International Relations Essay范文：Social Constructivism and the Cold War
International Relations Essay范文-社會建構主義與冷戰，本篇Essay將以建構主義（社會建構主義）的概念為關鍵理論框架，回答聯合國安全理事會如何改變其運作以應對不斷變化的世界格局的問題，尤其是在冷戰結束后。一般來說，建構主義是一種社會理論，關注主體和結構之間的關系和過程。因此，Essay范文提出觀點認為，為了應對世界政治的變化，聯合國安理會（被稱為行動者）相應地通過與其他行動者合作構建規范或所謂的“國際規范”（被稱之為結構）來改變其運作，以此作為前提條件，以使任何變化的運作合法化和支持工具。為了發展我的論點，本篇Essay將分為三個部分。首先，第一節將簡要介紹問題的背景、世界政治變化的概況以及聯合國安理會的主要目標，包括其運作，作為分析部分的平臺。在第二部分中，將在解釋聯合國安理會如何改變其任務時考慮到的建構主義思想，特別是芬尼摩爾和錫金的規范生命周期概念，將在這里詳細闡述。第三部分將通過將人道主義干預作為聯合國安理會當代行動之一的案例研究來跟進，以展示建構主義框架提供的見解。請參考。
Introduction 引言
This essay will answer the question on ‘how’ the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has changed its operations to tackle with the changing world landscape, especially after the end of the Cold War, by holding the concept from Constructivism (Social Constructivism) as a key theoretical framework. Generally, Constructivism is a social theory which is concerned about the relationship and process between agents and structures (Barnett, 2008; Jackson & Sorensen, 2007). Therefore, the essay will argue that, in response to the shifts in world politics, the UNSC (noted as an actor) accordingly has changed its operations by constructing norms or so called, ‘international norms,’ (noted as a structure), in collaboration with other actors, as preconditions in order to be legitimizing and supportive tools for any changing operations. To develop my argument, the essay will be structured into three sections. Firstly, the background of the question, the snapshot of the shifts in world politics and the main objective of UNSC including its operations will be provided briefly in the first section as a platform for the analytical section. In the second part, the ideas of Constructivism which will be taken into account for the explanation of how the UNSC has changed its tasks, especially with the Finnemore and Sikkink’s concept of the life-cycle of norms (1998, pp. 894-905), will be elaborated here. The third section will follow up by using the case study of humanitarian intervention as one of the UNSC’s contemporary operations to demonstrate the insights provided by the Constructivist’s framework.
The Shifts in World Politics and the UNSC’s Operations 世界政治的變化與聯合國安理會的運作
When or which period can be defined as a turning point of the shifts in world politics is the first question I have to address in order to make the argument clearer in terms of period of time. To do so in this essay, I will take opinions of many political scientists (Taylor & Curtis, 2008; Weiss & Daws, 2007) who have commonly spotted the turning point of the changes in world politics to the end of the Cold War. Then, what are the changes of the UNSC’s operations correlating with the changes in world politics will be explained in a snapshot here.
什么時候或哪一個時期可以被定義為世界政治轉變的轉折點，這是我必須解決的第一個問題，以便在一段時間內使爭論更加清晰。為了在這篇文章中做到這一點，我將聽取許多政治科學家的意見，他們共同發現了冷戰結束前世界政治變化的轉折點。那么，聯合國安理會的運作與世界政治的變化有哪些變化，我們將在這里簡要介紹。
After the end of the World War II, the United Nations (UN) and The UNSC were established in 1945. The UNSC was reinvented not only to solve the problems of the League of Nations Council but also intentionally to maintain international peace and security as the main responsibility (Taylor & Curtis, 2008, p. 315). That is the goal the UNSC has not changed until nowadays even though its operations have changed significantly after the end of the Cold War. During the Cold War period, which Realists had seen as the bipolar system, the world addressed themselves to issues and problems regarding with state-centric notion. The role of sovereignty and the principle of self-determination had been actively mobilized throughout the world. Therefore, most of issues and operations of the UNSC at that time totally related to those ideas. The operation about decolonization and inter-state conflicts are explicit examples. Cameron R. Hume (2004, p. 607) also reiterated that the era of decolonization was coincident with the Cold War. Additionally, the Cold War thwarted the functioning of the UNSC, especially with the vetoes of the two majors (Taylor & Curtis, 2008, p. 319). The veto game between the US and the USSR produced an inefficiency of the UNSC’s function particularly on the use of force in relevant to Chapter VII (Ibid.). There were a few cases that the Council passed the resolution to call up the use of force and the first one has to wait until 1966 in the case of Rhodesia (Boyd, 1971, p. 223). These are the situation in brief before the end of the Cold War.
第二次世界大戰結束后，聯合國和聯合國安理會于1945年成立。聯合國安理會的重塑不僅是為了解決國際聯盟理事會的問題，也是為了維護國際和平與安全作為主要責任。這是聯合國安理會直到今天都沒有改變的目標，盡管冷戰結束后聯合國安理會的運作發生了重大變化。在冷戰時期，現實主義者將其視為兩極體系，世界致力于解決以國家為中心的問題。主權的作用和自決原則已在全世界積極動員起來。因此，聯合國安理會當時的大多數問題和運作完全與這些想法有關。關于非殖民化和國家間沖突的行動就是明顯的例子。卡梅倫·R·休謨也重申，非殖民化時代與冷戰同時到來。此外，冷戰阻礙了聯合國安理會的運作，尤其是兩大巨頭的否決。美國和蘇聯之間的否決博弈導致聯合國安理會的職能效率低下，特別是在與第七章相關的武力使用方面。在少數情況下，安理會通過了呼吁使用武力的決議，第一次必須等到1966年羅得西亞。這些是冷戰結束前的簡要情況。
After the end of the Cold War, world politics has shifted precisely out of the state-centric debates and issues as stated. It is the beginning of the decrease of the role of state sovereignty in many ways. As same as Weiss & Daws (2007), they concluded that even there is no refusal about the sacred of borders in international relations but their importance is less than in 1945. Reversely, the world stage has welcomed some trends ignoring to the notion of state sovereignty, which also affected to the role of the UNSC and its operations. According to Hume (2004, pp. 609-610), there are three important trends in the world politics that have been changing the work of the UNSC since the early 1990s. Firstly, regarding the type of conflict, there was a shift from the inter-state conflicts to intra-state conflicts, and leading to the problem of failing states. The second trend is the more regional initiatives and cooperation and their role to resolve conflicts within particular regions. And the last one is the arrival of transnational issues such as environmental issues, climate change, and terrorism. In the aspect of the UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, there are six categories of the new emerging threats in world affairs: the economics and social threats such as poverty and climate change; inter-state conflict; intra-state conflict such as civil war; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and transnational organized crime (The Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004). From all above mentioned changes, it can be conceptualized into one grand trend emerging after the collapse of the Cold War. It is the individual consciousness or so-called, ‘the humanitarian impulse,’ (Weiss, The Humanitarian Impulse, 2004). In accordance to Weiss (2004, pp. 48-49) and David M. Malone (Security Council, 2007), the dominance of the humanitarian impulse has changed the decision-making process of the UNSC since the end of the Cold War. Also, the range of its operations has to take increasingly the relevance of humanitarian values and individual consciousness into account. To be specific, “it appears that human rights are no longer likely to disappear from the Council’s radar screen anytime soon” (Weschler, 2004, p. 67). To sum up, it is the shift of world politics from state-centric notion to individual consciousness or humanitarian notion.
冷戰結束后，世界政治已經完全脫離了以國家為中心的辯論和問題。這是國家主權在許多方面作用減弱的開始。與Weiss&Daws一樣，他們得出的結論是，即使在國際關系中，邊界的神圣性也沒有被拒絕，但其重要性卻不如1945年。相反，世界舞臺歡迎一些忽視國家主權概念的趨勢，這也影響了聯合國安理會的作用及其運作。休謨認為，自20世紀90年代初以來，世界政治有三個重要趨勢一直在改變聯合國安理會的工作。首先，關于沖突的類型，從國家間沖突轉變為國家內部沖突，并導致了失敗國家的問題。第二個趨勢是更多的區域倡議和合作及其在解決特定區域內沖突方面的作用。最后一個是跨國問題的到來，如環境問題、氣候變化和恐怖主義。在聯合國秘書長的威脅、挑戰和變化問題高級別小組方面，世界事務中新出現的威脅有六類：經濟和社會威脅，如貧困和氣候變化；國家間沖突；內戰等國內沖突；核武器、放射性武器、化學武器和生物武器；恐怖主義和跨國有組織犯罪。從上述所有變化來看，它可以被概念化為冷戰結束后出現的一個大趨勢。這是個人意識或所謂的“人道主義沖動”。根據Weiss和David M.Malone的說法，自冷戰結束以來，人道主義沖動的主導地位改變了聯合國安理會的決策過程。此外，其行動范圍必須日益考慮到人道主義價值觀和個人意識的相關性。具體而言，“人權似乎不太可能在短期內從理事會的雷達屏幕上消失”。總而言之，這是世界政治從國家中心觀念向個人意識或人道主義觀念的轉變。
Consequently, the UNSC must change many of its operations accordingly to tackle this main shift which particularly by taking into account the notion of humanitarianism. However, my argument is to answer the question of ‘how’ its operations has changed by applying the Constructivists’ ideas which logically can be applied and generalized to those of many changing operations. Therefore, I firstly will ignore the question of what those changing operations look like, when and where the changing occurs. Secondly, I will focus only on the UNSC’s operation on the use of force, not all its operations. Lastly, I will use humanitarian intervention, as one of the operation on the use of force, to be my case study because it is emerged directly in response to ‘humanitarian impulse’ (Weiss, The Humanitarian Impulse, 2004).
因此，聯合國安理會必須相應地改變其許多行動，以應對這一主要轉變，特別是考慮到人道主義的概念。然而，我的論點是通過應用建構主義者的思想來回答“如何”改變其運作的問題，這些思想在邏輯上可以應用并推廣到許多變化的運作中。因此，我首先將忽略這些變化操作是什么樣子、何時何地發生變化的問題。其次，我將只關注聯合國安理會關于使用武力的行動，而不是其所有行動。最后，我將使用人道主義干預作為使用武力的行動之一，作為我的案例研究，因為它是直接響應“人道主義沖動”而出現的。
Theoretical Framework: Constructivism and the Life-Cycle of Norms 理論框架：建構主義與規范的生命周期
This section will provide a brief general concept of Constructivism and the Life-Cycle of Norms as a theoretical framework of the essay. Constructivism is the school of thought that has been recently put in place more significantly in describing the international relations since the beginning of the 1980s or almost the end of the Cold War (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007, p. 162). Broadly, constructivism is a social theory dealt with the relationship between actors/agents and structures. According to Michael Barnett (2008, p. 162), Constructivism in the context of international relations commonly “concerns with how ideas define the international structure; how this structure shapes the identities, interests, and foreign policies of states; and how state and non-state actors reproduce or transform that structure.” International structure is seen as a group of thought and ideas, including a set of norms, which has been constituted by the process of intersubjective awareness among actors at specific time and place (Jackson & Sorensen, 2007). Together with, Constructivism emphasized on the process of understanding things or actions and assigning meaning to them (Ibid.). Besides, Constructivists also mentioned about the concept of social construction of reality which is the operation to produce social facts such as norms. Social facts will be constructed by human agreement and at the same time will provide the legitimization of those facts like some universal norms such as jus in bello (Barnett, Social Constructivism, 2008). Then, these social facts can also constrain and shape the behavior of actors. Noticeably, the main characteristic of Constructivism is a cyclical process. This is similar to Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm which is a theoretical tool to explain in the later section how the UNSC has changed its operation as argued before. This concept explained how norm as a structure is institutionalised or internationalized before diffusing and constraining actors’ behaviour which reversely can affect to the status of such norm in terms of reproducing, reforming or even constructing new norm. This cycle consists of three stages; norm emergence, norm cascade and norm internalization. In order to make clearer understanding of this concept in conjunction with the argument, I will give details of each stage in parallel with the case study of humanitarian intervention in the last following section.
本節將簡要介紹建構主義的一般概念和規范的生命周期，作為本文的理論框架。建構主義是自20世紀80年代初或冷戰幾乎結束以來，在描述國際關系時，最近出現的一種更為重要的思想流派。從廣義上講，建構主義是一種社會理論，處理行動者/代理人和結構之間的關系。根據邁克爾·巴內特的說法，國際關系背景下的建構主義通常“關注思想如何定義國際結構；這種結構如何塑造國家的身份、利益和外交政策；以及國家和非國家行動者如何再現或改造這種結構。”，包括一套規范，這是由演員在特定時間和地點的主體間意識過程構成的。與一起，建構主義強調理解事物或行為并賦予其意義的過程。此外，建構主義者還提到了現實的社會建構的概念，這是產生規范等社會事實的操作。社會事實將由人類協議構建，同時將提供這些事實的合法化，如一些普遍規范，如戰爭法。然后，這些社會事實也可以約束和塑造演員的行為。值得注意的是，建構主義的主要特征是一個循環過程。這與Finnemore和Sikkink的“規范生命周期”概念相似，后者是一個理論工具，在后面的章節中解釋聯合國安理會如何改變其運作，如前所述。這一概念解釋了規范作為一種結構是如何在擴散和約束行為人的行為之前制度化或國際化的，而行為人的這種行為反過來會影響到這種規范在復制、改革甚至構建新規范方面的地位。這個周期包括三個階段：；規范出現、規范級聯和規范內化。為了結合論點更清楚地理解這一概念，我將在下一節的最后一節中與人道主義干預的案例研究同時詳細介紹每個階段。
Case Study: Humanitarian Intervention 案例研究：人道主義干預
However, before taking the concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm in hand to explain and analyze how the UNSC has changed its operations by using the case study of humanitarian intervention, the very brief background of the UNSC’s operations on the use of force should be described here. In reference to UN Charter, there are only two legally-accepted categories for the use of force as an operation of the UNSC; self-defence and authorization by the UNSC relating to Chapter VII (Roberts, 2004). Nevertheless, after the end of the Cold War, there are two more emerging doctrines of the use of force which importantly differ from the two traditional and legal ones. Both debated doctrines are humanitarian intervention and preemtive measures against emerging threats. These two new doctrines not only were seen as the challenge to principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention in Article 2(4) of the UN Chater (Ibid.) but also unavoidably as pending-to-be new operations of the UNSC. Later on, I will apply the concept of the Life-Cycle of Norm in details to explain the process that the UNSC constructs a norm as a precondition in order to legitimize humanitarian interventionas as as its new operation.
然而，在使用規范生命周期的概念來解釋和分析聯合國安理會如何通過人道主義干預的案例研究來改變其行動之前，這里應該描述聯合國安理會使用武力行動的非常簡短的背景。根據《聯合國憲章》，聯合國安理會的行動中使用武力只有兩種合法接受的類別；聯合國安理會關于第七章的自衛和授權。然而，冷戰結束后，又出現了兩種新的使用武力的理論，這兩種理論與傳統的和法律的理論有著重要的區別。兩種爭論的理論都是人道主義干預和針對新威脅的預防措施。這兩種新理論不僅被視為對《聯合國憲章》第2（4）條中國家主權和不干涉原則的挑戰，而且不可避免地被視為聯合國安理會的新行動。稍后，我將詳細應用規范生命周期的概念，解釋聯合國安理會將規范作為一個先決條件，以使人道主義干預作為其新行動合法化的過程。
Now, bringing back the Life-Cycle of Norm concept, the first stage, “Norm emergence,” is the stage that “the norm entrepreneurs” try to convince flock of actors to welcome their new norms until reaching the critical or tipping point (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Normally, at the first period, there will be a nature of competition between norms including the old and the other new ones. The entrepreneurs can be state, non-state actor, individual or international organizations and they need launching platforms to start promoting their norms which usually are international organizations (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). At this point, according to Finnemore (Finnemore M. , 1993), she reiterated that international organizations are able to be tools to promote and diseminate emerging norms. Besides, in terms of methods, the entrepreneurs will use many ways such as speeches, conferences, and advertisements to promote the new way of thinking about and understanding issues or new norms.
現在，回到規范的生命周期概念，第一個階段，“規范出現”，是“規范企業家”試圖說服一群演員歡迎他們的新規范，直到達到臨界點或臨界點的階段。通常，在第一階段，包括舊規范和其他新規范在內的規范之間會存在競爭性質。企業家可以是國家、非國家行為者、個人或國際組織，他們需要啟動平臺來開始推廣他們通常是國際組織的規范。在這一點上，根據Finnemore的說法，她重申國際組織能夠成為促進和消除新興規范的工具。此外，在方法上，企業家將通過演講、會議和廣告等多種方式來促進思考和理解問題或新規范的新方式。
Considering the case of humanitarian intervention which has been brought into the focus of world community since the end of the Cold War, we can see the process of norm emergence from the following details. In terms of the constellation of emerging norms, there were many competing meaning and debates about humanitarian intervention in the UNSC and outsides like Joanna Weschler (2004, p. 66) mentioned that the attitude of the UNSC regarding to humanitarian intervention has been spasmodic which is covered with series of progress and decline. For instance, as identified by Ramesh Thakur (2007, p. 388), humanitarian Intervention is “the use of military force on the territory of a state without its consent with the goal of protecting innocent victims of large-scale atrocities.” On the contrary, humanitarian Intervention has been criticized by the Realists as a legitimization of new interventionist norms of Western states and for serving their benefits from the intervention (Chandler, 2004). Also, some of traditional security analysts may argue about the intervention, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo, since the end of the Cold War that such actions were aimed to protect the credibility of NATO and its presence in Europe. However, in the eyes of Constructivists, it is the ignorance of the occurance of humanitarian value as a constructed interest of actors like states (Glanville, 2006, p. 163). Moreover, according to the report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), invented by Canadian Government, it proposed another competing idea which is called, ‘the responsibility to protect,’ into the discussion in The UN and the UNSC and now has been accepted by the General Assembly during the 2005 World Summit (Glanville, 2006). Then, in terms of who are norm entreprenours and their strategies, the key entreprenour for promote the issue of humanitarian intervention are international organizations like the UNSC itself and the UN. Alike the ICISS concluded that the most suitable organ to authorize intervention in the case of immense human rights violations is the UNSC (Weschler, 2004, p. 66). However, there are not only the UNSC as an organizations in the construction of norm but also individuals, states, public and media which has been collaboratively promoting humanitarian intervention to be constructed as a new norm. Individually, the role of the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) is a good instance. The first UNSG after the end of the Cold War, Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his work, “Agenda for Peace,” written in early 1992, are examples supporting a more role of the UNSC and the UNSG in coping with armed conflict and humanitarian crisis (Weschler, 2004, p. 63). Together with, in the General Assembly on September 20, 1999, the next UNSG Kofi Annan urged international community to support the principle that massive and structured violations of human rights should not be allowed to occur and ignited the issue of humanitarian intervention (Weschler, 2004, p. 65). The state-actors which have been always supporting this norm in the UNSC are explicitly the US and the UK. Regarding to the role of public and media, in the early 1990s, it is the climax of their enthusiam for humanitarian issues. They have used a number of their sources, platforms and instruments to provide fruitful debates about not only the international right for humanitarian intervention but also the need to do it (Malone, Conclusion, 2004, p. 627). Briefly, it is clear with these empirical evidence that the norm of humanitarian intervention has emerged by the interactive process between diverse actors, with the leading of the UNSC itself.
考慮到冷戰結束以來國際社會關注的人道主義干預事件，我們可以從以下細節中看到規范出現的過程。就新興規范的集合而言，聯合國安理會內部對人道主義干預有許多相互矛盾的含義和爭論，而像喬安娜·韋施勒這樣的局外人提到，聯合國安全理事會對人道主義介入的態度一直是斷斷續續的，其中包括一系列的進步和衰退。例如，正如拉梅什·塔庫爾所指出的，人道主義干預是“為了保護大規模暴行的無辜受害者，在未經國家同意的情況下在其領土上使用軍事力量。”相反，人道主義干預被現實主義者批評為西方國家新干預主義規范的合法化，并為其從干預中獲益。此外，一些傳統的安全分析人士可能會對自冷戰結束以來的干預行動，特別是在波斯尼亞和科索沃的干預行動提出異議，認為這些行動旨在保護北約的信譽及其在歐洲的存在。然而，在建構主義者看來，這是對人道主義價值作為國家等行為體的一種建構利益的發生的無知。此外，根據加拿大政府發明的國際干預與國家主權委員會的報告，該委員會在聯合國和聯合國安理會的討論中提出了另一個相互競爭的想法，即“保護的責任”，現在已在2005年世界首腦會議期間被大會接受。然后，就誰是標準企業家及其戰略而言，促進人道主義干預問題的關鍵企業家是聯合國安理會和聯合國等國際組織。與ICISS一樣，ICISS得出的結論是，授權在大規模侵犯人權案件中進行干預的最合適機構是聯合國安理會。然而，不僅聯合國安理會作為一個組織參與了規范的構建，而且個人、國家、公眾和媒體也一直在合作推動人道主義干預作為一種新規范的構建。就個人而言，聯合國秘書長的作用就是一個很好的例子。冷戰結束后的第一個聯合國安理會，布特羅斯·布特羅斯·加利和他于1992年初撰寫的著作《和平議程》就是支持聯合國安理會和聯合國安理會在應對武裝沖突和人道主義危機方面發揮更大作用的例子。1999年9月20日，下屆聯合國秘書長科菲·安南在大會上敦促國際社會支持這樣一項原則，即不應允許大規模和有組織地侵犯人權，并引發人道主義干預問題。在聯合國安理會一直支持這一規范的國家行為體顯然是美國和英國。關于公眾和媒體的作用，在20世紀90年代初，這是他們對人道主義問題熱情的高潮。他們利用自己的一些來源、平臺和工具，不僅就人道主義干預的國際權利，而且就其必要性進行了富有成效的辯論。簡言之，這些經驗證據清楚地表明，在聯合國安理會本身的領導下，人道主義干預的規范是由不同行為者之間的互動過程形成的。
Continually, the second stage is “Norm cascade”. This stage there will be norm leaders who promoted their norms until gaining the most support and acceptance from other actors. The leaders will try to make other actors to adopt and imitate those norms through a process of socialization (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Also, the leaders or actors who are capable of socializing still can be state, non-state and international organizations.
第二階段是“標準級聯”。在這一階段，將有規范領導者推動他們的規范，直到獲得其他行為體的最大支持和接受。領導者將試圖通過社會化過程讓其他行動者采納和模仿這些規范。此外，有能力社交的領導人或行動者仍然可以是國家、非國家和國際組織。
In this stage, the norm leader which is still the UNSC will try to mobilize intersubjective beliefs of the concept of humanitarian intervention among other actors by the process of socialization in order to gain human agreement; then, the idea of humanitarian intervention will be agreed to be a social fact, norm or so-called a structure. On the other hand, international organization, like the UNSC, also serves to legitimize the emerging international norms (Barnett & Finnemore, 2007). So, when humanitarian intervention is constructed as a social fact, it also means that it is one of legitimized norms as well. However, at present, the UNSC’s construction of humanitarian intervention to be a norm is still in this process because some are still not agree to this idea. For example, in the case of Somalia and Haiti, its legality seems to be supported by most states but in the case of Kosovo 1999, it was criticized by many states (Roberts, 2004, p. 147). Also, it can be seen from debates such as about the Iraq War 2003. Likewise, Adam Roberts (Roberts, 2004, p. 146) mentioned radically that all attempts since the early 1990s to legitimize humanitarian intervention have failed.
在這一階段，仍然是聯合國安理會的規范領導者將試圖通過社會化進程，調動其他行動者對人道主義干預概念的主觀間信念，以獲得人類的認同；然后，人道主義干預的想法將被認為是一種社會事實、規范或所謂的結構。另一方面，國際組織，如聯合國安理會，也有助于使新興的國際規范合法化。因此，當人道主義干預被構建為一種社會事實時，這也意味著它也是一種合法化的規范。然而，目前，聯合國安理會將人道主義干預作為一種規范仍在這一過程中，因為一些人仍然不同意這一想法。例如，在索馬里和海地的情況下，其合法性似乎得到了大多數國家的支持，但在1999年科索沃的情況下卻遭到了許多國家的批評。此外，從2003年伊拉克戰爭等辯論中也可以看出這一點。同樣，亞當·羅伯茨從根本上提到，自20世紀90年代初以來，人道主義干預合法化的所有嘗試都失敗了。
In the third stage which is called, “Norm internalization,” norms will be automatically adopted by actors and have a quality of taken-for-granted. It is no debate on those institutionalized norms anymore and such norms will be powerful and cannot be ignored (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). In the last stage, the UNSC will be a key player in the process of trasmitting and diffusing the norm of humanitarian intervention, if it passes the second stage in the future. Last but not least, after the third stage, the constituted norm of humanitarian intervention will legitimize the use of force with reference to humanitarian intervention and can constrain the behavior of actors like states. It is similar to what Thakur (2004) has said that the international organization can be the hub for the interplay between changing norms and constraining states’ behaviour. Nontheless, actors’ behavior and their interaction will affect cyclically to the constructed norms and restart the process from the first stage.
在被稱為“規范內化”的第三階段，規范將被行動者自動采納，并具有理所當然的品質。關于這些制度化規范的爭論已經不再，這些規范將是強有力的，不容忽視。在最后一個階段，如果聯合國安理會在未來通過第二個階段，它將成為傳遞和傳播人道主義干預規范過程中的關鍵角色。最后但并非最不重要的是，在第三階段之后，人道主義干預的既定規范將使人道主義干預中的武力使用合法化，并可以約束國家等行為體的行為。這與Thakur所說的國際組織可以成為改變規范和約束國家行為之間相互作用的樞紐相似。毫無疑問，參與者的行為和他們的互動將周期性地影響構建的規范，并從第一階段開始重新啟動過程。
Conclusion 結論
Since the end of the Cold War, the traditional state-centric theme of world politics has been gradually replaced by humanitarian value and individual consciousness. The UNSC, consequently, has to change its operations to control and manage the challenges coming from that shift in world affairs. In order to make such changes accomplished, the UNSC will have to meet preconditions by inventing, promoting, cascading and internalizing international norms to legitimize those changes in its operation. Like Luke Glanville (2006, p. 162) said about humanitarian intervention that the refusal to acknowledge the role of norms will make scholar cannot explain the increment of the cases relating to humanitarian intervention after the end of the Cold War. More importantly, this process of creating norms, according to Barnett & Finnemore (2007), has to incorporate the role of states, non-state actors, individuals and media in order to provide more effectiveness.
Essay范文總結自冷戰結束以來，傳統的以國家為中心的世界政治主題逐漸被人道主義價值和個人意識所取代。因此，聯合國安理會必須改變其運作，以控制和管理世界事務轉變帶來的挑戰。為了實現這些變革，聯合國安理會必須滿足先決條件，創造、促進、層疊和內部化國際準則，使這些變革在其運作中合法化。就像盧克·格蘭維爾在談到人道主義干預時所說的那樣，拒絕承認規范的作用將使學者無法解釋冷戰結束后人道主義干預案件的增加。更重要的是，根據Barnett&Finnemore的說法，這一創建規范的過程必須納入國家、非國家行為者、個人和媒體的作用，以提高效率。本站提供各國各專業Essay代寫或指導服務，如有需要可咨詢本平臺。
