International Relations Essay范文：Social Constructivism and the Cold War
International Relations Essay范文-社会建构主义与冷战，本篇Essay将以建构主义（社会建构主义）的概念为关键理论框架，回答联合国安全理事会如何改变其运作以应对不断变化的世界格局的问题，尤其是在冷战结束后。一般来说，建构主义是一种社会理论，关注主体和结构之间的关系和过程。因此，Essay范文提出观点认为，为了应对世界政治的变化，联合国安理会（被称为行动者）相应地通过与其他行动者合作构建规范或所谓的“国际规范”（被称之为结构）来改变其运作，以此作为前提条件，以使任何变化的运作合法化和支持工具。为了发展我的论点，本篇Essay将分为三个部分。首先，第一节将简要介绍问题的背景、世界政治变化的概况以及联合国安理会的主要目标，包括其运作，作为分析部分的平台。在第二部分中，将在解释联合国安理会如何改变其任务时考虑到的建构主义思想，特别是芬尼摩尔和锡金的规范生命周期概念，将在这里详细阐述。第三部分将通过将人道主义干预作为联合国安理会当代行动之一的案例研究来跟进，以展示建构主义框架提供的见解。请参考。
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 世界政治的变化与联合国安理会的运作
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.
什么时候或哪一个时期可以被定义为世界政治转变的转折点，这是我必须解决的第一个问题，以便在一段时间内使争论更加清晰。为了在这篇文章中做到这一点，我将听取许多政治科学家的意见，他们共同发现了冷战结束前世界政治变化的转折点。那么，联合国安理会的运作与世界政治的变化有哪些变化，我们将在这里简要介绍。
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.
第二次世界大战结束后，联合国和联合国安理会于1945年成立。联合国安理会的重塑不仅是为了解决国际联盟理事会的问题，也是为了维护国际和平与安全作为主要责任。这是联合国安理会直到今天都没有改变的目标，尽管冷战结束后联合国安理会的运作发生了重大变化。在冷战时期，现实主义者将其视为两极体系，世界致力于解决以国家为中心的问题。主权的作用和自决原则已在全世界积极动员起来。因此，联合国安理会当时的大多数问题和运作完全与这些想法有关。关于非殖民化和国家间冲突的行动就是明显的例子。卡梅伦·R·休谟也重申，非殖民化时代与冷战同时到来。此外，冷战阻碍了联合国安理会的运作，尤其是两大巨头的否决。美国和苏联之间的否决博弈导致联合国安理会的职能效率低下，特别是在与第七章相关的武力使用方面。在少数情况下，安理会通过了呼吁使用武力的决议，第一次必须等到1966年罗得西亚。这些是冷战结束前的简要情况。
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.
冷战结束后，世界政治已经完全脱离了以国家为中心的辩论和问题。这是国家主权在许多方面作用减弱的开始。与Weiss&Daws一样，他们得出的结论是，即使在国际关系中，边界的神圣性也没有被拒绝，但其重要性却不如1945年。相反，世界舞台欢迎一些忽视国家主权概念的趋势，这也影响了联合国安理会的作用及其运作。休谟认为，自20世纪90年代初以来，世界政治有三个重要趋势一直在改变联合国安理会的工作。首先，关于冲突的类型，从国家间冲突转变为国家内部冲突，并导致了失败国家的问题。第二个趋势是更多的区域倡议和合作及其在解决特定区域内冲突方面的作用。最后一个是跨国问题的到来，如环境问题、气候变化和恐怖主义。在联合国秘书长的威胁、挑战和变化问题高级别小组方面，世界事务中新出现的威胁有六类：经济和社会威胁，如贫困和气候变化；国家间冲突；内战等国内冲突；核武器、放射性武器、化学武器和生物武器；恐怖主义和跨国有组织犯罪。从上述所有变化来看，它可以被概念化为冷战结束后出现的一个大趋势。这是个人意识或所谓的“人道主义冲动”。根据Weiss和David M.Malone的说法，自冷战结束以来，人道主义冲动的主导地位改变了联合国安理会的决策过程。此外，其行动范围必须日益考虑到人道主义价值观和个人意识的相关性。具体而言，“人权似乎不太可能在短期内从理事会的雷达屏幕上消失”。总而言之，这是世界政治从国家中心观念向个人意识或人道主义观念的转变。
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，联合国安理会必须相应地改变其许多行动，以应对这一主要转变，特别是考虑到人道主义的概念。然而，我的论点是通过应用建构主义者的思想来回答“如何”改变其运作的问题，这些思想在逻辑上可以应用并推广到许多变化的运作中。因此，我首先将忽略这些变化操作是什么样子、何时何地发生变化的问题。其次，我将只关注联合国安理会关于使用武力的行动，而不是其所有行动。最后，我将使用人道主义干预作为使用武力的行动之一，作为我的案例研究，因为它是直接响应“人道主义冲动”而出现的。
Theoretical Framework: Constructivism and the Life-Cycle of Norms 理论框架：建构主义与规范的生命周期
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.
本节将简要介绍建构主义的一般概念和规范的生命周期，作为本文的理论框架。建构主义是自20世纪80年代初或冷战几乎结束以来，在描述国际关系时，最近出现的一种更为重要的思想流派。从广义上讲，建构主义是一种社会理论，处理行动者/代理人和结构之间的关系。根据迈克尔·巴内特的说法，国际关系背景下的建构主义通常“关注思想如何定义国际结构；这种结构如何塑造国家的身份、利益和外交政策；以及国家和非国家行动者如何再现或改造这种结构。”，包括一套规范，这是由演员在特定时间和地点的主体间意识过程构成的。与一起，建构主义强调理解事物或行为并赋予其意义的过程。此外，建构主义者还提到了现实的社会建构的概念，这是产生规范等社会事实的操作。社会事实将由人类协议构建，同时将提供这些事实的合法化，如一些普遍规范，如战争法。然后，这些社会事实也可以约束和塑造演员的行为。值得注意的是，建构主义的主要特征是一个循环过程。这与Finnemore和Sikkink的“规范生命周期”概念相似，后者是一个理论工具，在后面的章节中解释联合国安理会如何改变其运作，如前所述。这一概念解释了规范作为一种结构是如何在扩散和约束行为人的行为之前制度化或国际化的，而行为人的这种行为反过来会影响到这种规范在复制、改革甚至构建新规范方面的地位。这个周期包括三个阶段：；规范出现、规范级联和规范内化。为了结合论点更清楚地理解这一概念，我将在下一节的最后一节中与人道主义干预的案例研究同时详细介绍每个阶段。
Case Study: Humanitarian Intervention 案例研究：人道主义干预
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，在使用规范生命周期的概念来解释和分析联合国安理会如何通过人道主义干预的案例研究来改变其行动之前，这里应该描述联合国安理会使用武力行动的非常简短的背景。根据《联合国宪章》，联合国安理会的行动中使用武力只有两种合法接受的类别；联合国安理会关于第七章的自卫和授权。然而，冷战结束后，又出现了两种新的使用武力的理论，这两种理论与传统的和法律的理论有着重要的区别。两种争论的理论都是人道主义干预和针对新威胁的预防措施。这两种新理论不仅被视为对《联合国宪章》第2（4）条中国家主权和不干涉原则的挑战，而且不可避免地被视为联合国安理会的新行动。稍后，我将详细应用规范生命周期的概念，解释联合国安理会将规范作为一个先决条件，以使人道主义干预作为其新行动合法化的过程。
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.
现在，回到规范的生命周期概念，第一个阶段，“规范出现”，是“规范企业家”试图说服一群演员欢迎他们的新规范，直到达到临界点或临界点的阶段。通常，在第一阶段，包括旧规范和其他新规范在内的规范之间会存在竞争性质。企业家可以是国家、非国家行为者、个人或国际组织，他们需要启动平台来开始推广他们通常是国际组织的规范。在这一点上，根据Finnemore的说法，她重申国际组织能够成为促进和消除新兴规范的工具。此外，在方法上，企业家将通过演讲、会议和广告等多种方式来促进思考和理解问题或新规范的新方式。
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.
考虑到冷战结束以来国际社会关注的人道主义干预事件，我们可以从以下细节中看到规范出现的过程。就新兴规范的集合而言，联合国安理会内部对人道主义干预有许多相互矛盾的含义和争论，而像乔安娜·韦施勒这样的局外人提到，联合国安全理事会对人道主义介入的态度一直是断断续续的，其中包括一系列的进步和衰退。例如，正如拉梅什·塔库尔所指出的，人道主义干预是“为了保护大规模暴行的无辜受害者，在未经国家同意的情况下在其领土上使用军事力量。”相反，人道主义干预被现实主义者批评为西方国家新干预主义规范的合法化，并为其从干预中获益。此外，一些传统的安全分析人士可能会对自冷战结束以来的干预行动，特别是在波斯尼亚和科索沃的干预行动提出异议，认为这些行动旨在保护北约的信誉及其在欧洲的存在。然而，在建构主义者看来，这是对人道主义价值作为国家等行为体的一种建构利益的发生的无知。此外，根据加拿大政府发明的国际干预与国家主权委员会的报告，该委员会在联合国和联合国安理会的讨论中提出了另一个相互竞争的想法，即“保护的责任”，现在已在2005年世界首脑会议期间被大会接受。然后，就谁是标准企业家及其战略而言，促进人道主义干预问题的关键企业家是联合国安理会和联合国等国际组织。与ICISS一样，ICISS得出的结论是，授权在大规模侵犯人权案件中进行干预的最合适机构是联合国安理会。然而，不仅联合国安理会作为一个组织参与了规范的构建，而且个人、国家、公众和媒体也一直在合作推动人道主义干预作为一种新规范的构建。就个人而言，联合国秘书长的作用就是一个很好的例子。冷战结束后的第一个联合国安理会，布特罗斯·布特罗斯·加利和他于1992年初撰写的著作《和平议程》就是支持联合国安理会和联合国安理会在应对武装冲突和人道主义危机方面发挥更大作用的例子。1999年9月20日，下届联合国秘书长科菲·安南在大会上敦促国际社会支持这样一项原则，即不应允许大规模和有组织地侵犯人权，并引发人道主义干预问题。在联合国安理会一直支持这一规范的国家行为体显然是美国和英国。关于公众和媒体的作用，在20世纪90年代初，这是他们对人道主义问题热情的高潮。他们利用自己的一些来源、平台和工具，不仅就人道主义干预的国际权利，而且就其必要性进行了富有成效的辩论。简言之，这些经验证据清楚地表明，在联合国安理会本身的领导下，人道主义干预的规范是由不同行为者之间的互动过程形成的。
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.
第二阶段是“标准级联”。在这一阶段，将有规范领导者推动他们的规范，直到获得其他行为体的最大支持和接受。领导者将试图通过社会化过程让其他行动者采纳和模仿这些规范。此外，有能力社交的领导人或行动者仍然可以是国家、非国家和国际组织。
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.
在这一阶段，仍然是联合国安理会的规范领导者将试图通过社会化进程，调动其他行动者对人道主义干预概念的主观间信念，以获得人类的认同；然后，人道主义干预的想法将被认为是一种社会事实、规范或所谓的结构。另一方面，国际组织，如联合国安理会，也有助于使新兴的国际规范合法化。因此，当人道主义干预被构建为一种社会事实时，这也意味着它也是一种合法化的规范。然而，目前，联合国安理会将人道主义干预作为一种规范仍在这一过程中，因为一些人仍然不同意这一想法。例如，在索马里和海地的情况下，其合法性似乎得到了大多数国家的支持，但在1999年科索沃的情况下却遭到了许多国家的批评。此外，从2003年伊拉克战争等辩论中也可以看出这一点。同样，亚当·罗伯茨从根本上提到，自20世纪90年代初以来，人道主义干预合法化的所有尝试都失败了。
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.
在被称为“规范内化”的第三阶段，规范将被行动者自动采纳，并具有理所当然的品质。关于这些制度化规范的争论已经不再，这些规范将是强有力的，不容忽视。在最后一个阶段，如果联合国安理会在未来通过第二个阶段，它将成为传递和传播人道主义干预规范过程中的关键角色。最后但并非最不重要的是，在第三阶段之后，人道主义干预的既定规范将使人道主义干预中的武力使用合法化，并可以约束国家等行为体的行为。这与Thakur所说的国际组织可以成为改变规范和约束国家行为之间相互作用的枢纽相似。毫无疑问，参与者的行为和他们的互动将周期性地影响构建的规范，并从第一阶段开始重新启动过程。
Conclusion 结论
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范文总结自冷战结束以来，传统的以国家为中心的世界政治主题逐渐被人道主义价值和个人意识所取代。因此，联合国安理会必须改变其运作，以控制和管理世界事务转变带来的挑战。为了实现这些变革，联合国安理会必须满足先决条件，创造、促进、层叠和内部化国际准则，使这些变革在其运作中合法化。就像卢克·格兰维尔在谈到人道主义干预时所说的那样，拒绝承认规范的作用将使学者无法解释冷战结束后人道主义干预案件的增加。更重要的是，根据Barnett&Finnemore的说法，这一创建规范的过程必须纳入国家、非国家行为者、个人和媒体的作用，以提高效率。本站提供各国各专业Essay代写或指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。
