• <td id="4qsos"><table id="4qsos"></table></td>
    <noscript id="4qsos"></noscript>
  • 手機APP下載

    您現在的位置: 首頁 > 口譯筆譯 > 英漢翻譯素材 > 外交與國際 > 正文

    美國人權政治化行徑毀損人權善治根基(1)(中英對照)

    來源:可可英語 編輯:Villa ?  可可英語APP下載 |  可可官方微信:ikekenet

    US Politicization of Human Rights Erodes Foundations of Human Rights Governance

    美國人權政治化行徑毀損人權善治根基

    The China Society for Human Rights Studies

    中國人權研究會

    December 2021

    2021年12月

    Since the end of WWII, global human rights practices have repeatedly proved that rejecting the politics-oriented mentality and discussing and promoting human rights on an equal and rational basis is a major prerequisite for the international community to properly handle human rights issues and conduct exchange and cooperation in this regard. For this reason, measures taken purposely to politicize human rights issues could prove fatal to global human rights governance. This has become a fundamental consensus reached by the international community on human rights.

    第二次世界大戰結束以來的全球人權實踐反復證明,擺脫政治化思維、平等理性地商討和推進人權,是國際社會妥善處理人權問題、開展人權交流合作的重要基礎;而采取人權政治化措施,則勢必對全球人權善治造成致命傷害。這已成為國際人權領域的基本共識。

    The term “politicization of human rights” refers to the propensity and process that actors in international relations, out of certain political motives, deal with human rights issues in an attitude of political utilitarianism to realize certain political interests. The politicization of human rights has the following patterns of manifestation: (1) Human rights issues are treated in selective rather than universal ways; (2) Human rights conditions are evaluated by double standards rather than objective standards; (3) Differences in human rights issues are dealt with through confrontation rather than dialogue; and (4) Divergences over human rights issues are resolved through unilateral coercion rather than multilateral cooperation.

    “人權政治化”,是指國際關系行為體出于某種政治動機以政治實用主義的態度來處理人權問題,將人權作為實現某種政治利益的傾向與過程。人權政治化的表現形式主要包括:(1)以選擇性而不是普遍性的方式對待人權問題;(2)以雙重標準而不是客觀標準評價人權狀況;(3)以對抗而不是對話的方式處理在人權問題上的差異;(4)以單方面強制而不是多邊合作的方式處理人權方面的分歧等等。

    The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) advocates the non-politicization of human rights and a universal and objective attitude toward human rights issues. The UNHRC upholds multilateralism and calls for the elimination of human rights politicization through constructive dialogue and international solidarity and cooperation. Resolution 60/251 of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) underscores “the importance of ensuring universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in consideration of human rights issues, and the elimination of double standards and politicization.” The UNHRC’s Resolution 5/1 demands that “the universal periodic review should be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner,” and that “the principles of objectivity, non-selectivity, and the elimination of double standards and politicization should apply.” Moreover, a communication…shall be admissible, provided that it is “not manifestly politically motivated” and “not resorting to politically motivated stands contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.” The UNHRC’s Resolution 47/9 emphasizes that “human rights dialogue should be constructive and based on the principles of universality, indivisibility, objectivity, non-selectivity, non-politicization, mutual respect and equal treatment.”

    聯合國人權機構明確主張人權的非政治化,要求在人權問題上采取普遍、客觀的態度,堅持多邊主義,促進建設性對話、國際團結與合作,消除人權政治化。聯合國大會第60/251號決議要求“在審議人權問題時要確保普遍性、客觀性和非選擇性,并要消除雙重標準和政治化”。人權理事會第5/1號決議規定人權普遍定期審議機制應“客觀、透明、不作選擇、具有建設性、非對抗、非政治化地進行”,應“適用客觀性、非選擇性、消除雙重標準和政治化傾向的原則”,受理的來文應當“沒有明顯的政治動機”“不采取含有政治動機并有違《聯合國憲章》規定的立場”。人權理事會第47/9號決議強調,“人權對話應具有建設性,并基于普遍性、不可分割性、客觀性、非選擇性、非政治化、相互尊重和平等相待等原則”。

    However, to maintain its political interests and global hegemony, the United States has brazenly resorted to human rights politicization in the international community through such means as adopting selective and double standards and imposing unilateral coercion. Its behaviors have seriously eroded the foundation that underlies the global human rights governance, gravely threatened the international development of human rights cause, and generated outrageously destructive consequences.

    然而,美國為了維護自身的政治利益和全球霸權地位,在國際人權領域大搞人權政治化,采取選擇性、雙重標準、單方面強制等手段,嚴重侵蝕了全球人權治理賴以支撐和運行的重要基礎,對全球人權事業發展構成重大威脅,產生了極其惡劣的破壞性后果。

    I. The historical process of US politicization of human rights

    一、美國人權政治化的歷史進程

    Generally speaking, the US politicization of human rights can be divided into three stages. The first stage is before the 1970s when the US adopted the international human rights standards after a fashion but still snubbed or even rejected them. The second stage was from the 1970s to the end of the Cold War when the US promoted “human rights diplomacy” and used human rights as a political tool to attack the former Soviet Union. The third stage started from the end of the Cold War and has lasted ever since, during which the US has arbitrarily imposed upon other countries its own human rights values as a “soft power” and suppressed countries of different political systems in the attempt to maintain US dominant status in the world.

    從總體上看,美國的人權政治化可以分為三個階段:在20世紀70年代之前,對國際人權標準持勉強、冷漠甚至拒斥態度;在20世紀70年代至冷戰結束前,推進“人權外交”,利用人權作為打擊前蘇聯的政治工具;在冷戰結束后,肆無忌憚地將自己的人權價值觀作為“軟實力”強加于他國,打壓與自己政治制度不同的國家,以維護自身的全球霸權。

    (I) Period I: The US snubbed and rejected international human rights

    (一)漠視及拒斥國際人權時期

    While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was in the making, the US government expressed verbal support while stressing that it should be no more than an inspiring document with no binding force. It insisted on making the articles on human rights as ambiguous as possible, strongly objected to the initiative proposed by some countries and organizations to detail those articles and the obligations to be borne by each member state. After the UDHR was adopted, the American representative said that only one article – Article 22 – applies to the US, and only one sentence in Article 22 has any value, which is that whether the UDHR could be put into practice depends on “the organization and resources of each State.”

    在《世界人權宣言》制定過程中,美國政府一方面在口頭上表示支持,另一方面卻竭力強調這只是一個不具約束力、只具鼓舞性的文件。美國堅持把《世界人權宣言》中的人權條款寫得盡可能含糊其辭,竭力抵制一些國家和組織提出的把人權條款細致化、把各國所應承擔的義務具體化的倡議。在《世界人權宣言》通過后,出席聯合國人權大會的美國代表立即宣稱,《世界人權宣言》只有一條,即第22條對美國適用;而在第22條中,又只有一句話有價值,即《世界人權宣言》能否實現,取決于“各國組織與資源情況”。

    After 1953, America’s attitude toward internationally acknowledged human rights shifted from reluctance and unwillingness to support to outright indifference. Soon after he came into power, Eisenhower announced that his administration would keep a distance from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and claimed that its domestic and foreign policies would not be bound by human rights obligations. The UN passed in 1960 the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and other measures providing moral support and political legitimacy to anti-colonist forces, which the US either voted against or simply abstained. The same happened to many other human rights treaties. The US was ambiguous about the UN’s efforts to support South Africa’s struggle against the apartheid system in the 1960s because that was at odds with its long-term strategic interests in the country. At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States, out of consideration of national security, regarded the democratizing Guatemalan government of ?rbenz as the expansion of Soviet Communist forces in the country, and finally overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala through two secret operations and the combination of diplomatic pressure and psychological warfare. This became a common pattern for the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin American countries.

    1953年后,美國對國際上公認的人權由不太情愿地參與和勉強支持轉向公開的漠視。艾森豪威爾政府上臺后立即宣布與《世界人權宣言》保持距離,聲稱在其內外政策方面,將不受人權義務的制約。1960年聯合國通過的《非殖民化宣言》及其他一些對反殖民勢力予以道義和政治合法性支持的措施,美國政府要么投反對票,要么投棄權票。許多其他人權條約也遭到了同樣的冷遇。對20世紀60年代聯合國反對南非種族隔離制度的努力,美國的回應則模棱兩可,因為這與美國在南非的長期戰略利益存在明顯的矛盾。冷戰初期,美國出于國家安全的考慮,將有民主化傾向的危地馬拉阿本斯政府視為蘇聯共產主義勢力在該國的擴張,并通過兩次秘密行動,采取外交壓力和心理戰相結合的手段,最終推翻了危地馬拉的民選政府。這成為后來美國在拉丁美洲干涉他國內政的常用模式。

    重點單詞   查看全部解釋    
    psychological [.saikə'lɔdʒikəl]

    想一想再看

    adj. 心理(學)的

     
    conduct [kən'dʌkt]

    想一想再看

    n. 行為,舉動,品行
    v. 引導,指揮,管理

    聯想記憶
    indifference [in'difərəns]

    想一想再看

    n. 不重視,無興趣,漠不關心

     
    announced [ə'naunst]

    想一想再看

    宣布的

     
    gravely

    想一想再看

    adv. 嚴肅地;嚴峻地;沉重地;嚴重地

     
    fundamental [.fʌndə'mentl]

    想一想再看

    adj. 基本的,根本的,重要的
    n. 基本原

     
    declaration [.deklə'reiʃən]

    想一想再看

    n. 宣布,宣言

    聯想記憶
    warfare ['wɔ:fɛə]

    想一想再看

    n. 戰爭,沖突

     
    strategic [strə'ti:dʒik]

    想一想再看

    adj. 戰略的,重要的,基本的

     
    status ['steitəs]

    想一想再看

    n. 地位,身份,情形,狀況

    聯想記憶
    ?
    發布評論我來說2句

      最新文章

      可可英語官方微信(微信號:ikekenet)

      每天向大家推送短小精悍的英語學習資料.

      添加方式1.掃描上方可可官方微信二維碼。
      添加方式2.搜索微信號ikekenet添加即可。
      无码免费久久无码免费A片
    • <td id="4qsos"><table id="4qsos"></table></td>
      <noscript id="4qsos"></noscript>