「民族自決權」能否抗拒「普世人權」的要求？：對瓦爾澤（Michael Walzer）以「自決」反對「人道干預」之批判

May the Right for the National Self-determination Override the Claim Based on the Universal Human Rights?: Critique on Michael Walzer’s Objection to the Humanitarian Intervention

人權與主權是國際法同時高舉的兩項價值，並視之為保障世界和平的要素。但由於並非所有國家皆實現了人權的保障，對主權的尊重卻也成為人道干預的障礙。瓦爾澤以「尊重自決」為理由，要求人們尊重任何文化暨政治共同體的現狀，禁止以「實現普世價值」為名去干涉任何國家的內政。本文將指出這種思想的不適切性，並指出在國際政治理論上另一種思考方向，即先設立一國家正當行為之框架，以此判定各種政體、及自決的正當性。本文將論證，專制的政治體制並不適合被解釋為人民自決的結果；而唯有在無恐懼之下的人民意見之表達，才是真正值得被尊重的自決。

The human rights and the respect to the sovereignty both have been valued by the current international law that regards them as the essential elements for the maintenance of the peace of the world. But because not all countries have realized the protection of the human rights, the respect to the sovereignty has become a hindrance for the protection of the human rights. The philosopher Michael Walzer demands from us to respect the status quo of all political communities in the name of the respect to the national self-determination. Therefore, the intervention into the interior affairs of any country should be illegitimate and forbidden. This paper will point out the inadequateness of the above-mentioned thought. Besides, another way of thinking in the theory of the international politics will be introduced, namely that a legitimate framework restricting the actions of states should be first instituted. Thereby, we can judge whether a state or a self-determination could be legitimate. It will be contended that any authoritarian political institution should not be understood as the consequence of the self-determination of a folk. Instead, only the self-determination conducted under the freedom from fear should be recognized as real and respectable.