اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 38 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,417 |
| تعداد مقالات | 10,200 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,108,983 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 7,078,076 |
مسئولیت بینالمللی دولت آمریکا پس از خروج نظامی از افغانستان (2021) در پرتو مسئولیت بازسازی | ||
| مطالعات راهبردی آمریکا | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 تیر 1405 | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| الهام امین زاده1؛ علیرضا رنجبر* 2 | ||
| 1استاد، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بینالملل عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 27 اردیبهشت 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 12 تیر 1405، تاریخ پذیرش: 22 تیر 1405 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| حملۀ نظامی به قلمرو یک کشور با ادعای جلوگیری از نقض جدی حقوق بشر، افزون بر آثار ناشی از توسل به زور و حقوق مخاصمات مسلحانه، میتواند تکالیفی پسینی، از جمله مسئولیت بازسازی، برای دولت مداخلهگر ایجاد کند. خروج نیروهای نظامی آمریکا از افغانستان پس از حدود بیست سال حضور، این پرسش را مطرح میسازد که آیا تعهدات آمریکا صرفاً به قواعد جنگ محدود است یا میتوان در چارچوب «مسئولیت بازسازی» از تعهدی مستقل و قابل انتساب در دوران پس از مخاصمه سخن گفت. این مقاله با رویکرد توصیفی - تحلیلی و روش مطالعه اسنادی، در چارچوب نظری مسئولیت بازسازی بهمثابۀ امتداد حقوق پس از جنگ و مسئولیت حمایت، اسناد شورای امنیت، رویه و اظهارات رسمی آمریکا، گزارشهای بازسازی افغانستان و آموزههای مرتبط با صلحسازی را بررسی میکند. یافتهها نشان میدهد آمریکا از طریق مشارکت مستقیم در فرایندهای امنیتی، نهادی و اقتصادی افغانستان و نیز با استناد به قطعنامههای شورای امنیت و اعلام تعهدات بازسازی، مبنای انتساب مسئولیت بازسازی را فراهم کرده است. با این حال، خروج شتابزدۀ ۲۰۲۱، فروپاشی ساختارهای امنیتی و سیاسی، بازگشت طالبان و تداوم وابستگی اقتصادی و نهادی افغانستان نشان میدهد اقدامات انجامشده در سه حوزۀ امنیت، حاکمیت قانون و توسعۀ اقتصادی، پایدار و متناسب با معیارهای مسئولیت بازسازی نبوده است. بنابراین، مسئولیت آمریکا نه از حیث تضمین نتیجۀ مطلوب، بلکه از جهت نقض تعهد به اتخاذ تدابیر معقول، پایدار و غیرآسیبزا در فرایند بازسازی قابل ارزیابی حقوقی است. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| مسئولیت بینالمللی؛ آمریکا؛ افغانستان؛ حقوق پس از جنگ؛ مسئولیت بازسازی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| The International Responsibility of the United States Following Its Military Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021) in Light of the Responsibility to Rebuild | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Elham Aminzadeh1؛ Alireza Ranjbar2 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2Ph.D. Candidate in Public International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| A military attack on the territory of a state, even when justified on the grounds of preventing serious human rights violations, may generate not only legal consequences arising from the use of force and the law of armed conflict, but also subsequent obligations for the intervening state, including the responsibility to rebuild. The withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan after nearly two decades of presence raises the question of whether the United States’ obligations are confined solely to the rules of war, or whether, within the framework of the “responsibility to rebuild,” one may speak of an independent and attributable obligation in the post-conflict period. Adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and employing documentary research, this article examines, within the theoretical framework of the responsibility to rebuild as an extension of jus post bellum and the responsibility to protect, Security Council documents, U.S. official practice and statements, reports on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, and relevant doctrines of peacebuilding. The findings indicate that the United States, through its direct involvement in Afghanistan’s security, institutional, and economic processes, as well as through reliance on Security Council resolutions and its declared reconstruction commitments, provided the basis for attributing responsibility to rebuild. At the same time, the hasty withdrawal of 2021, the collapse of security and political structures, the return of the Taliban, and Afghanistan’s continuing economic and institutional dependency demonstrate that the measures taken in the three areas of security, the rule of law, and economic development were neither sustainable nor consistent with the standards of the responsibility to rebuild. Accordingly, the responsibility of the United States is to be assessed not in terms of guaranteeing a desired outcome, but rather in light of its failure to adopt reasonable, sustainable, and non-injurious measures in the reconstruction process. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| International Responsibility, United States, Afghanistan, jus post bellum, Responsibility to Rebuild | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Akbarpour Almeh Joghi, A., Salehi Vasigh, M. R., & Mokarami Pour, M. B. (2022). US Security Strategy in Afghanistan (2001-2021): John Mersheimer's Conceptual Framework for Offensive Realism. American Strategic Studies, 2(3), 153–180. https://doi.org/ 10.27834743/ASS.2206.1104 [In Persian] Aminian, B., & Karami Ghahroudy, M. (2012). American Strategy "State - Nation Building" in Afghanistan. Political Knowledge, 8(15). https://doi.org/10.30497/pk.2012.779 [In Persian] Athari Allaf, H., Gazerani, S., & Arian Manesh, M. (2022). The US Presence and Exit from Afghanistan: Theory of Justly War. American Strategic Studies, 2(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.27834743/ASS.2212.1065 [In Persian] Ayub, F., & Kouvo, S. (2008). Righting The Course? Humanitarian Intervention, The War on Terror and The Future of Afghanistan. International Affairs, 84(4). Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping: Report of The Secretary-General Pursuant to The Statement Adopted by The Summit Meeting of The Security Council on 31 January 1992. United Nations Department of Public Information. Connah, L. (2021). US Intervention in Afghanistan: Justifying The Unjustifiable? South Asia Research, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0262728020964609 Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). The U.S. War in Afghanistan: 1999–2021. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan Deamegardichian, R., Azin, A., & Yazdani Zazerani, M. R. (2022). Justice and Just War from the Point of View of Saint Augustine. Political Sociology, 4(16). https://doi.org/10.30510/psi.2022.279658.1635 [In Persian] Dashtgerd, M., & Khorasani, P. (2022). Joe Biden and The Taliban's Re-Takeover of Afghanistan: A Pre-Determined Plan or a Strategic Failure? American Strategic Studies, 2(6), 43–66. https://doi.org/10.27834743/ASS.2203.1081 [In Persian] Eid, M. W. S. (2002). The Application of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello to The Conflict in Afghanistan [Master’s thesis, The American University in Cairo]. Heidarifard, M., & Pour Ghassab Amiri, A. (1400). The Ambiguities of International Humanitarian Law Application on World War against Terrorism. Studies of International Relations, 14(45), 9-33. [In Persian] Hilpold, P. (2021, August 25). The Afghan War and The Responsibility to Rebuild. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-afghan-war-and-the-responsibility-to-rebuild/ International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). The Responsibility to Protect: Report of The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. International Development Research Centre. International Law Commission of the United Nations (ILC). (2001). Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Text and Commentaries of The International Law Commission. Lafeber, W. (2002). The Bush Doctrine. Diplomatic History, 26(4), 543–558. Lietzau, W. K. (2004). Old Laws, New Wars: Jus Ad Bellum in An Age of Terrorism. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 8, 383–455. Livingston, A. (2021, August 15). Texas Congressman Michael McCaul says Biden Administration “totally blew” Afghanistan withdrawal. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/08/15/michael-mccaul-texas-congress-afghanistan-biden/ Lyons, D. (2021, September 9). Briefing to the United Nations Security Council by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan. United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. https://unama.unmissions.org/briefing-special-representative-deborah-lyons-security-council-5 Mbaeze, N. C., Ezechi, K. C., & Nnamani, F. V. (2024). The Role of International Law and Diplomacy in Inter-State Relations: Implications for Afghanistan and American War Relations. European Journal of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, 2(1), 513-525. https://doi.org/10.59324/ejtas.2024.2(1).44 McGlinchey, S. (2009, September 9). International Law and The Bush Doctrine. E-International Relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2009/09/09/international-law-and-the-bush-doctrine/ Mirmohammadi, M. S. (2011). The Legitimacy of The Crusades from The Perspective of Christian Clergymen and Its Comparison with The Nature of Muslims’ Jihad Against the Crusaders. Knowledge of Religions, 2(2), 89-116. [In Persian] Moosavi Zonooz, M. (2015). A Review of The Law of War and Peace from The Viewpoint of Hugo Grotius. Public Law Studies, 45(1), 83-106. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2015.53723 [In Persian] Norouzi, P., & Khademi, M. (2025). Analyzing the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan through the Lens of Systems Theory. American Strategic Studies, 5(1), 89–121. https://doi.org/10.47176/asr.2025.1291 [In Persian] Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. (n.d.). SIGAR. https://www.sigar.mil Quigley, J. (2003). The Afghanistan war and self-defense. Valparaiso University Law Review, 37(2), 541-562. Quinn, M. (2021, September 12). Kinzinger says “a lot of people” to blame for missteps in Afghan withdrawal. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adam-kinzinger-blame-afghanistan-withdrawal-face-the-nation/ Ranjbar, A. (2015). Challenges Encountered by International Humanitarian Law in the Development of Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. International Studies, 12(46), 103-133. [In Persian] Ranjkesh, M. J. (2023). An Analysis of the Legitimacy of "International Holy War" in the Political Thought of Thomas Aquinas. Public Law Studies, 53(1), 251-266. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2020.267646.1842 [In Persian] Ratner, S. R. (2002). Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello After September 11. The American Journal of International Law, 96(4). https://doi.org/10.2307/3070687 Risch, J. (2021, October 26). Who Is Responsible for The Afghanistan Withdrawal Debacle? Senator Risch Personal Website. https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/10/who-is-responsible-for-the-afghanistan-withdrawal-debacle Saryazdi, A., & Baghaee Haraneh, E. (2005). The Legality of American Use of Force against Afghanistan and Iraq. International Studies, 2(5), 187-203 [In Persian] Shaw, M. (2010). International Law (M. H. Vaghār, Trans.; 3rd ed.). Ettela’at Publications. [In Persian] Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. (2021, October 30). Quarterly report to the United States Congress: 53rd quarterly report on the status of reconstruction in Afghanistan. Stahn, C. (2006). Jus Ad Bellum, Jus in Bello … Jus Post Bellum? Rethinking The Conception of The Law of Armed Force. European Journal of International Law, 17(5), 921–943. Tadjdini, A. (2021, September 6). Inviting A Wolf to The Table: The 2020 US–Taliban Agreement and Questions of State Responsibility. EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/inviting-a-wolf-to-the-table-the-2020-us-taliban-agreement-and-questions-of-state-responsibility/ The White House. (2021, August 16). Remarks by President Biden on Afghanistan. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-afghanistan/ U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation. https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/secretary-of-state/special-representative-for-afghanistan-reconciliation/ United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New dimensions of human security. Oxford University Press. United Nations. (2001). Afghanistan. S.C. Res. 1378, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1378. United Nations. (2001). Afghanistan. S.C. Res. 1386, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1386. United Nations. (2006). Protection Of Civilians in Armed Conflict. S.C. Res. 1674, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1674. United Nations. (2011). Libya. S.C. Res. 1973, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1973. Vorobej, M. (2009). Just War Theory and The Invasion of Afghanistan. Peace Research, 41(2). Williams, R. E., & Caldwell, D. (2006). Jus Post Bellum: Just War Theory and The Principles of Just Peace. International Studies Perspectives, 7(4), 309-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2006.00256.x Wise, L. (2021, August 13). Congressional Republicans Blame Biden for Bungling Afghanistan Pullout. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/congressional-republicans-blame-biden-for-bungling-afghanistan-pullout-11628893595 Zolein, P. (2012). Foundations of Public International Law (7th ed.). Center of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [In Persian] | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 19 |
||