頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 美國私人安保業的「軍事化」、法律規制及評判=American Private Security Company' Militarization Feature, Legal Regulation and Its Relevant Comments |
---|---|
作 者 | 李衛海; | 書刊名 | 中華國際法與超國界法評論 |
卷 期 | 10:1 2014.06[民103.06] |
頁 次 | 頁1-23 |
分類號 | 489.18 |
關鍵詞 | 美國; 私人安保; 軍事化; 法律規制; USA; Private security company; Militarization; Legal regulation; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 冷戰後,隨著美國軍事霸權主義的繼續推行,政府機關支持的私人安保業在海外的從業規模日趨擴大,並有著明顯的軍事化印記。為獲得其外交、軍事、經濟利益,美國政府尤其是軍方大量雇傭 PSC,然也存有對其過度依賴、導致軍人專技下降,違反軍人職業倫理,濫用武力,嚴重違反國際人權法和人道法等巨大風險。為此,美國對 PSC 的商譽和履約品質、防衛服務或武器交易、履約使用武力等問題進行了一定的規制,但其中立法仍存有巨大瑕疵,對《蒙特勒文件》的立法整合和 ICoC 的推介也並不積極。PSC 在海外所造成的公司雇員和第三者的人身傷害和財產損失,也多歸於聯邦法院管轄,很難獲得州侵權法的有效救濟,侵權行為再度頻繁發生將不可避免。對 PSC 在海外的嚴重違法國際人權法和人道法的犯罪行為,雖然已經建立了相對完善的普通刑事管轄和軍法庭管轄追責機制,但由於主管部門和戰區指揮官的懈怠、包庇、縱容,絕大多數得不到追懲,阿伊戰場成為 PSC 的犯罪天堂,解決的根本之道在於東道國對此擁有專屬管轄或者共同管轄,但在阿伊司法主權不彰的今天,這種合理主張很難實現。 |
英文摘要 | With continually advocating of American military hegemonism after Cold War, the overseas management scales of Private Security Company enlarge increasingly as well , which be referred to very clear character of militarization. Aimed at high interest in military and foreign affairs, American federal governments, especially the Military have employed many PSCs which lead to several risks, such as excessively depending on PSC resulting in the decreasing of military capabilities, contradicting with the military basic ethics, abusing the fatal forces, seriously offending international human rights law and humanitarian law, etc.. Nevertheless that American governments have made some efforts to regulating the commercial goodwill and service qualities, defense service and weapons trade, the rules of engagement, and so on, it seems that the government shows no strong incentive to modify the neutral laws, integrate the Montreux Document into its domestic laws and promote the PSCs to accepting the ICoC. As for the overseas torts action in the process of fulfilling the security contract, it is very difficult for the victims to search for remedies granted by state tort laws vis-à-vis the insufficient and ineffectual ones from federal tort law. As concerns that the overseas serious offences against IHRL and IHL by PSCs, despite that the relatively perfect normal criminal and military jurisdiction have been built up, most of them have not been tried and punished thanks to the charge agencies and combatant commanders’ sluggishness, misprision and connivance, which should be addressed only though the host state’ claim on the exclusive or common exclusive jurisdiction over them. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。