66 123
发新话题
打印

[娱乐] 通往星辰の勇士——王の记事本

通往星辰の勇士——王の记事本

秋季的日子硝烟四起,冬季的日子战火纷飞!红莲面临了来自末日の审判!我们不求以怒火滋生复仇的心,我们只求拥有自由的领土!侵略我们的家园必将受到死亡刀锋的制裁,哪怕这刀锋已经如此的铁锈斑斑!战争给与了掠夺者财富,而留给我们的却是灵魂的升华!我们不害怕末日圣战的到来,就像北欧众神在黄昏前的高傲一样,我们要以勇气为刃战斗到最后一刻!永远不要让恐惧吞噬我们的内心,我们心中的红莲永远绽放,就算我们战死,我们也将成为末日圣战的英雄,永远在星辰的闪耀中释放光芒!

[ 本帖最后由 幻影之风 于 2008-11-22 14:45 编辑 ]

TOP

分类怎么会是录像!OTL

TOP

值得吐嘈的地方太多了...我都不知道从哪下嘴

TOP

No distinction between just and unjust war

In the 8th edition of Hall's International Law (1924), we find the following passages:
"As international law is destitute of any judicial or administrative machinery, it leaves states, which think themselves aggrieved, and which have exhausted all peaceable methods of obtaining satisfaction, to exact redress for themselves by force. It thus recognizes war as a permitted mode of giving effect to its decisions. Theoretically,….. as it (international law) professes to cover the whole field of the relations of states which can be brought within the scope of law, it ought to determine the causes for which war can be justly undertaken; ….. it might also not unreasonably go on to discourage the commission of wrongs by subjecting a wrongdoer to special disabilities.
The first of these ends it attains to a certain degree, though very imperfectly…. In most of the disputes which arise between states, the grounds of quarrel, though they might probably be always brought into connection with the wide fundamental principles of law, are too complex to be judged with any certainty by reference to them; sometimes again they have their origin in divergent notions, honestly entertained, as to what those principles consist in, and consequently as to the injunctions of secondary principles by which action is immediately governed; and sometimes they are caused by collisions of naked interest or sentiment, in which there is no question of right, but which are so violent as to render settlement impossible until a struggle has taken place. It is not, therefore, possible to frame general rules which will be of any practical value.
The second end international law does not even endeavor to attain. However able law might be to declare one of two combatants to have committed a wrong, it would be idle for it to affect to impart the character of a penalty to war when it is powerless to enforce its decisions.… International law has consequently no alternative but to accept war, independently of the justice of its origin, as a relation which the parties to it may set up if they choose, and to busy itself only in regulating the effects of the relation. Hence both parties to every war are regarded as being in an identical legal position, and consequently as being possessed of equal rights."

I need not stop here to express my view of the character of an international community or of international law. Both the expressions are used in specific senses in relation to international life as I would endeavor to show later. But even taking them in unqualified sense, no distinction was made between just and unjust war or between non-aggressive and aggressive war, and no difference in the legal character of a war was based on any such distinction.

TOP

The Pact of Paris was out of the category of a rule

On the question of self-defense, Mr. Kellogg declared that the right of self-defense was not limited to the defense of territory under the sovereignty of the state concerned, and that under the treaty, each state would have the prerogative of judging for itself, what action the right of self-defense covered and when it came into play, subject to the risk that this judgment might not be endorsed by the rest of the world. "The United States must judge…. and it is answerable to the public opinion of the world if it is not an honest defense; that is all." This is Mr. Kellogg's own statement.

This is how the Pact of Paris came into being and what it was intended to convey by its authors.
It indicates that the parties thereto intended to create by this Pact only a contractual obligation. Its originators did not design it for the entire Community of Nations. There were several reservations introduced by the several parties for their respective interests. This is compatible with contractual obligations, but not with law. No doubt it was a multilateral treaty or pact. But though a law can be created only by a multilateral treaty, every multilateral treaty does not create law. A rule of law, once created, must be binding on the states independently of their will, though the creation of the rule was dependent on its voluntary acceptance by them. The obligation of this Pact, however, always remains dependent on the will of the states, in as much as it is left to these states themselves to determine whether their action was or was not in violation of the obligation undertaken by the Pact.

Apart from any other consideration, the single fact that war in self-defense in international life is not only not prohibited, but that it is declared that each state retains "the prerogative of judging for itself what action the right of self-defense covered and when it came into play" is, in my opinion, sufficient to take the Pact out of the category of law. As declared by Mr. Kellogg, the right of self-defense was not limited to the defense of territory under the sovereignty of the state concerned.

Considerations relevant for the determination of the legal character of rules of conduct obtaining in society are:
1. That only through final ascertainment by agencies other than the parties to the dispute can the law be rendered certain; it is not rendered so by the ipse dixit of an interested party. Such certainty is of the essence of law.
2. That it is essential for the rule of law that there should exist agencies bearing evidence of or giving effect to the imperative nature of law.

The law's external nature may express itself either in the fact that it is a precept created independently of the will of the subject of the law, or that no matter how created, it continues to exist in respect of the subjects of the law independently of their will.
The pact of Paris as explained by Mr. Kellogg and as understood and accepted by the parties thereto would not stand these tests. The reservation of the right of self-defense and self-preservation in the form and to the extent explained by Mr. Kellogg would take the Pact out of the category of a rule of law.


The Pact of Paris was out of the category of a rule (Par II)


It must also be remembered that in the present state of the international life this reservation cannot be lightly dealt with. At the present stage of international community, if it can be called a community at all, this right of self-defense or self-preservation is even now a fundamental right and follows from the very nature of international relations. The whole of the duties of states are normally subordinate to this right.

Hall says: "Where law affords inadequate protection to the individual, he must be permitted, if his existence is in question, to protect himself by whatever means may be necessary, and it would be difficult to say that any act not inconsistent with the nature of a moral being is forbidden, so soon as it can be proved that by it, and it only, self-preservation can be secured. The right in this form works by suspending the obligation to act in obedience to other principles…. There are…circumstances falling short of occasions upon which existence is immediately in question, in which, through a sort of extension of the idea of self-preservation to include self-protection against serious hurt, states are allowed to disregard certain of the ordinary rules of law in the same manner as if their existence were involved…"

"When", River says, "a conflict arises between the right of self-preservation of a state and the duty of that state to respect the right of another, the right of self-preservation overrides the duty. Primum vivere. A man may be free to sacrifice himself. It is never permitted to a government to sacrifice the stated of which the destinies are confided to it. The government is then authorized, and even in certain circumstances bound, to violate the right of another country for the safety of its own. That is the excuse of necessity, an application of the reason of state. It is a legitimate excuse."

There are writers who support the view that there is nothing higher than the interest of each of the parties as judged by each party himself. If the other party is unwilling to give in, then only war can decide whose interest is legally stronger. This, according to them, is not the denial of law, but the only legal proof possible in international life.
Westlake, who takes a more restricted view of the right says: "What we take to be pointed out by justice as the true international right of self-preservation is merely that of self-defense. A state may defend itself by preventive means if, in its conscientious judgment necessary, against attack by another state, threat of attack, or preparations or other conduct from which an intention to attack may reasonably be apprehended. In so doing, it will be acting in a manner intrinsically defensive, even though externally aggressive. The conscientious judgment of the state acting on the right thus allowed must necessarily stand in the place of authoritative sanction, so long as the present imperfect organization of the world continues."

These different views of the right of self-defense are not of much consequence to us for our present purposes. What is necessary for us to notice is that the conception of aggression being only the complement of that of self-defense, so long as the question whether a particular war is or is not in self-defense remains unjusticiable, and is made to depend only upon the "conscientious judgment" of the party itself, the Pact fails to add anything to the existing law. It only serves to agitate the opinion of the world, and the risk involved in its violation lies only in rousing an unfavorable world opinion against the offending party. Nothing can be said to be "law" when its obligation is still for all practical purposes dependent on the mere will of the party.

TOP

No judge for the solution of international struggle


I have elsewhere given my view of the character of the so-called international community as it stood on the eve of the Second World War. It was simply a coordinated body of several independent sovereign units and certainly was not a body of which the order or security could be said to have been provided by law.
By saying this, I do not mean to suggest any absolute negation of international law. It is not my suggestion that the observance of the rules of international law, so far as these go, is not a matter of the obligation. These rules might have resulted from the calculation that their observance was not incompatible with the interest of the state. Yet, their observance need not be characterized as the result of such calculation. A state before being a willing party to a rule, might have willed thus on the basis of some such calculation, but after contribution of its "will", which is essential for the creation of the rule, it may not retain any right to withdraw from the obligation of the rule thus created. The rule thus exists independently of the will of the parties. It is of no consequence that in coming into existence it had to depend on such will. Yet, simply because the several states are thus subjected to certain obligatory rules, it does not follow that the states have formed a community under a reign of law. Its order or security is not yet provided by law. Peace in such a community is only a negative concept---it is simply a negation of war, or an assurance of the status quo. Even now each state is left to perform for itself the distributive function. The basis of international relations is still the competitive struggle of states, a struggle for the solution of which there is still no judge, no executor, no standard of decision. There are still dominated and enslaved nations, and there is no provision anywhere in the system for any peaceful readjustment without struggle. It is left to the nations themselves to see the readjustment.

TOP

终于把分类改成娱乐啦!

TOP

Vengeance not of any ethical value

So long as the international organization continues at the stage where the trial and punishment for any crime remains available only against the vanquished in a lost war, the introduction of criminal responsibility cannot produce the deterrent and the preventive effects.
The risk of criminal responsibility incurred in planning an aggressive war does not in the least become graver than that involved in the possible defeat in the war planned.

In my opinion it is inappropriate to introduce criminal responsibility of the agents of a state in international life for the purpose of retribution. Retribution, in the proper sense of the term, means the bringing home to the criminal the legitimate consequences of his conduct legitimate from the ethical standpoint. This would involve the determination of the degree of his moral responsibility, a task that is an impossibility for any legal Tribunal even in national life. Conditions of knowledge, of training, of opportunities for moral development, of social environment generally and of motive fall to be searched out even in justifying criminal responsibility on this ground in national life. In international life many other factors would fall to be considered before one can justify criminal responsibility on this retributive theory.

The only justification that remains for the introduction of such a conception in international life is revenge, a justification which all those who are demanding this trial are disclaiming.
It may be contended that indignation at a wrong done is a righteous feeling and that that feeling itself justifies the criminal law.
It is perhaps right that we should feel a certain satisfaction and recognize a certain fitness in the suffering of one who has done an international wrong. It may even be morally obligatory upon us to feel indignant at a wrong done.
But it would be going too far to say that a demand for the gratification of this feeling of revenge alone would justify a criminal law. In national systems a criminal law, while satisfying this feeling of revenge, is calculated to do something more of real ethical value and that is the real justification of the law. Though vengeance might be the seed out of which criminal justice has grown, the paramount object of such is the prevention of offenses by the menace of law.

The mere feeling of vengeance is not of any ethical value. It is not right that we should which evil to the offender unless it has the possibility of yielding any good. Two wholly distinct feelings require consideration in this connection. The one is a feeling of moral revulsion and is directed against the crime. The other is a desire for vengeance and is directed against the criminal. To revenge oneself is, in truth, but to add another evil to that which has already been done, and the admission of it as a right is, in effect, a negation of all civil and social order, for thereby are justified acts of violence not regulated by nor exercised with reference to, the social good. There are few who in modern times assert the abstract rightfulness of a desire for vengeance.

TOP

召唤翻译
本帖最近评分记录
God's in the heaven,All's right with the world

TOP

這大概是說,說到底DHL所謂的"末日圣战"只不過是一場戰爭而已.
而,什麼是正義的戰爭和不正義的戰爭,都沒有差別,因為各個國家都有自己的法律理據.
所有"自衛戰爭"的定義並沒有公論,自衛戰爭亦不限於保衛領土的主權,是按國家自行判斷.
DHL認為自己行使自衛權,因為是看到領土給侵略和首都給攻陷.
TTS RT認為自己行使自衛權,因為是看到DHL沒有外交和給認定是第四國的傀儡.
由於這些看法的分歧,國家才會利用戰爭去決定法律理據的高低.
所謂宣傳正義只是利用法律為國家去博取國際社會同情,或使國際社會認可.
然而,正義若真的套於國家的道德行為,是不適合的.
第四~八國亦只會按國家利益辦事,因為國家利益就是國家的道德行為.
因此,"最高正義"只可套於個人對個人,而不是個人對國家,國家對個人或國家對國家.
其他正義只是空話.
而,個人利用正義為國家去散佈仇恨,是沒有倫理價值的,貢獻不了真正的和平.
本帖最近评分记录

TOP

遗书...........................................
When history witnesses a great change,Razgriz reveals itself...first,as a dark demon.As a demon,it uses its power to rain death upon the land,and then it dies.However, after a period of slumber,Razgriz returns...

   This time as a great hero.

TOP

主编和咱见解咋这一致呢
XSK

TOP

TTS会为其愚蠢付出代价的。
这场战争TTS干的就是搬石头砸自己脚的事情。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 15:58 发表
這大概是說,說到底DHL所謂的"末日圣战"只不過是一場戰爭而已.
而,什麼是正義的戰爭和不正義的戰爭,都沒有差別,因為各個國家都有自己的法律理據.
所有"自衛戰爭"的定義並沒有公論,自衛戰爭亦不限於保衛領土的主權,是 ...
刺刀之下才会有真正的和平。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:37 发表
TTS会为其愚蠢付出代价的。
这场战争TTS干的就是搬石头砸自己脚的事情。
UID
    60327
帖子
    2

開主號出來噴過,跳樑戲服

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:40 发表

UID
    60327
帖子
    2

開主號出來噴過,跳樑戲服
我跟LZ无关系。如果你认为我是MJ,麻烦举证。
我看你倒挺跳梁了。

[ 本帖最后由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:43 编辑 ]

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:41 发表

我跟LZ无关系。
我看你倒挺跳梁了。
啊啊
你跟啥关系了,咱真想看誰無鎖好9屋

TOP

TTS愚蠢到会寄希望于RT。
呵呵,还来大谈国家利益。

[ 本帖最后由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:47 编辑 ]

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:44 发表

啊啊
你跟啥关系了,咱真想看誰無鎖好9屋
我跟谁啥关系跟我的发言啥关系?
别转移话题了,这不能显示你的高明。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:45 发表
TTS愚蠢都会寄希望于RT。
呵呵,还来大谈国家利益。
你倒別挑撥離間,自作聰明
你註冊的時候咱打滾一年多
你臉皮真的很簿

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-22 23:49 发表

你倒別挑撥離間,自作聰明
你註冊的時候咱打滾一年多
你臉皮真的很簿
打滚多久不代表你有多高明,懂不?

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:49 发表

打滚多久不代表你有多高明,懂不?
你很高明!戲服!我甘拜下風

TOP

挑拨离间?这个词真有趣
RT跟TTS什么关系?本来就是两个独 立]国家,还要离间么?
上面不是谈国家利益么,谈谈TTS跟RT有什么共同利益嘛。

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-22 23:55 发表
挑拨离间?这个词真有趣
RT跟TTS什么关系?本来就是两个独 立]国家,还要离间么?
上面不是谈国家利益么,谈谈TTS跟RT有什么共同利益嘛。
你這去問國際关系學者,你都可以翻翻我舊貼
建議學識廣闊的你幹DHL外交
我是大軟新人

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:00 发表

你這去問國際关系學者,你都可以翻翻我舊貼
建議學識廣闊的你幹DHL外交
我是大軟新人
不要回避,我就是问你TTS和RT的具体问题,不要拿教科书来敷衍我。

TOP

樓主太投入了..另外我覺得"的"比"の"好看.
Cum historia mutat valde
Razgriz revelat ipsum:
Primum daemon scelestus est.
Cum potentia sua
Daemon fundet mortem in terram:
Deinde moritur.
Cum somnus finit,
Razgriz surget iterum:
Magnus heros est.

TOP

引用:
原帖由 seacat 于 2008-11-23 00:04 发表

不要回避,我就是问你TTS和RT的具体问题,不要拿教科书来敷衍我。
咱就是拿教科书来敷衍你,
難道老人不可以教新人?
老吾老以及人之老,孝啊?
你有沒有家教啊?
novamc都學會了

TOP

引用:
原帖由 Junichoon 于 2008-11-23 00:08 发表
樓主太投入了..另外我覺得"的"比"の"好看.
年轻人,容易上脑,热血一下也正常。

TOP

LSSS是RT皇帝,
臉皮厚去問問人家

TOP

引用:
原帖由 bellatrix 于 2008-11-23 00:09 发表

咱就是拿教科书来敷衍你,
難道老人不可以教新人?
老吾老以及人之老,孝啊?
你有沒有家教啊?
novamc都學會了
什么新人老人,注册早点就来摆谱了?
师者,传道授业解惑也。
别转移话题,拿点干货出来,让我看看你能不能给我传道授业解惑。

TOP

 66 123
发新话题