本次讲座深入探讨了冷战后新兴的全球秩序，重点关注国际刑事法院（ICC）和保护责任（R2P）原则，两者都是重塑国际法和国际政治的尝试。讲座首先强调了卢旺达种族灭绝，这是一个国际社会不作为的鲜明例子，象征性地体现在《卫报》的一张照片中，照片显示联合国维和人员在暴行发生时袖手旁观。这一事件，加上索马里的惨败，凸显了主要大国，特别是克林顿总统领导下的美国，不愿干预外国冲突。 国际刑事法院由1998年的《罗马规约》设立，旨在建立一个常设机构，以起诉战争罪、危害人类罪和种族灭绝罪。它独立于联合国运作，但联合国安理会可以将案件提交给它。虽然它被誉为迈向问责制的一步，但国际刑事法院也因其对非洲国家的过度关注，以及缺乏普遍支持（特别是来自美国的），而受到批评，美国拒绝将其公民置于该法院的管辖之下。国际刑事法院的有效性备受争议，人们对其威慑作用以及对涉及对犯罪者实行大赦的谈判解决方案的潜在影响提出了质疑。 保护责任原则（R2P）在北约干预科索沃之后出现，它提出各国有责任保护其人民免受种族灭绝、战争罪、种族清洗和危害人类罪的侵害。这一概念是由北约于1999年中期干预科索沃阿尔巴尼亚穆斯林的种族清洗而触发的，这也是未经安理会授权的行为。如果国家当局未能履行这一责任，国际社会经安理会授权可以进行干预。该原则在2005年联合国大会的世界首脑会议成果文件中正式确定，它挑战了国家主权作为防止干预的绝对屏障的传统观念。 保护责任原则之所以重要，是因为它关注政府保护其人民的责任，将其限制在特定的恶性犯罪行为，并且它对安理会不具有约束力。虽然它为干预提供了一个框架，但它并不能保证干预一定会发生，从而允许根据安理会的自由裁量权进行选择性适用。演讲者强调了保护责任原则的复杂性和潜在的陷阱。虽然它体现了防止大规模暴行的崇高理想，但也引发了人们对其可能被强国操纵以推进自身议程的担忧。这是因为在某些情况下，关于保护责任原则的适用条件是否成立存在争议。 讲座最后考察了保护责任原则在苏丹、肯尼亚、几内亚和利比亚的早期试验。2011年由安理会授权的利比亚干预行动，是一个关键的案例研究。演讲者预示着在即将到来的讲座中，将对利比亚干预及其对保护责任原则未来的影响进行更深入的分析。他强调了考虑全球反恐战争如何重塑国际格局并影响像保护责任原则这样的前景的重要性。总体基调保持谨慎，承认这些原则有可能改善人权，但也认识到在充斥着冲突利益和权力动态的世界中，实施这些原则所面临的挑战和复杂性。

This lecture delves into the emerging global order after the Cold War, focusing on the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, both attempts to reshape international law and politics. The lecture begins by highlighting the Rwandan genocide as a stark example of international inaction, symbolized by a Guardian photograph of UN peacekeepers standing by as atrocities occur. This event, coupled with the Somalia debacle, underscored the reluctance of major powers, particularly the US under President Clinton, to intervene in foreign conflicts. The ICC, established by the Rome Treaty in 1998, represents an effort to create a permanent body to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. It operates independently of the UN, though the UN Security Council can refer cases to it. While hailed as a step towards accountability, the ICC has been criticized for its disproportionate focus on African countries and for lacking universal support, particularly from the US, which refuses to subject its citizens to the court's jurisdiction. The effectiveness of the ICC is debated, with questions raised about its deterrent effect and its potential impact on negotiated settlements involving amnesty for perpetrators. The R2P doctrine, emerging in the wake of NATO's intervention in Kosovo, proposes that states have a responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. The concept was triggered by NATO's intervention in mid-1999 as ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims in Kosovo occurred, which was also an unauthorized Security Council act. If national authorities fail in this responsibility, the international community, authorized by the Security Council, can intervene. The doctrine, formalized in the UN General Assembly's 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, challenges the traditional notion of national sovereignty as an absolute shield against intervention. The R2P is significant for its focus on the responsibility of governments to protect their populations, its limitation to specific egregious crimes, and its non-binding nature on the Security Council. While it offers a framework for intervention, it doesn't guarantee it, allowing for selective application based on the Security Council's discretion. The speaker highlights the complexities and potential pitfalls of the R2P doctrine. While it embodies a noble ideal of preventing mass atrocities, it also raises concerns about its potential for manipulation by powerful states to advance their own agendas. This is because whether the conditions for the R2P prevail or not are disputed in some cases. The lecture concludes by examining early tests of the R2P doctrine in Sudan, Kenya, Guinea, and Libya. The Libyan intervention, authorized by the Security Council in 2011, serves as a pivotal case study. The presenter foreshadows a deeper analysis of the Libyan intervention and its implications for the future of the R2P doctrine in an upcoming lecture. He emphasizes the importance of considering how the global war on terror has reshaped the international landscape and impacted the prospects for doctrines like the R2P. The overall tone remains cautious, acknowledging the potential of these doctrines to improve human rights, but also recognizing the challenges and complexities of their implementation in a world characterized by conflicting interests and power dynamics.