上有效控制的层面看待对政府的承认。
第五章探讨了集体承认制度的形成与发展。集体承认具有狭义和广义两种含义。狭义上的集体承认是指以集体形式做出的对新国家或新政府的承认行为。著名国际法学者劳特派特和杰塞普都曾主张,通过设立一个具备公正性和权威性的国际机构以确定承认相关的标准问题。由于受到组织权限和成员国授权二者的制约,即使是联合国这一具备普遍性的全球性组织,也没有权力直接就新国家的产生做出承认行为。而广义上的集体承认行为则允许联合国在其职权范围内,就一些相关的重大事项做出决定,从而产生集体承认的效果。在分权化的国际社会中,这种集体承认加强了每个国家在安全、稳定、秩序等方面的相互信任。传统上,联合国的这种集体承认行为主要表现为联合国成员资格和联合国大会代表全权证书的认可。这也是严格依据联合国组织约章的授权而履行的职能。同时,联合国参与和平重建和领土管理成为近些年来发挥联合国集体承认职能的重要发展。与联合国这一全球性组织相对应,区域主义和区域组织的发展使得区域层面的集体承认行为也日益增多。目前来看,区域组织的集体承认行为更多地集中于对政府的集体承认或不承认之中,这也许是因为承认新政府与区域内国家具有较多的利益联系,而对国家的承认则由于其关系到新国际法主体的产生,需要更多地从全球层面加以考虑。总之,联合国和区域组织在全球和区域两个层面上采取的集体承认行为增强了承认的国际法规则实施的一致性,并有利于消除以单个国家承认行为为主而造成的不平衡的情况。
第六章探讨了承认在国内的法律效力问题。承认在国内的一般法律效力在于,只有获得承认的国家或政府才能在承认国国内行政、司法机构中具有管辖豁免,其法律才可以在承认国国内法院中具有效力。未经承认的政府在国内法院中不具有任何资格。从承认国国内职权的分配来看,行政部门具有做出关于承认的决定的专属性职权,而国内法院则有义务遵照行政部门提供的证明来处理涉及承认问题的案件。然而,基于有效控制而形成的事实上的情势,国内法院在审理涉及私人权利的案件时,如果严格执行一般规则,就有可能面临巨大的困难和不便。因此,在审理有关未经承认的政府的案件时,国内法院当前的态度在发生些许变化,某些情况下也会对于未经承认政府所行使的有效控制程度进行考察,从而对于在维护私人权利方面能够实现更大程度公平和正义。
By the end of the World War II, the status of recognition in the international legal system has relatively declined, which is due to that the traditional rules of recognition has a strong inclination of hegemonism and colonialism. It has taken annexation of territories by the use of force as its important constituent contents. This is in contravention of the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and prohibition on the use of force. And it also cannot conform to the reality of great number of newly borne states after the decolonization process. However, compared with the indifferent attitude of some international lawyers, there has existed large amount of state practices related to recognition of states, government, new territories, and new circumstances.
This paper attempts to explore the impact on the rules of recognition of the change in the foundation of contemporary international law after the end of the Cold War. Generally speaking, the scholars tend to treat the nature of recognition as a kind of political behavior. However, if we leave the issue like the recognition of new international legal personality still outside the scope of international law, then it will be not easy for us to claim that contemporary international has become the law governing the relationship among sovereign states. The aim of recognition is to solve the problem about the qualification of the new member of international society, which is both the point of departure for the inter-state politics and the basic subject of international principles and rules. Therefore, we need to explore deeply the background of international system and institution behind the actors of states and governments, so as to understand the development process of rules of recognition through the evolution of international system or society. At the same time, the world is experiencing great change after the Cold War, which manifests mainly in the areas such as the deepening of globalization, strengthening of interdependence of states, increase of common interest of mankind, and the increasing role of international organizations. This dissertation is divided into three parts of introduction, main part, and concluding remarks. The main part includes six chapters, which have explored the rules of recognition in international law through theoretical analysis and research on state practices.
The first chapter deals with the basic concept and nature of recognition. The constitutive and declaratory theories have been the major ones concerning the rules of recognition, with the former contending that recognition has a kind of constitutive legal effect, which means that the new entity must get recognition before it can really enjoy the rights of international legal person; the latter claiming that the function of recognition only lies in the declaration of a fact, which means that the existence of the new entity is a fact independent of recognition declared by any existing state. These two theories all have their shortcomings. So Professor Lauterpacht presented the theory of duty of recognition. But this is also incompatible with state practices. The author presents three types of theories and agrees with the middle one of restricted constitutive theory. On one hand, it contends that states assume no duty of recognition and have great discretion over the decision of recognition. On the other hand, the separate recognition behaviors of states are interconnected and work as performing the function of international law. With the convergence of ideas, values and interests in international society, the legal issues related to recognition also assimilate great consensus of member states of international society.
The second chapter explores the change of international society and development of international legal system. From the perspective of interaction of international system and international law, the author tries to analyze the social and legal foundation of rules of recognition. Anarchy is the starting point for this study, which is also the precondition of prevailing theories of international relations. The constructivists have different view with the neo-realists and neo-institutionalists. They think that the state of anarchy is based on the common ideas of international system. With the calculation of national interest made endogenous to the interaction of states, the collective actions can surmount the scope described by neo-institutionalists, and move toward the community. In the meantime, the coincidence of views on international society between English school and the Grotius tradition in international law tells us the development of international society. Based on that, the international legal system has become more and more complete. It manifests some characteristics: the change of precondition and foundation of international law, the improvement in the basic norms of international law, and the trend of people-orientated, humanized, and humanitarian international law.
The third chapter deals with the rules relating to recognition of states. The recognition of states is an issue closely connected with facts. The criteria for statehood constitute the necessary conditions for the existence of new states. Yet the statehood is also deeply concerned with legal stipulations. The state practices after the Cold War demonstrates that the people's right to self-determination and the principle of uti possidetis has become two important legal elements in the recognition of states. During the decolonization era, the right to self-determination has the nature of a priori right, which makes the national liberation movement achieves the status of government of a new state even before it fulfils the requirements of statehood. On the other hand, the principle of uti possidetis has become an established norm of international law, which manifests the importance of stability of boundaries during the recognition of states. The core of this principle lies in the emphasis on peaceful settlement of boundary disputes.
The fourth chapter deals with the development of recognition of governments. It's necessary only when a new regime acquires power through means beyond the constitutional method. Generally speaking, the recognition of governments is based on the criteria of effectiveness. However, in the history of international law, there had existed several time attempts at adding of criteria of legitimacy in the recognition of governments. The recent constitutionalism has some impacts on the standards of recognition of governments. But the standard of effectiveness is still the basic testing condition. As for state practice, Both the UK and US have made some reevaluation of their past policies concerning recognition of governments.
The fifth chapter explores the formation and development of collective recognition. In its broader meaning, the collective recognition allows the United Nations make decisions on some material issues based on its mandates, which may have the effect of collective recognition. In a decentralized international society, this collective recognition enhances the mutual trust of states in the aspects of security, stability, and order. Apart from the membership and representation of the UN, its involvement in the process of peacebuilding and international territorial management has shown important developments in the function of recognition. In the meantime, the development of regionalism and regional organizations has increased the collective recognition on the regional level.
The sixth chapter deals with the legal effect of recognition in the recognizing states. Generally speaking, only the recognized states or governments are qualified to claim sovereign immunity in the recognizing states. The unrecognized governments have no legal standing in the court of recognizing states. As for the allocation of powers, the executive branch has exclusive authority over the decision of recognition. However, considering the de facto circumstances based on effective control, the attitudes of courts have changed a little toward the status of unrecognized governments, so as to realize great extent of equity and justice.
引文
1 Louis Henkin, International Law:Politics and Values, Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995, p.13.
1 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第3-4页。
2 王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第78页。
3 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,,第365-366页。
4 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly(1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
5 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第364-365页。
6 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第117页。
7 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第118页。
1 菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第194页。
2 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents. (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
J James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law (1938), Vol.32, No.1, pp.106-113.
1 James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law (1938). Vol.32, No. 1,pp.106-113.
2 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第113-114页。
3 Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33, No.4, pp.689-699.
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents,(Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33, No.4, pp.689-699.
3 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第117页。
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949. United Nations, p.37.
2 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
1 王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第85页。
2 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第366页。
3 Stefan Talmon, "The Duty Not to'Recognize as Lawful'a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation:An Obligation without Real Substance?" in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order:Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006, note 110.
4 Stefan Talmon, "The Duty Not to'Recognize as Lawful'a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation:An Obligation without Real Substance?" in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order:Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006. note 112.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law". The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53. No.3, pp.385-458.
2 周鲠生：《国际法》,第124页。
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments". The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.5, note 10
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949, United Nations, p.37.
2 Josef L. Kunz. "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's 'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law (1950), Vol.44, No.4, pp.713-719.
3 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
4 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
2 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第249页。
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations". The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617. 2 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
1 (奥)阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第297页。
2 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(上卷第一分册),第101页。
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第298页。
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
4 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p.373.
5 Josef L. Kunz, "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law (1950), Vol.44, No.4, pp.713-719.
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第102页。
2 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第20页。
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.61.
1 Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.40-41.
2 余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
1 E. Lauterpacht, "The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field of International Law-Survey and Comment",5 (1956) ICLQ 405, at 410. also See Ralph Wilde, Andrew Cannon, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst "Recognition of States:the Consequences of Recognition or Non-Recognition in UK and International Law", Summary of the International Law Discussion Group meeting held at Chatham House on 4 February 2010, pp.2-3.
2 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第20-22页。
3 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第156,167页。
4 俞可平：《论全球化与国家主权》,《马克思主义与现实》2004年第1期。
1 梁西：《国际组织法(总论)》,武汉大学出版社2001年修订第五版,第331页。
2 Jean Bodin, Republique (1576), English translation of 1606. Cited from International Law:Cases and Commentary, edited by Mark W.Janis and John E. Noyes, second edition, West Group,2001, p.401.
3 International Law:Cases and Commentary, edited by Mark W. Janis and John E. Noyes, second edition, West Group,2001,p.402.
4 [日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权——从古典理论到全球时代》,商务印书馆2005年版,第69页。
5 黄瑶：《论禁止使用武力原则——联合国宪章第二条第四项法理分析》,北京大学出版社2003年版,第21页。
6 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
7 Martti Koskenniemi, "The Future of Statehood",32 Harvard International Law Journal 397, at 408 (1991).
1 余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
1 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第245页。
2 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,第245-246页。
3 菲德罗斯等,《国际法》,第300页。
4 Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil Des Cours, Volume 266 (1997). Kluwer Law International,1997, p.79.
5 K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (1968), at 6. also See Patrick Dumberry, "New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement", The European Journal of International Law, Vol.17, No.3,2006, pp.605-621.
1 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202, Reporters'Note 6.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2nd edition, Oxford University Press,2006, p.51.
3 Ralph Wilde, Andrew Cannon, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst. "Recognition of States:the Consequences of Recognition or Non-Recognition in UK and International Law", Summary of the International Law Discussion Group meeting held at Chatham House on 4 February 2010, p.5.
1 龚刃韧：《国际人权法与比较宪法》,载于白桂梅主编：《国际人权与发展：中国和加拿大的视角》,法律出版社1998年版,第88页。
2 沃尔夫刚·格拉夫·魏智通主编：《国际法》,法律出版社2002年版,第114页。
3 [美]路易斯·亨金著：《权利的时代》,知识出版社1997年版,第112页。
4 《世界人权宣言》第二十八条。
1 《世界人权宣言》序言第三段。
2 加拿大首席大法官Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer的题为“实施国际人权法：21世纪的条约体制”的讲演。参见丽贝卡·瓦恩散科·亨特：《加拿大的国际人权义务对国内法律程序的影响》,载于程味秋、杨诚、杨宇冠编：《联合国人权公约和刑事司法文献汇编》,第390页。
3 爱德华·劳森主编：《人权百科全书》,四川人民出版社1997年版,第1395页。
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第二分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第1页。
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations. Kluwer Law International,1998. pp.55-59.
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第9页。
1 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第6页。
2 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第13-14页。
3 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第7页。
1 罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后：世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,上海人民出版社2001年版,第30页。
1 Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
J Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State". The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
1 [美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,第1页。
2 卢凌宇：《论冷战后挑战主权的理论思潮》,中国社会科学出版社2004年版,第7-8页。
3 Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, "Understanding Change in International Politics:The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System". International Organization (1994), Vol.48, No.2. pp.215-247.
1 秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
2 秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
3 Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
1 Stanley Hoffman, "Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations", International Affairs, Vol.62. No.2,(1986), pp.179-195.
2 张胜军：《当代国际社会的法治基础》,《中国社会科学》2007年第2期。
3 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 Martin Wight, International Theory:The Three Traditions, edited by Gabriele Wight and Brian Porter. Leicester University Press,1991.转引自秦亚青：《自由主义国际关系理论的思想渊源》,载于秦亚青：《权力·制度·文化：国际关系理论与方法研究文集》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第59页。
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
3 Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition. Palgrave Macmillan,2002. pp.23-26.
1 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
3 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
1 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics, Third edition, Basingstoke:Palgrave. 2002, pp.3-4.
3 John Williams, "Order and Society", in The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World, edited by Richard Little and John Williams, Palgrave MacMillan,2006, p.19.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press, pp.19-27.
2 H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press, p.51.
3 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第17页。
1 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第7页。
2 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization (1993), Vol.47, No.3, pp.330-331.
3 王铁崖：《第三世界与国际法》,《中国国际法年刊1982》,对外翻译出版社公司1982年版,第17页。
1 Barry Buzan. "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 王逸舟：《西方国际政治学：历史与理论》,上海人民出版社1998年版,第370-377页。
3 劳特派特修订,《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第7-10页。
4 Brierly, Law of Nations, p.41.转引自王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第9页。
1 Lauterpacht's Collected Papers, Vol. I, p.9.转引自王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第10页。
2 Thomas M. Franck. "Legitimacy in the International System", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No.4, (Oct.,1988), pp.705-759.
1 Louis Henkin. International Law:Politics and Values. Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995, pp.31-33.
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第170,630页。
1 H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community. Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933, pp.63-64.
2 H. Lauterpacht. The Function of Law in the International Community. Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933, pp.66-68.
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 W. Michale Reisman, "Editorial Comment:International Law after the Cold War",84 AJIL 859 (1990).
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4:pp.605-617.
3 Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-VI), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International, p.232.
4 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第35-38页。
1 Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-Ⅵ), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International, p.232.
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第28页。
3 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27页。
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001, p.15.
5 王曦：《国际环境法》,法律出版社1998年版,第66页。
1 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第195页。
2 Jose E. Alvarez, "Hegemonic International Law Revisited",97A.J.I.L. 873 (2003). Also see Detlev F. Vagts, "Editorial Comments:Hegemonic International Law",95 A.J.I.L.843 (2001).
3 Jose E. Alvarez, "Hegemonic International Law Revisited",97A.J.I.L. 873 (2003).
4 Wilhelm G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, trans. and rev. by Michael Byers (Berlin:de Gruyter 2000), p.704.
1 王铁崖：《论人类的共同继承财产的概念》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1984)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版,第24—25页。
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第777页。
3 [德]沃尔夫刚·格拉夫·魏智通主编：《国际法》,法律出版社2002年版,第597页,注[427]。
4 [德]康德：《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,商务印书馆1991年版,第189页。
1 曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27-28页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第34-35页。
1 李浩培：《强行法与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1982)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1982年版,第39页。
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27页。
3 熊玠：《无政府状态与世界秩序》,浙江人民出版社2001年版,第43页。
4 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第59页。
5 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,第230页。
6 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第5页。
1 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第59页。
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,第230页。
1 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,第13页。
2 [英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》上卷第一分册,商务印书馆1971年版,第14页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,第11—12页。
4 [英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》上卷第二分册,商务印书馆1971年版,第139—140页。
1 周鲠生：《现代英美国际法的思想动向》,世界知识出版社1963年版,第35页。
2 周鲠生：《现代英美国际法的思想动向》,世界知识出版社1963年版,第36页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,第26页。
4 《联合国宪章》第二条第五项：各会员国对于联合国依本宪章规定而采取之行动,应尽力予以协助,联合国对于任何国家正在采取防止或执行行动时,各会员国对该国不得给予协助。
5 《联合国宪章》第二条第六项：本组织在维持国际和平及安全之必要范围内,应保证非联合国会员国遵行上述原则。
1 Hans Kelsen, "Collective Security and Collective Self-Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations", The American Journal of International Law (1948), Vol.42. No.4. pp.783-796.
2 "Securing peace and development:the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform", Report of the Secretary-General,23 January 2008, A/62/659-S/2008/39, p.4.
1 《2005年世界首脑峰会成果文件》,A/RES/60/1,第2页,第19页。
2 唐家璇在纪念中国恢复联合国合法席位35周年招待会上的致辞,2006年10月25日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/wjdt/zyjh/t277463.htm。
3 《2005年世界首脑峰会成果文件》,A/RES/60/1,第19页。
4 中国常驻联合国代表王光亚大使在安理会“复杂危机与联合国反应”问题公开会上的发言,2004年5月8日,资料来源：http://www.china-un.org/chn/fyywj/wn/fy04/t122889.htm。
5 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷第一分册),商务印书馆1971年版,第116至117页。
6 "Statement to Security Council meeting on securing peace and development:the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform",12 May,2008, available at http://www.un.org/.
1 余民才：《“武力攻击”的法律定性》,《法学评论》2004年第1期,第20页。
2 Thomas M. Franck, "Editorial Comments:Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense",95 A.J.I.L 839 (2001).
3 UN Document, A/59/HLPM/CRP.1/Rev.2,10 August 2005.
1 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第5-6页。
2 徐杰：《“保护的责任”与国家主权》,载于《中国国际法年刊2005》,世界知识出版社2007年版,第145页。
3 杨泽伟：《国际法上的国家主权与国际干涉》,《法学研究》2001年第4期。
1 曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
1 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第23页。
2 周鲠生：《国际法》,第22页。
1 赖彭城、倪世雄、袁铮：《国际人权论》,上海人民出版社1992年版,第25页。
1 路易斯·亨金：《宪政与人权》,载于路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编：《宪政与权利——美国宪法的域外影响》,生活·读书·新知三联书店1996年版,第515页。
2 夏勇：《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年修订版,第183页。
1 [瑞士]胜雅律：《从有限的人权概念到普遍的人权概念——人权的两个阶段》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》(下),四川人民出版社1994年版。第253—254页。
2 指在存在传统的、结构性歧视的地方,为了加速实现事实上的平等而采取的暂时性特殊手段。参见李忠：《论少数人权利——兼评<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>第27条》,载于王家福、刘海年、李林主编：《人权与21世纪》,中国法制出版社2000年版,第225页。
1 [德]拉德布鲁赫著：《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第11—12页。
2 劳特派特：《国家主权与人权》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》(下),第513页。
1 [美]托马斯·伯根索尔：《国际人权法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1995年版,第20页。
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.93.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2006, p.38.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. pp.38-39.
2 Colin Warbrick. "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.61.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.39.
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. p.39.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. p.41.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
2 K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law,1955. Also see James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.94.
1 Colin Warbrick. "Recognition of States", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1992), Vol.41, No. 2, pp.473-482.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48. 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
2 1993年10月12日,中国政府代表、常驻联合国特命全权大使李肇星和马其顿共和国政府代表、常驻联合国特命全权大使登科·马莱斯基在纽约签署《中华人民共和国和马其顿共和国建交联合公报》,两国自即日起建立大使级外交关系。值得注意的是,中国自承认马其顿的国家资格后,就一直使用“马其顿共和国”的官方称谓,而马其顿的国名在联合国还是尚待解决的事项。这说明,有关国名的争议并未影响到马其顿的国家地位。资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/。
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy. "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments". I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 陈世材：《晚近国际法的新发展》,友谊出版公司1983年版,第59页。
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第60—65页。
1 史久镛：《国际法院的咨询职能——在联合国大会第六委员会的演讲》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第9页。
2 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第32-33页。
3 资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/。
4 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
1 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第60—65页。
3 Helen Quane. "The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination", International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1998), Vol.47, p.537.
4 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
1 Helen Quane, "The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination", International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1998), Vol.47, p.537.
2 Georg Schwarzenberger, "The Rule of Law and the Disintegration of the International Society", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33. No.1, pp.56-77.
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
2 陈致中：《国际法院1986—1992年判决中的国际法问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1993)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年版,第26-27页。
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
1 夏吉生：《非洲边界问题产生的原因及解决的原则》,载于《中国国际法年刊1984》,对外翻译出版公司1984年版,第234页。
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
1 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
3 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
1 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第73页。
2 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
3 M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished", The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
4 Baxter, Foreword to L.T. Galloway, Recognizing Foreign Governments:The Practice of the United States, at xi (1978). Also see M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished". The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments" The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents. (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished", The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第73-74页。
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001, p.52.
1 "Estrada Doctrine of Recognition". The American Journal of International Law (1931), Vol.25, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, p.203.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946). Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, pp.136-137.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000. p.4.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments". I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999. pp.545-581.
3 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第127页。
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
J Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 203 (1), (2).
3 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. § 203, comment b.
1 菲德罗斯等,《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第300页。
2 Yuen-Li Liang, "Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State:Criteria and Procedure", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.45, No.4, (Oct.,1951), pp.689-707.
1 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第34页。
2 《奥本海国际法》(第九版)第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第121页,注132。
1 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization (1966), Vol.20, No.3, pp.367-379.
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20, No.3,1966, pp.367-379.
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, pp.564-565.
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949, United Nations, p.37.
2 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal, Vol.53, No.3, (1944), pp.385-458.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946), Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979, pp.319 et seq.
1 曾令良：《论中国的和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用》,《中国法学》2006年第4期。
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization (1966), Vol.20, No.3, at 368.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979. pp.319 et seq.
1 [奥]菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第609页。
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20, No.3,1966, pp.367-379.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.42.
2 第四条第一款规定：凡其他爱好和平之国家,接受本宪章所载之义务,经本组织认为确能并愿意履行该项义务者,得为联合国会员国。参见周洪钧、丁成耀、司平平编：《国际公约与惯例(国际公法卷)》,法律出版社1998年版,第3页。
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979, p179.
4 [奥]菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第609-610页。
1 饶戈平主编：《国际组织法》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第67-68页。
2 李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,法律出版社1990年版,第66页。
1 李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,第55-56页。
2 General Assembly, "Observer Status of National Liberation Movements Recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States", A/RES/43/160,9 December 1988.
3 General Assembly, "Participation of Palestine in the Work of the United Nations", A/52/L.53/Rev.2, draft adopted on 7 July 1998 as Resolution 52/250.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, p.562.
2 Sean D. Murphy. "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, pp.564-565.
3 UNSC Resolution 757 (1992), as of 30 May 1992.
4 UNSC Resolution. S/RES/777 (1992).19 September 1992.
5 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law. second edition, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.188-189.
1 Carsten Stahn, "The Agreement on Succession Issues of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", The American Journal of International Law (2002), Vol.96, No.2, pp.379-397.
2 曾令良：《论冷战后时代的国家主权》,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.253.
2 《奥本海国际法》(第九版)第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第119页,注128。
3 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.256.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.258.
2 参见联合国改革高级别名人小组报告：《更加安全的世界：我们共同的责任》,联合国文件A/59/565,第17页。
3 门洪华、黄海莉：《应对国家失败的补救措施——兼论中美安全合作的战略性》,《美国研究》2004年第1期。
1 Michael J. Matheson, "United Nations Governance of Postconflict Societies",95 A.J.I.L.76(2001).
2 Ralph Wilde. "From Danzig to East Timor and Beyond:The Role of International Territorial Administration", The American Journal of International Law (2001). Vol.95, No.3, pp.583-606.
3 Carsten Stahn, "The UN Transitional Administration in Kosovo and East Timor:A First Analysis", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 5, Kluwer Law International,2001,105-183.
1 Carsten Stahn, "The UN Transitional Administration in Kosovo and East Timor:A First Analysis". Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 5, Kluwer Law International,2001,105-183.
2 Jurgen Friedrich, "UNMIK in Kosovo:Struggling with Uncertainty", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 9, Koninklijke Brill N.V.,2005; pp.225-293.
1 资料来源：http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/info/page3.htm。
2 General Assembly, GA/SPD/382,31 October 2007.
3 Ralph Wilde, "From Danzig to East Timor and Beyond:The Role of International Territorial Administration", The American Journal of International Law (2001), Vol.95, No.3, pp.583-606.
4 Paul R. Williams and Francesca Jannotti Pecci, "Earned Sovereignty:Bridging the Gap between Sovereignty and Self-Determination",40 Stan. J. Int'l L. (2004), p.9.
1 Paul R. Williams and Francesca Jannotti Pecci, "Earned Sovereignty:Bridging the Gap between Sovereignty and Self-Determination",40 Stan. J. Int'l L. (2004), p.9.
2 资料来源：新华网,http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-06/25/content_936338.htm。
3 UN Security Council, S/RES/1244 (1999).
4 江涛：《美国对外关系中的重建问题研究》,外交学院博士研究生学位论文,2006年6月,第99页。
1 Jurgen Friedrich, "UNMIK in Kosovo:Struggling with Uncertainty", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 9, Koninklijke Brill N.V.,2005, pp.225-293.
2 Bernhard Knoll, "From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and The Problem of an International Administration's Open-Ended Mandate", European Journal of International Law (2005). Vol.16, No.4, pp.641-642.
1 Anthony Clark Arend, "The United Nations, Regional Organizations. And Military Operations:The Past And The Present",7 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.3 (1996).
2 许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版,第367页。
1 (奥)阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第640页。
2 许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版,第369页。
3 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第641页。
1 美洲国家在确定国家领土主权以及解决国际争端方面都曾有一些特别的创造,如占有原则、门罗主义等。但一般认为这只是某一区域内经过条约或习惯达成的特殊协议,并不能成为区域的国际法。
2 UN Documents, A/49/57 (1994).
3 Mary M. Mckenzie, "The UN and Regional Organizations", in The United Nations and Human Security, edited by Edward Newman and Oliver P. Richmond, Palgrave,2001, p.159.
1 UN Press Release, SG/SM/7706.
2 资料来源：新华网,http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-06/25/content_936338.htm.
1 "Composition and Terms of Reference of the Arbitration Commission of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia",27 January 1993,32 I.L.M.1573 (1993).
1 "International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia Documentation on the Arbitration Commission under the UN/EC (Geneva) Conference:Questions Submitted to the Arbitration Commission and Statements Relating to their Submission", April 20-July 2,1993; 32 I.L.M.1579 (1993).
1 Matthew Happold, "Fourteen against One:The EU Member States' Response to Freedom Party Participation in the Austrian Government", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), Vol.49, No.4, pp.953-963.
1 African Union, "Communique of the 30th Meeting of the Peace and Security Council", PSC/PR/Comm.(XXX), 27 May 2005.
2 C.G. Fenwick, "The Recognition of de facto Governments:Is There a Basis for Inter-American Collective Action", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.58, No.1,1964. pp.109-113.
1 Organization of American States Press Release, "OAS Permanent Council Condems Coup d'Etat in Hounduras, Calls Meeting of Ministers and Entrusts Secretary General with Carrying Out Consultations", June 28,2009, Reference:E-214/09..
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 Goldwater v. Carter,444 U.S.996,100 S.Ct.533,62 L. Ed.2d 428 (1979).
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p.397.
2 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, pp.399-400.
3 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p400.
1 Philip Marshall Brown, "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law (1936), Vol.30, No.4, pp.689-694.
2 Philip Marshall Brown, "Cognition and Recognition", The American Journal of International Law (1953), Vol. 47, No. 1,pp.87-88.
1 Philip Marshall Brown. "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law (1936), Vol.30, No.4, pp.689-694.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2006, pp.17-18.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946), Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 [英]伊恩·布朗利：《国际公法原理》,法律出版社2003年版,第106页。
3 James Crawford. The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.17-18.
1 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments". The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
3 2009年1月31日,索马里过渡联邦政府总统谢赫·谢里夫·谢赫·艾哈迈德(Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed)在吉布提宣誓就职,他是由在吉布提召开的索马里过渡联邦议会选举产生。索新政府积极寻求与各方和解,得到索国内和国际社会的普遍支持。但“沙巴布”等反政府武装拒绝对话,继续对索过渡政府发动进攻。资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/.
1 此处的斜体字为原判决中所有。
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1. pp.92-97.
3 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1. pp.92-97.
1 Colin Warbrick. "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
1、王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版。
2、李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版。
3、周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版。
4、白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
5、王逸舟：《西方国际政治学：历史与理论》,上海人民出版社1998年版。
6、梁西：《国际组织法(总论)》,武汉大学出版社2001年修订第五版。
7、黄瑶：《论禁止使用武力原则——联合国宪章第二条第四项法理分析》,北京大学出版社2003年版。
8、许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版。
9、夏勇：《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年修订版。
10、劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》,商务印书馆1971年版。
11、[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版
12、[奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
13、[英]伊恩·布朗利：《国际公法原理》,法律出版社2003年版。
14、[美]托马斯·伯根索尔：《国际人权法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1995年版。
15、[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版。
16、[日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权——从古典理论到全球时代》,商务印书馆2005年版。
17、[奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版。
1、王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
2、饶戈平主编：《国际组织法》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
3、王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
1、曾令良：《论冷战后时代的国家主权》,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
2、曾令良：《当代国际法视角下的和谐世界》,《法学评论》2008年第2期。
3、曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
4、余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
5、秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
6、俞可平：《论全球化与国家主权》,《马克思主义与现实》2004年第1期。
7、门洪华、黄海莉：《应对国家失败的补救措施——兼论中美安全合作的战略性》,《美国研究》2004年第1期。
8、杨泽伟：《国际法上的国家主权与国际干涉》,《法学研究》2001年第4期。
9、余民才：《“武力攻击”的法律定性》,《法学评论》2004年第1期。
1、王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
2、陈致中：《国际法院1986—1992年判决中的国际法问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1993)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年版。
3、陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊1985》,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版。
4、王铁崖：《第三世界与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊1982》,对外翻译出版社公司1982年版。
5、李浩培：《强行法与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1982)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1982年版。
6、李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,法律出版社1990年版。
7、夏吉生：《非洲边界问题产生的原因及解决的原则》,载于《中国国际法年刊1984)),对外翻译出版公司1984年版。
8、[瑞士]胜雅律：《从有限的人权概念到普遍的人权概念——人权的两个阶段》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》,四川人民出版社1994年版。
9、劳特派特：《国家主权与人权》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》, 四川人民出版社1994年版。
1. H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1948.
2. Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998.
3. James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006.
4. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
5. H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community, Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933.
6. Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000.
7. Wilhelm G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, trans. and rev. by Michael Byers (Berlin:de Gruyter 2000).
8. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics, Third edition, Basingstoke:Palgrave,2002.
9. Louis Henkin, International Law:Politics and Values, Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995.
10. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001.
11. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigation:Essays In the Theory of International Politics, Harvard University Press,1966.
12. Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes, The New Sovereignty:Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, Harvard University Press,1995.
1. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal, Vol.53,1944.
2. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:I", Columbia Law Review, Vol.45, 1945.
3. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review, Vol.46, 1946.
4. Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, 1936.
5. Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.35,1941.
6. James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.32,1938.
7. Josef L. Kunz, "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.44,1950.
8. Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.30,1981.
9. Philip Marshall Brown, "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law, Vol.30,1936.
10. Philip Marshall Brown, "Cognition and Recognition", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.47,1953.
11. Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.33,1939.
12. Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.90,1996.
13. Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review, Vol.56, 1993.
14. Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48,1999.
15. Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review, Vol.88,1994.
16. Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, "Understanding Change in International Politics:The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System", International Organization, Vol.48,1994.
17. Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47,1993.
18. Stanley Hoffman, "Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations" International Affairs, Vol.62,1986.
19. Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20,1966.
20. Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.35,1941.
21. Hans Kelsen, "Collective Security and Collective Self-Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.42,1948.
22. H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press,1946.
23. Matthew Happold, "Fourteen against One:The EU Member States'Response to Freedom Party Participation in the Austrian Government", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.49,2000.
24. Bernhard Knoll, "From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and The Problem of an International Administration's Open-Ended Mandate", European Journal of International Law, Vol.16,2005.
25. Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-Ⅵ), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International.
26. Carsten Stahn, "The Agreement on Succession Issues of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, 2002.
1 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第3-4页。
2 王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第78页。
3 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,,第365-366页。
4 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly(1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
5 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第364-365页。
6 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第117页。
7 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第118页。
1 菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第194页。
2 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents. (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
J James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law (1938), Vol.32, No.1, pp.106-113.
1 James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law (1938). Vol.32, No. 1,pp.106-113.
2 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第113-114页。
3 Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33, No.4, pp.689-699.
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents,(Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33, No.4, pp.689-699.
3 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第117页。
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949. United Nations, p.37.
2 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
1 王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版,第85页。
2 王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第366页。
3 Stefan Talmon, "The Duty Not to'Recognize as Lawful'a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation:An Obligation without Real Substance?" in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order:Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006, note 110.
4 Stefan Talmon, "The Duty Not to'Recognize as Lawful'a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation:An Obligation without Real Substance?" in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order:Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,2006. note 112.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law". The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53. No.3, pp.385-458.
2 周鲠生：《国际法》,第124页。
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments". The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.5, note 10
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949, United Nations, p.37.
2 Josef L. Kunz. "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's 'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law (1950), Vol.44, No.4, pp.713-719.
3 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
4 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
2 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第249页。
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations". The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617. 2 Charles Henry Alexandrowicz-Alexander, "The Quasi-Judicial Function in Recognition of States and Governments", The American Journal of International Law (1952), Vol.46, No.4, pp.631-640.
1 (奥)阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第297页。
2 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(上卷第一分册),第101页。
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第298页。
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
4 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p.373.
5 Josef L. Kunz, "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law (1950), Vol.44, No.4, pp.713-719.
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第102页。
2 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第20页。
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.61.
1 Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.40-41.
2 余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
1 E. Lauterpacht, "The Contemporary Practice of the United Kingdom in the Field of International Law-Survey and Comment",5 (1956) ICLQ 405, at 410. also See Ralph Wilde, Andrew Cannon, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst "Recognition of States:the Consequences of Recognition or Non-Recognition in UK and International Law", Summary of the International Law Discussion Group meeting held at Chatham House on 4 February 2010, pp.2-3.
2 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第20-22页。
3 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第156,167页。
4 俞可平：《论全球化与国家主权》,《马克思主义与现实》2004年第1期。
1 梁西：《国际组织法(总论)》,武汉大学出版社2001年修订第五版,第331页。
2 Jean Bodin, Republique (1576), English translation of 1606. Cited from International Law:Cases and Commentary, edited by Mark W.Janis and John E. Noyes, second edition, West Group,2001, p.401.
3 International Law:Cases and Commentary, edited by Mark W. Janis and John E. Noyes, second edition, West Group,2001,p.402.
4 [日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权——从古典理论到全球时代》,商务印书馆2005年版,第69页。
5 黄瑶：《论禁止使用武力原则——联合国宪章第二条第四项法理分析》,北京大学出版社2003年版,第21页。
6 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
7 Martti Koskenniemi, "The Future of Statehood",32 Harvard International Law Journal 397, at 408 (1991).
1 余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
1 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第245页。
2 [奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,第245-246页。
3 菲德罗斯等,《国际法》,第300页。
4 Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil Des Cours, Volume 266 (1997). Kluwer Law International,1997, p.79.
5 K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law (1968), at 6. also See Patrick Dumberry, "New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement", The European Journal of International Law, Vol.17, No.3,2006, pp.605-621.
1 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, §202, Reporters'Note 6.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2nd edition, Oxford University Press,2006, p.51.
3 Ralph Wilde, Andrew Cannon, and Elizabeth Wilmshurst. "Recognition of States:the Consequences of Recognition or Non-Recognition in UK and International Law", Summary of the International Law Discussion Group meeting held at Chatham House on 4 February 2010, p.5.
1 龚刃韧：《国际人权法与比较宪法》,载于白桂梅主编：《国际人权与发展：中国和加拿大的视角》,法律出版社1998年版,第88页。
2 沃尔夫刚·格拉夫·魏智通主编：《国际法》,法律出版社2002年版,第114页。
3 [美]路易斯·亨金著：《权利的时代》,知识出版社1997年版,第112页。
4 《世界人权宣言》第二十八条。
1 《世界人权宣言》序言第三段。
2 加拿大首席大法官Rt. Hon. Antonio Lamer的题为“实施国际人权法：21世纪的条约体制”的讲演。参见丽贝卡·瓦恩散科·亨特：《加拿大的国际人权义务对国内法律程序的影响》,载于程味秋、杨诚、杨宇冠编：《联合国人权公约和刑事司法文献汇编》,第390页。
3 爱德华·劳森主编：《人权百科全书》,四川人民出版社1997年版,第1395页。
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第二分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第1页。
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations. Kluwer Law International,1998. pp.55-59.
1 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,商务印书馆1971年版,第9页。
1 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第6页。
2 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第13-14页。
3 秦亚青：《译者前言》,载于[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,前言部分第7页。
1 罗伯特·基欧汉：《霸权之后：世界政治经济中的合作与纷争》,上海人民出版社2001年版,第30页。
1 Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
J Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State". The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
1 [美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版,第1页。
2 卢凌宇：《论冷战后挑战主权的理论思潮》,中国社会科学出版社2004年版,第7-8页。
3 Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, "Understanding Change in International Politics:The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System". International Organization (1994), Vol.48, No.2. pp.215-247.
1 秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
2 秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
3 Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review (1994), Vol.88, No.2, pp.384-396.
1 Stanley Hoffman, "Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations", International Affairs, Vol.62. No.2,(1986), pp.179-195.
2 张胜军：《当代国际社会的法治基础》,《中国社会科学》2007年第2期。
3 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
1 Martin Wight, International Theory:The Three Traditions, edited by Gabriele Wight and Brian Porter. Leicester University Press,1991.转引自秦亚青：《自由主义国际关系理论的思想渊源》,载于秦亚青：《权力·制度·文化：国际关系理论与方法研究文集》,北京大学出版社2005年版,第59页。
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition, Palgrave Macmillan,2002, pp.23-26.
3 Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics,3rd edition. Palgrave Macmillan,2002. pp.23-26.
1 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
3 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
1 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics, Third edition, Basingstoke:Palgrave. 2002, pp.3-4.
3 John Williams, "Order and Society", in The Anarchical Society in a Globalized World, edited by Richard Little and John Williams, Palgrave MacMillan,2006, p.19.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press, pp.19-27.
2 H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press, p.51.
3 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第17页。
1 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第7页。
2 Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization (1993), Vol.47, No.3, pp.330-331.
3 王铁崖：《第三世界与国际法》,《中国国际法年刊1982》,对外翻译出版社公司1982年版,第17页。
1 Barry Buzan. "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47, No.3 (1993), pp.327-352.
2 王逸舟：《西方国际政治学：历史与理论》,上海人民出版社1998年版,第370-377页。
3 劳特派特修订,《奥本海国际法(上卷第一分册)》,第7-10页。
4 Brierly, Law of Nations, p.41.转引自王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第9页。
1 Lauterpacht's Collected Papers, Vol. I, p.9.转引自王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版,第10页。
2 Thomas M. Franck. "Legitimacy in the International System", The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 82, No.4, (Oct.,1988), pp.705-759.
1 Louis Henkin. International Law:Politics and Values. Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995, pp.31-33.
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第170,630页。
1 H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community. Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933, pp.63-64.
2 H. Lauterpacht. The Function of Law in the International Community. Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933, pp.66-68.
3 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 W. Michale Reisman, "Editorial Comment:International Law after the Cold War",84 AJIL 859 (1990).
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4:pp.605-617.
3 Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-VI), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International, p.232.
4 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第35-38页。
1 Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-Ⅵ), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International, p.232.
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第28页。
3 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27页。
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001, p.15.
5 王曦：《国际环境法》,法律出版社1998年版,第66页。
1 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第195页。
2 Jose E. Alvarez, "Hegemonic International Law Revisited",97A.J.I.L. 873 (2003). Also see Detlev F. Vagts, "Editorial Comments:Hegemonic International Law",95 A.J.I.L.843 (2001).
3 Jose E. Alvarez, "Hegemonic International Law Revisited",97A.J.I.L. 873 (2003).
4 Wilhelm G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, trans. and rev. by Michael Byers (Berlin:de Gruyter 2000), p.704.
1 王铁崖：《论人类的共同继承财产的概念》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1984)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1984年版,第24—25页。
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第777页。
3 [德]沃尔夫刚·格拉夫·魏智通主编：《国际法》,法律出版社2002年版,第597页,注[427]。
4 [德]康德：《法的形而上学原理——权利的科学》,商务印书馆1991年版,第189页。
1 曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27-28页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第34-35页。
1 李浩培：《强行法与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1982)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1982年版,第39页。
2 薛捍勤：《国家责任与对国际社会整体的义务》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第27页。
3 熊玠：《无政府状态与世界秩序》,浙江人民出版社2001年版,第43页。
4 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第59页。
5 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等著：《国际法》,第230页。
6 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版,第5页。
1 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第59页。
2 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,第230页。
1 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,第13页。
2 [英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》上卷第一分册,商务印书馆1971年版,第14页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,第11—12页。
4 [英]劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》上卷第二分册,商务印书馆1971年版,第139—140页。
1 周鲠生：《现代英美国际法的思想动向》,世界知识出版社1963年版,第35页。
2 周鲠生：《现代英美国际法的思想动向》,世界知识出版社1963年版,第36页。
3 李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,第26页。
4 《联合国宪章》第二条第五项：各会员国对于联合国依本宪章规定而采取之行动,应尽力予以协助,联合国对于任何国家正在采取防止或执行行动时,各会员国对该国不得给予协助。
5 《联合国宪章》第二条第六项：本组织在维持国际和平及安全之必要范围内,应保证非联合国会员国遵行上述原则。
1 Hans Kelsen, "Collective Security and Collective Self-Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations", The American Journal of International Law (1948), Vol.42. No.4. pp.783-796.
2 "Securing peace and development:the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform", Report of the Secretary-General,23 January 2008, A/62/659-S/2008/39, p.4.
1 《2005年世界首脑峰会成果文件》,A/RES/60/1,第2页,第19页。
2 唐家璇在纪念中国恢复联合国合法席位35周年招待会上的致辞,2006年10月25日,http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/wjdt/zyjh/t277463.htm。
3 《2005年世界首脑峰会成果文件》,A/RES/60/1,第19页。
4 中国常驻联合国代表王光亚大使在安理会“复杂危机与联合国反应”问题公开会上的发言,2004年5月8日,资料来源：http://www.china-un.org/chn/fyywj/wn/fy04/t122889.htm。
5 劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》(下卷第一分册),商务印书馆1971年版,第116至117页。
6 "Statement to Security Council meeting on securing peace and development:the role of the United Nations in supporting security sector reform",12 May,2008, available at http://www.un.org/.
1 余民才：《“武力攻击”的法律定性》,《法学评论》2004年第1期,第20页。
2 Thomas M. Franck, "Editorial Comments:Terrorism and the Right of Self-Defense",95 A.J.I.L 839 (2001).
3 UN Document, A/59/HLPM/CRP.1/Rev.2,10 August 2005.
1 王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版,第5-6页。
2 徐杰：《“保护的责任”与国家主权》,载于《中国国际法年刊2005》,世界知识出版社2007年版,第145页。
3 杨泽伟：《国际法上的国家主权与国际干涉》,《法学研究》2001年第4期。
1 曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
1 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第23页。
2 周鲠生：《国际法》,第22页。
1 赖彭城、倪世雄、袁铮：《国际人权论》,上海人民出版社1992年版,第25页。
1 路易斯·亨金：《宪政与人权》,载于路易斯·亨金、阿尔伯特·J·罗森塔尔编：《宪政与权利——美国宪法的域外影响》,生活·读书·新知三联书店1996年版,第515页。
2 夏勇：《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年修订版,第183页。
1 [瑞士]胜雅律：《从有限的人权概念到普遍的人权概念——人权的两个阶段》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》(下),四川人民出版社1994年版。第253—254页。
2 指在存在传统的、结构性歧视的地方,为了加速实现事实上的平等而采取的暂时性特殊手段。参见李忠：《论少数人权利——兼评<公民权利和政治权利国际公约>第27条》,载于王家福、刘海年、李林主编：《人权与21世纪》,中国法制出版社2000年版,第225页。
1 [德]拉德布鲁赫著：《法学导论》,中国大百科全书出版社1997年版,第11—12页。
2 劳特派特：《国家主权与人权》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》(下),第513页。
1 [美]托马斯·伯根索尔：《国际人权法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1995年版,第20页。
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.93.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2006, p.38.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. pp.38-39.
2 Colin Warbrick. "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.61.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.39.
2 Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law (1941), Vol.35, No.4, pp.605-617.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. p.39.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006. p.41.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
2 K. Marek, Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law,1955. Also see James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.94.
1 Colin Warbrick. "Recognition of States", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1992), Vol.41, No. 2, pp.473-482.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48. 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
2 1993年10月12日,中国政府代表、常驻联合国特命全权大使李肇星和马其顿共和国政府代表、常驻联合国特命全权大使登科·马莱斯基在纽约签署《中华人民共和国和马其顿共和国建交联合公报》,两国自即日起建立大使级外交关系。值得注意的是,中国自承认马其顿的国家资格后,就一直使用“马其顿共和国”的官方称谓,而马其顿的国名在联合国还是尚待解决的事项。这说明,有关国名的争议并未影响到马其顿的国家地位。资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/。
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 Sean D. Murphy. "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments". I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", I.C.L.O., Vol.48, 1999, pp.545-581.
1 陈世材：《晚近国际法的新发展》,友谊出版公司1983年版,第59页。
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第60—65页。
1 史久镛：《国际法院的咨询职能——在联合国大会第六委员会的演讲》,载于《中国国际法年刊2004》,法律出版社2005年版,第9页。
2 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第32-33页。
3 资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/。
4 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
1 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第60—65页。
3 Helen Quane. "The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination", International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1998), Vol.47, p.537.
4 白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第143页。
1 Helen Quane, "The United Nations and the Evolving Right to Self-Determination", International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1998), Vol.47, p.537.
2 Georg Schwarzenberger, "The Rule of Law and the Disintegration of the International Society", The American Journal of International Law (1939), Vol.33. No.1, pp.56-77.
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
2 陈致中：《国际法院1986—1992年判决中的国际法问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1993)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年版,第26-27页。
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
1 夏吉生：《非洲边界问题产生的原因及解决的原则》,载于《中国国际法年刊1984》,对外翻译出版公司1984年版,第234页。
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
1 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
2 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
3 Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998, pp.55-59.
1 Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law (1996), Vol.90, No.4, pp.590-624.
1 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第73页。
2 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
3 M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished", The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
4 Baxter, Foreword to L.T. Galloway, Recognizing Foreign Governments:The Practice of the United States, at xi (1978). Also see M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished". The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
1 Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments" The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents. (Oct.,1936), pp.185-187.
2 M.J. Peterson, "Recognition of Governments Should Not Be Abolished", The American Journal of International Law (1983), Vol.77, No.1, pp.31-50.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 松井芳郎等：《国际法(第四版)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第73-74页。
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
4 Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001, p.52.
1 "Estrada Doctrine of Recognition". The American Journal of International Law (1931), Vol.25, No.4, Supplement:Official Documents, p.203.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946). Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, pp.136-137.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48, No.3,1999, pp.564-565.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000. p.4.
2 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments". I.C.L.Q., Vol.48, 1999. pp.545-581.
3 周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第127页。
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
J Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments". The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 203 (1), (2).
3 American Law Institute, Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States. § 203, comment b.
1 菲德罗斯等,《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版,第300页。
2 Yuen-Li Liang, "Recognition by the United Nations of the Representation of a Member State:Criteria and Procedure", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.45, No.4, (Oct.,1951), pp.689-707.
1 陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,《中国国际法年刊1985》,对外翻译出版公司1985年版,第34页。
2 《奥本海国际法》(第九版)第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第121页,注132。
1 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization (1966), Vol.20, No.3, pp.367-379.
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20, No.3,1966, pp.367-379.
3 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, pp.564-565.
1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1949, United Nations, p.37.
2 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal, Vol.53, No.3, (1944), pp.385-458.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946), Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979, pp.319 et seq.
1 曾令良：《论中国的和平发展与国际法的交互影响和作用》,《中国法学》2006年第4期。
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization (1966), Vol.20, No.3, at 368.
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979. pp.319 et seq.
1 [奥]菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第609页。
2 Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20, No.3,1966, pp.367-379.
1 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, p.42.
2 第四条第一款规定：凡其他爱好和平之国家,接受本宪章所载之义务,经本组织认为确能并愿意履行该项义务者,得为联合国会员国。参见周洪钧、丁成耀、司平平编：《国际公约与惯例(国际公法卷)》,法律出版社1998年版,第3页。
3 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,1979, p179.
4 [奥]菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第609-610页。
1 饶戈平主编：《国际组织法》,北京大学出版社1996年版,第67-68页。
2 李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,法律出版社1990年版,第66页。
1 李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,第55-56页。
2 General Assembly, "Observer Status of National Liberation Movements Recognized by the Organization of African Unity and/or by the League of Arab States", A/RES/43/160,9 December 1988.
3 General Assembly, "Participation of Palestine in the Work of the United Nations", A/52/L.53/Rev.2, draft adopted on 7 July 1998 as Resolution 52/250.
1 Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, p.562.
2 Sean D. Murphy. "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1999), Vol.48, No.3, pp.564-565.
3 UNSC Resolution 757 (1992), as of 30 May 1992.
4 UNSC Resolution. S/RES/777 (1992).19 September 1992.
5 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law. second edition, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.188-189.
1 Carsten Stahn, "The Agreement on Succession Issues of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", The American Journal of International Law (2002), Vol.96, No.2, pp.379-397.
2 曾令良：《论冷战后时代的国家主权》,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.253.
2 《奥本海国际法》(第九版)第一卷第一分册,中国大百科全书出版社1995年版,第119页,注128。
3 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.256.
1 Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000, p.258.
2 参见联合国改革高级别名人小组报告：《更加安全的世界：我们共同的责任》,联合国文件A/59/565,第17页。
3 门洪华、黄海莉：《应对国家失败的补救措施——兼论中美安全合作的战略性》,《美国研究》2004年第1期。
1 Michael J. Matheson, "United Nations Governance of Postconflict Societies",95 A.J.I.L.76(2001).
2 Ralph Wilde. "From Danzig to East Timor and Beyond:The Role of International Territorial Administration", The American Journal of International Law (2001). Vol.95, No.3, pp.583-606.
3 Carsten Stahn, "The UN Transitional Administration in Kosovo and East Timor:A First Analysis", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 5, Kluwer Law International,2001,105-183.
1 Carsten Stahn, "The UN Transitional Administration in Kosovo and East Timor:A First Analysis". Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 5, Kluwer Law International,2001,105-183.
2 Jurgen Friedrich, "UNMIK in Kosovo:Struggling with Uncertainty", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 9, Koninklijke Brill N.V.,2005; pp.225-293.
1 资料来源：http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/info/page3.htm。
2 General Assembly, GA/SPD/382,31 October 2007.
3 Ralph Wilde, "From Danzig to East Timor and Beyond:The Role of International Territorial Administration", The American Journal of International Law (2001), Vol.95, No.3, pp.583-606.
4 Paul R. Williams and Francesca Jannotti Pecci, "Earned Sovereignty:Bridging the Gap between Sovereignty and Self-Determination",40 Stan. J. Int'l L. (2004), p.9.
1 Paul R. Williams and Francesca Jannotti Pecci, "Earned Sovereignty:Bridging the Gap between Sovereignty and Self-Determination",40 Stan. J. Int'l L. (2004), p.9.
2 资料来源：新华网,http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-06/25/content_936338.htm。
3 UN Security Council, S/RES/1244 (1999).
4 江涛：《美国对外关系中的重建问题研究》,外交学院博士研究生学位论文,2006年6月,第99页。
1 Jurgen Friedrich, "UNMIK in Kosovo:Struggling with Uncertainty", Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Volume 9, Koninklijke Brill N.V.,2005, pp.225-293.
2 Bernhard Knoll, "From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and The Problem of an International Administration's Open-Ended Mandate", European Journal of International Law (2005). Vol.16, No.4, pp.641-642.
1 Anthony Clark Arend, "The United Nations, Regional Organizations. And Military Operations:The Past And The Present",7 Duke J. Comp.& Int'l L.3 (1996).
2 许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版,第367页。
1 (奥)阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第640页。
2 许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版,第369页。
3 [奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版,第641页。
1 美洲国家在确定国家领土主权以及解决国际争端方面都曾有一些特别的创造,如占有原则、门罗主义等。但一般认为这只是某一区域内经过条约或习惯达成的特殊协议,并不能成为区域的国际法。
2 UN Documents, A/49/57 (1994).
3 Mary M. Mckenzie, "The UN and Regional Organizations", in The United Nations and Human Security, edited by Edward Newman and Oliver P. Richmond, Palgrave,2001, p.159.
1 UN Press Release, SG/SM/7706.
2 资料来源：新华网,http://news.xinhuanet.com/ziliao/2003-06/25/content_936338.htm.
1 "Composition and Terms of Reference of the Arbitration Commission of the International Conference on Former Yugoslavia",27 January 1993,32 I.L.M.1573 (1993).
1 "International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia Documentation on the Arbitration Commission under the UN/EC (Geneva) Conference:Questions Submitted to the Arbitration Commission and Statements Relating to their Submission", April 20-July 2,1993; 32 I.L.M.1579 (1993).
1 Matthew Happold, "Fourteen against One:The EU Member States' Response to Freedom Party Participation in the Austrian Government", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (2000), Vol.49, No.4, pp.953-963.
1 African Union, "Communique of the 30th Meeting of the Peace and Security Council", PSC/PR/Comm.(XXX), 27 May 2005.
2 C.G. Fenwick, "The Recognition of de facto Governments:Is There a Basis for Inter-American Collective Action", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.58, No.1,1964. pp.109-113.
1 Organization of American States Press Release, "OAS Permanent Council Condems Coup d'Etat in Hounduras, Calls Meeting of Ministers and Entrusts Secretary General with Carrying Out Consultations", June 28,2009, Reference:E-214/09..
1 Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1981), Vol.30, No.3, pp.568-592.
2 Goldwater v. Carter,444 U.S.996,100 S.Ct.533,62 L. Ed.2d 428 (1979).
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal (1944), Vol.53, No.3, pp.385-458.
1 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p.397.
2 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, pp.399-400.
3 Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press,2003, p400.
1 Philip Marshall Brown, "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law (1936), Vol.30, No.4, pp.689-694.
2 Philip Marshall Brown, "Cognition and Recognition", The American Journal of International Law (1953), Vol. 47, No. 1,pp.87-88.
1 Philip Marshall Brown. "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law (1936), Vol.30, No.4, pp.689-694.
2 James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law,2006, pp.17-18.
1 H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review (1946), Vol.46, No.1, pp.37-68.
2 [英]伊恩·布朗利：《国际公法原理》,法律出版社2003年版,第106页。
3 James Crawford. The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006, pp.17-18.
1 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments". The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
3 2009年1月31日,索马里过渡联邦政府总统谢赫·谢里夫·谢赫·艾哈迈德(Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed)在吉布提宣誓就职,他是由在吉布提召开的索马里过渡联邦议会选举产生。索新政府积极寻求与各方和解,得到索国内和国际社会的普遍支持。但“沙巴布”等反政府武装拒绝对话,继续对索过渡政府发动进攻。资料来源：中国外交部官方网站http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/.
1 此处的斜体字为原判决中所有。
2 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1. pp.92-97.
3 Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1. pp.92-97.
1 Colin Warbrick. "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review (1993), Vol.56, No.1, pp.92-97.
1、王铁崖：《国际法引论》,北京大学出版社1998年版。
2、李浩培：《国际法的概念和渊源》,贵州人民出版社1994年版。
3、周鲠生：《国际法》,商务印书馆1976年版。
4、白桂梅等：《国际法上的人权》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
5、王逸舟：《西方国际政治学：历史与理论》,上海人民出版社1998年版。
6、梁西：《国际组织法(总论)》,武汉大学出版社2001年修订第五版。
7、黄瑶：《论禁止使用武力原则——联合国宪章第二条第四项法理分析》,北京大学出版社2003年版。
8、许光建：《联合国宪章诠释》,山西教育出版社1999年版。
9、夏勇：《人权概念起源——权利的历史哲学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年修订版。
10、劳特派特修订：《奥本海国际法》,商务印书馆1971年版。
11、[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版
12、[奥]凯尔森：《法与国家的一般理论》,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
13、[英]伊恩·布朗利：《国际公法原理》,法律出版社2003年版。
14、[美]托马斯·伯根索尔：《国际人权法概论》,中国社会科学出版社1995年版。
15、[美]亚历山大·温特：《国际政治的社会理论》,上海人民出版社2000年版。
16、[日]篠田英朗：《重新审视主权——从古典理论到全球时代》,商务印书馆2005年版。
17、[奥]阿·菲德罗斯等：《国际法》,商务印书馆1981年版。
1、王铁崖主编：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
2、饶戈平主编：《国际组织法》,北京大学出版社1996年版。
3、王铁崖、田如萱编：《国际法资料选编》,法律出版社1986年版。
1、曾令良：《论冷战后时代的国家主权》,《中国法学》1998年第1期。
2、曾令良：《当代国际法视角下的和谐世界》,《法学评论》2008年第2期。
3、曾令良：《现代国际法的人本化发展趋势》,《中国社会科学》2007年第1期。
4、余敏友：《以新主权观迎接新世纪的国际法》,《法学评论》2000年第2期。
5、秦亚青：《国际体系的无政府性——读温特的<国际政治的社会理论>》,《美国研究》2001年第2期。
6、俞可平：《论全球化与国家主权》,《马克思主义与现实》2004年第1期。
7、门洪华、黄海莉：《应对国家失败的补救措施——兼论中美安全合作的战略性》,《美国研究》2004年第1期。
8、杨泽伟：《国际法上的国家主权与国际干涉》,《法学研究》2001年第4期。
9、余民才：《“武力攻击”的法律定性》,《法学评论》2004年第1期。
1、王铁崖：《论不承认主义》,载于《王铁崖文选》,中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
2、陈致中：《国际法院1986—1992年判决中的国际法问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1993)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1994年版。
3、陈体强：《中华人民共和国与承认问题》,载于《中国国际法年刊1985》,中国对外翻译出版公司1985年版。
4、王铁崖：《第三世界与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊1982》,对外翻译出版社公司1982年版。
5、李浩培：《强行法与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1982)》,中国对外翻译出版公司1982年版。
6、李世光：《美国<反恐怖主义法>与国际法》,载于《中国国际法年刊(1989)》,法律出版社1990年版。
7、夏吉生：《非洲边界问题产生的原因及解决的原则》,载于《中国国际法年刊1984)),对外翻译出版公司1984年版。
8、[瑞士]胜雅律：《从有限的人权概念到普遍的人权概念——人权的两个阶段》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》,四川人民出版社1994年版。
9、劳特派特：《国家主权与人权》,载于沈宗灵、黄枬森主编：《西方人权学说》, 四川人民出版社1994年版。
1. H. Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 1948.
2. Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Affairs:International Law at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Kluwer Law International,1998.
3. James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law, Oxford University Press,2006.
4. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law, fifth edition, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
5. H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community, Clarendon Press:Oxford,1933.
6. Brad R. Roth, Governmental Illegitimacy in International Law, Oxford University Press,2000.
7. Wilhelm G. Grewe, The Epochs of International Law, trans. and rev. by Michael Byers (Berlin:de Gruyter 2000).
8. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society:A Study of Order in World Politics, Third edition, Basingstoke:Palgrave,2002.
9. Louis Henkin, International Law:Politics and Values, Kluwer Academic Publishers,1995.
10. Antonio Cassese, International Law, Oxford University Press,2001.
11. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigation:Essays In the Theory of International Politics, Harvard University Press,1966.
12. Abram Chayes and Antonia Handler Chayes, The New Sovereignty:Compliance with International Regulatory Agreements, Harvard University Press,1995.
1. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of States in International Law", The Yale Law Journal, Vol.53,1944.
2. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:I", Columbia Law Review, Vol.45, 1945.
3. H. Lauterpacht, "Recognition of Governments:Ⅱ", Columbia Law Review, Vol.46, 1946.
4. Institut De Droit International, "Resolutions Concerning the Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.30, 1936.
5. Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.35,1941.
6. James W. Garner, "Recognition of Belligerency", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.32,1938.
7. Josef L. Kunz, "Critical Remarks on Lauterpacht's'Recognition in International Law'", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.44,1950.
8. Colin Warbrick, "The New British Policy on Recognition of Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.30,1981.
9. Philip Marshall Brown, "The Recognition of New States and New Governments", The American Journal of Internationl Law, Vol.30,1936.
10. Philip Marshall Brown, "Cognition and Recognition", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.47,1953.
11. Herbert W. Briggs, "De Facto and De Jure Recognition:The Arantzazu Mendi", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.33,1939.
12. Steven R. Ratner, "Drawing a Better Line:Uti Possidetis and the Borders of New States", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.90,1996.
13. Colin Warbrick, "Recognition of Governments", The Modern Law Review, Vol.56, 1993.
14. Sean D. Murphy, "Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.48,1999.
15. Alexander Wendt, "Collective Identity Formation and the International State", The American Political Science Review, Vol.88,1994.
16. Rey Koslowski and Friedrich V. Kratochwil, "Understanding Change in International Politics:The Soviet Empire's Demise and the International System", International Organization, Vol.48,1994.
17. Barry Buzan, "From International System to International Society:Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School", International Organization, Vol.47,1993.
18. Stanley Hoffman, "Hedley Bull and His Contribution to International Relations" International Affairs, Vol.62,1986.
19. Inis L. Claude, Jr., "Collective Legitimization as a Political Function of the United Nations", International Organization, Vol.20,1966.
20. Hans Kelsen, "Recognition in International Law:Theoretical Observations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.35,1941.
21. Hans Kelsen, "Collective Security and Collective Self-Defense Under the Charter of the United Nations", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.42,1948.
22. H. Lauterpacht, "The Grotian Tradition in International Law", in The British Year Book of International Law 1946, Oxford University Press,1946.
23. Matthew Happold, "Fourteen against One:The EU Member States'Response to Freedom Party Participation in the Austrian Government", The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol.49,2000.
24. Bernhard Knoll, "From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and The Problem of an International Administration's Open-Ended Mandate", European Journal of International Law, Vol.16,2005.
25. Bruno Simma, "From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law", in Collected Courses, Volume 250 (1994-Ⅵ), edited by Hague Academy of International Law, Kluwer Law International.
26. Carsten Stahn, "The Agreement on Succession Issues of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia", The American Journal of International Law, Vol.96, 2002.