衰殘抑或新生？當聯合國安理會無法回應俄烏戰爭危機時

Disabled or Renewed? When the UN Security Council Fails to Respond to the Crisis of the Russian Ukrainian War

聯合國大會已認定俄烏戰爭中俄羅斯為侵略者，惟當聯合國安理會無法作成決議時，聯合國大會能否根據第377號（V）《關於保障和平之聯合行動決議》（Uniting for peace）所載程序授權各會員國採取必要之集體安全措施？國際法院的判決能否提供會員國聲援、支持烏克蘭抵抗俄羅斯入侵行動時的正當理由？《聯合國憲章》第51條與52條能否提供會員國集體防衛的合法基礎？本文即欲針對上述問題，根據聯合國憲章的宗旨與原則的解釋予以答覆。
本文認為《憲章》第51條確認國家仍保有單獨與集體自衛的固有權利，憲章載明各國均有維護國際安全與和平秩序之權利與責任。集體安全體系的運作雖側重於安理會，卻未排除大會職權。無論是安理會的決議或大會決議，其落實仍取決於各國協力同心。根據《憲章》宗旨與目標對條文所作成的解釋，是可用以強化安理會以外之集體安全機制運作的合法性。

The UN General Assembly has recognized Russia as the aggressor in the Russo-Ukrainian War, but when the UN Security Council fails to take a resolution, can the UN General Assembly authorize Member States to take the necessary collective security measures in accordance with the procedures set out in Resolution 377A (V) ? Can the judgement of the International Court of Justice provide justification for the solidarity and support of Member States for Ukraine's resistance to the Russian invasion? Can Articles 51 and 52 of the Charter of the United Nations provide a legitimate basis for the collective defense of Member States? This article aims to answer the above questions based on the interpretation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
It is argued that Article 51 of the Charter, which recognizes the inherent right of states to individual and collective self-defense, already states that all states have the right and the duty to maintain international security and peace and order. Secondly, although the operation of the collective security system focuses on the Security Council, it does not exclude the powers of the General Assembly. Whether it is a resolution of the Council or the General Assembly, its implementation still depends on the concerted efforts of all countries. Thirdly, the interpretation of the provisions of the Charter in the light of its object and purpose can be used to enhance the legitimacy of the operation of collective security mechanisms other than the UNSC.