也有人认为，安理会对各国实施的制裁是暂时的，是为了确保遵守，而且不能说这是建立新的国际法规则。这是一种看似合理的论点，因为即使制裁最初是暂时的，他们也可以在随后获得适用于其他违约国的法律效力，因此它们成为了惯例(我的论点也似是而非)。它是按照切斯特曼的论点提出的，即安理会的决定，即使以前不是立法的，也已经采取了激进的立场来对国家施加义务。关于恐怖主义的决议是如此，它要求各国通过立法，以对该决议产生影响，并向委员会报告关于该决议执行情况的进展情况(见szasz和关于恐怖主义的决议)。这与它的大多数决议相矛盾，这些决议通常鼓励各国做一件特别的事，而不是像“应该”那样使用有效的词语。这种义务通常是在国家一级发现的，在那里，你拥有一个立法机关，拥有必要的权力，并通过多边条约对其决定或在国际一级进行必要的检查，这些条约规定了各国同意的义务。
新西兰惠灵顿论文代写:实施制裁
It has also been contended that the sanctions that the Council places on states are temporary and meant to secure compliance and as such cannot be said to establish new rules of international law. This a plausible argument due to the fact that even if the sanctions were initially temporary, they can later acquire the force of law to be made applicable to other defaulting states, hence they become custom (my argument is plausible as well). It is submitted in line with Chesterman's argument that the Council's decisions even if previously not legislative, have taken a radical turn for imposing obligations on states. This is true of the resolution on terrorism which requires states to pass legislations to give effect to the resolution and report to a committee about progress made on the implementation of the resolution (see szasz and the resolution on terrorism).This is in contradiction to most of its resolutions which usually encourage states to do a particular thing rather than using operative words like"shall". This kind of obligation is usually found at the state level where you have a legislature with the requisite power and the necessary checks on its decisions or at the international level through multilateral treaties that create obligations on states with their consent.
如果您在惠灵顿有代写需求请点击 惠灵顿论文代写 了解更多
