Pretexts for Intervention

来源 :Beijing Review | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:5201314520
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
论文部分内容阅读
  Since taking office the Joe Biden administration has made no clear statement about U.S. Middle East strategy, indicating there will probably be no major changes for the time being, and the evacuation of U.S. troops from Afghanistan is unlikely to change the U.S. mindset.
  Looking at history, the post-World War II objective of U.S. Middle East strategy was to counter the influence and perceived threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in the 1990s, U.S. Middle East strategy has turned to controlling the energy resources and maintaining dominance in the region.
  The U.S. has to find an excuse for this purpose. It claims problems like dictatorship, corruption and disregard for human rights and freedom have led to social instability in the Middle East, creating a breeding ground for terrorists. This is used as a justification for the U.S. to interfere in the region’s affairs and promote its values there.
  The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 provided a pretext for the U.S. to get involved in the Middle East. During the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. invaded two countries and bombed several others in the name of “War on Terror” in the Greater Middle East, and vowed to conduct the Greater Middle East Initiative with the aim of “democracy promotion.”But facts have shown that the 20-year war has brought untold disaster to Middle East countries, and American democratic models are a poor fit in the region.
  Why is U.S. Middle East strategy a failure? Because it is a destructive approach. The policy has thoroughly disturbed the balance of power in the Middle East, making the region a hotspot for conflict. From the Palestine-Israel conflict, the near disintegration of Iraq, to the Iranian nuclear issue as well as new conflicts such as the Syrian and Libyan civil wars following the political turmoil of 2011, each of these conflicts has had a huge impact on regional and international stability.
  China must be vigilant of a destructive U.S. Middle East strategy. China closely follows developments in the region, as stability and development of the Middle East are in line with the interests of both the region and China. BR
其他文献
关键词:行政公益诉讼;调查核实;有限監督权;权力范围  摘 要:行政公益诉讼中调查核实权的强制性不足造成调查取证难问题普遍存在,而部分地方的改革实践则将调查核实范围予以不当扩展。上述问题产生的根源在于立法对调查核实权的界定过于模糊,造成其属性、强制性、与行政公益诉权的关系和行使范围的不确定。依现行宪法的规定,检察机关是专门的法律监督机关,这也决定了调查核实权应界定为有限的法律监督权,表现为调查核实
關键词:长三角区域;先进制造业;绿色技术创新效率;Malmquist指数  摘 要:绿色技术创新是实现碳达峰和碳中和的根本保证,长三角先进制造业的发展更具有示范性。通过构建先进制造业绿色技术创新效率的两阶段评价指标体系,测算了长三角区域先进制造业不同阶段的绿色技术创新效率和绿色全要素生产率(TFP)。研究发现:(1)长三角区域整体先进制造业绿色技术创新效率呈逐步上升,且具有西南高东北低的分布特点,
否定绿色原则具有民法基本原则地位的观点均不成立。作为面向生态文明的制度创新,绿色原则是立法者着力构建的显性原则、兼具强制与倡导双重面向的限制性原则、具有司法裁判功能的概括条款、单一环保指向的实体性原则、“补充公法”的私法原则。从我国法上的条文表述看,绿色原则表达宽泛的环保之意,为民事主体从事民事活动施加普遍环保义务,效力、范围限于私法层面,依诉讼请求推断具体后果,具有强制与倡导双重面向,追求“无害于”或“有益于”双重目标,从环保角度界定“节约资源”,对“生活环境”和“生态环境”一体保护。
基于担保的从属性与补充性可为第三担保人建立完备的抗辩权体系。基于从属性,第三担保人原则上可向担保权人主张债务人享有的各种抗辩权,包括诉讼时效抗辩权、执行时效抗辩权,但不包括涉及债务人支付不能风险的抗辩权。债务人对债权人享有全部或部分消灭债务的形成权但不行使时,第三担保人基于从属性享有拒绝承担担保责任的抗辩权。这样的形成权不仅包括撤销权、抵销权,而且包括解除权、减价权。债务人放弃抗辩权不影响第三担保人的抗辩权,债务人放弃形成权的,担保人不得主张抗辩权。基于一般补充性,第三担保人享有催告抗辩权,其可区分为连带
关键词:政策扩散;土地增减挂钩;策域融合  摘 要:以公共政策扩散理论为视角,对中央及地方政府出台的有关土地增减挂钩政策文本进行梳理分析,对政策扩散的诱因、路径及机制进行阐释。研究发现,土地增减挂钩政策在推广过程中受到问题、诉求双重扩散诱因的影响,扩散路径在中央与地方、地方与地方之间呈现出时间上的“S”型曲线及空间上的响应、引导、辐射的扩散模式,央地政府的纵向互动使政策实现了策域融合。土地增减挂钩
在涉及行政紧急权力的诉讼中,法院首先需要甄别被诉行为是否真正具备应急性,以防止行政机关滥用职权。以最高人民法院裁判文书为样本的分析发现,当前我国司法实践主要从事实证据、职权、程序等常规性形式审查标准入手认定应急行政行为,效果不佳。对此,应当认识到应急法中控权性规范密度比较低、以应急性规范为主的特点,从法定化的应急体制、机制中挖掘可资利用的观察点,将案件系争的应急行政过程尽可能真实地还原出来,建立起符合应急行政活动本质特征的司法认定标准。