| The clash of the Cold War was a symbol for the start of a new era, which was considered to be peaceful and developing. Yet there do exist some unstable factors which will do harm to the development of the international society, among which was American's frequent intervention to the other country. In one hand, a lot of contradiction, such as racial and national conflict, religious dispute and border incident, emerge gradually after been hidden in the Cold War for so many years. On the other hand, with the development of the society, such new international problems as environmental problems and terrorism arise at the historical moment. Relying on the super power, American takes an active part in the resolution of the international problems. However, American's action is just to meet her national interest, is to prepare for the New World Order which was claimed by the United States. When taking an action of intervention on the reason of maintain democracy or protection of human right, at the same time, the United States violated the international law. As we know, international law is the norm by which the international subject should obey in the communications. The international society is in a state of anarchy, the international law maintains the world order to some extension, and the violation to the international law means a mass of world order. United States freedom of action is even greater; furthermore, a treat of counter intervention against the United Stats is ineffectiveness. The contradiction between the two phenomenon becomes an unneglectble problem. On the basis of the analysis on the United Stated intervention cases after the Cold War for the starting point, this paper is to clarify American's challenge to the international law, and made some suggestion on the method of counter intervention against the United States.This paper is divided into four parts:Part one cited numerous facts of United States intervention after the Cold War; summarize the characteristic of these actions. The objection of U.S intervention expanded to all over the world; U.S often take an intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign country; U.S take an unilateral approach instead of a multilateral one; the use of force is a preference choice in the intervention action; yet U.S is selective as to which country it intervenes against.Part two summarize the reasons that U.S cited to justify its intervention. During the Clinton administration, the U.S often cited humanitarian intervention or protection of human right to get the authority of U.N; as to the Bush administration, the U.S prefer to cite self-defense or prevent terrorism to justify its intervention. The change depends on the change of the U.S national security strategy.Part three analyses U.S challenge to the international law. The principles of national sovereign right, non-intervention and non-use of force are the basic principles of modern international law, which should be strictly obeyed in the international relationship. But the U.S has its own understanding of international law, the nature of which is pursuing the hegemonic power.Part four discuss the method of counter intervention against the United States. The "American" international law affected the international society greatly. Therefore, we should take an effort to improve the international law on the regime of intervention to make it more applicable to restrain the U.S intervention. At the same time, the other counties should cooperate with each other to establish a New World Order to resist U.S hegemonic power.The methodology employed here combines international law, international relation theory and historical antecedents. It's an approach that seeks to comprehend the relationship between international law and international relations. The reasons for United States intervention could only be understood by take the analyses beyond international law analyses, international relations theory and historical analyses.
|
PDF Full Text Request