挽歌:

战争使多数人流血，却养肥了少数人。(威·申斯通)War, where bleed the many to enrich the few. (William Shenstone)

from：‘Let the gull’d fool the toils of war pursue,Where bleed the many to enrich the few.Where Chance from Courage claims the boasted prize;Where, though she give, your country oft denies.’

---

新闻：

Mar 22nd 2022

Russia says Western sanctions and arms shipments to Ukraine are acts of war俄罗斯称西方制裁和向乌克兰运送武器是战争行为International law offers theoretical guidance, but little practical help国际法提供理论指导，但缺乏实际帮助

The bipartisan ceasefire in America over foreign policy is eroding and Republicans are Joe Biden for being weak in dealing with Russia. “We’re not doing nearly enough, quickly enough to help the Ukrainians,” said Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, on March 16th. After a video address to the joint houses of Congress by Volodymyr Zelens ky, in which the Ukrainian president asked for a no-fly zone over his country, Republican demands for that have grown .美国两党就外交政策达成的停火协议正在削弱，共和党人指责乔·拜登在与俄罗斯打交道方面软弱无力。 参议院少数党米奇·麦康奈尔 (Mitch McConnell) 3 月 16 日说：“我们在帮助乌克兰人方面做得不够、不够快。”乌克兰总统弗拉基米尔·泽伦斯基（Volodymyr Zelensky）向国会联席会议发表视频讲话，请求在他的上空设立禁飞区，之后共和党对该请求的呼声越来越高。

chide：/t?a?d/ v指责to speak to someone severely because they have behaved badlyclamorous:/?kl?m.?r.?s/ n吵闹的making loud demands or complaints*参议院少数党即是共和党

For their part, the Democrats accuse Republicans of recklessness. Chris Coons, who has Mr Biden’s old Senate seat from Delaware, complained that those who “run to the cameras with forceful proposals…are the last to come to classified briefings”. The administration seems to be trying to steer a course between helping Ukraine fight its battles while avoiding being sucked into a war with its old nuclear-armed adversary. It reportedly conducted a legal review of what weapons and intelligence it can send (in part because of restrictions in domestic legislation). So is it possible to say where the middle course lies? Are there any rules or guidelines about what countries that are not directly participating in the fighting can do in wartime?就民主党人而言，他们指责共和党人鲁莽。 拥有拜登先生的特拉华州（Delaware）旧参议院席位的克里斯库恩斯（Chris Coons）抱怨说，那些“跑到镜头前提出大胆建议的人……是最后来参加机密简会的人”。 政府似乎正试图在帮助乌克兰打仗的同时避免卷入与其拥有核武器的老对手的战争之间。 据报道，政府对其可以输送的武器和情报进行了法律审查（部分原因是国内立法对此有所限制）。 那么可以确定中间路线在哪里吗？ 对于不直接参与战斗的在战时可以做什么，是否有任何规则或指导方针？The simple answer is, not formally. Countries tend to do what they think they can get away with. America armed the mujahideen fighters resisting the Soviet conquest of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union sent tanks, helicopters and other military assistance to help the North battle American forces during the Vietnam war.简单的答案是，没有正式的指导。 倾向于做他们认为可以逃脱责任的事情。 美国武装了抵抗苏联征服阿富汗的圣战战士。 在越南战争期间，苏联派出坦克、直升机和其他军事援助来帮助北美与美军作战。

But there is a careful to be made. , writes Steven Pifer, a former American ambassador to Ukraine, in a recent essay, a set of rules seems to be developing to reduce the chances of a direct conflict between Russia and nato. These disallow a no-fly zone over Ukraine, but seem to permit the West to share intelligence and at least some arms with Ukraine, and to impose economic sanctions on Russia without provoking a military response.但是需要仔细校准行为。 前美国驻乌克兰大使史蒂文·皮弗（Steven Pifer）在最近的一篇文章中间接提到，一套规则似乎正在制定，以减少俄罗斯与北约之间发生直接冲突的可能性。 这些规则不允许在乌克兰设立禁飞区，但似乎允许西方与乌克兰分享情报和至少一些武器，并在不引起军事反应的情况下对俄罗斯实施经济制裁。

calibration：/?k?l.?bre?.?n/ n校准units of measurement marked on an instrument so that it can measure accuratelyTacitly：/?t?s.? avwithout expressing something directly

There used to be a body of international treaties and precedents, referred to as “the law of neutrality”, which set out the conduct expected of neutral countries in times of conflict. They were supposed to treat the warring parties equally; there were rules about what that entailed in practice. But this system the idea that war was a normal part of international relations, and that states should be left to get on with it. That view fell out of favour after the first world war, however, and was completely discarded after the second, when a new set of rules was in the charter of the United Nations.过去有一套国际条约和先例，被称为“中立法”，规定了中立在冲突时应采取的行为。 他们应该平等对待交战各方； 关于这在实践中意味着什么，有一些晦涩难懂的规则。 但是这个体系的基础是战争是国际关系的正常部分，应该让交战国继续进行下去。 然而，这种观点在次世界大战后失宠，并在第二次世界大战后被完全抛弃，当时一套新的规则被载入联合国宪章。

arcane：/ɑ?ke?n/ a晦涩难懂的mysterious and known only by a few peoplepredicate：/?pred.?.k?t/be predicated on sth：观点等的基础If an idea or argument is predicated on something, it depends on the existence or truth of this thingbelligerent ：/b?l?d?.?r.?nt/ a好战的wishing to fight or argueenshrine： /?n?ra?n/ v载入to contain or keep something as if in a holy place

The un charter states: “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But if one country ignores this prohibition and invades another, there is no implication that third parties are obliged to remain neutral or treat the belligerents equally. Instead, the un charter talks about “the inherent right of...collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”. In other words, it is perfectly legitimate for other countries to come to the aid of one that has been attacked.联合国宪章规定：“所有会员国在其国际关系中应避免以武力威胁或使用武力侵犯任何的领土完整或政治独立。” 但如果一个无视这一禁令并入侵另一个，并不意味着第三方有义务保持中立或平等对待交战方。 相反，联合国宪章谈到“在发生武装袭击时……集体自卫的固有权利”。 换句话说，其他向受到攻击的提供援助是完全合法的。Marko Milanovic of the University of Nottingham argues that collective self-defence would even allow nato countries to attack Russia itself, subject only to another un rule that such actions must be “proportionate and necessary”. Collective self-defence, he suggests, does not require outsiders to distinguish between passive support (supplying weapons, imposing sanctions) and active fighting. Both happened after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990; both are allowed now in defence of Ukraine. On this view, Republican demands for more vigorous military action by the administration would have the sanction of international law.诺丁汉大学的马尔科·米拉诺维奇(Marko Milanovic）认为，集体自卫甚至可以让北约攻击俄罗斯本身，只要遵守另一项联合国规则，即此类行动必须“相称且必要”。 他建议，集体自卫不需要外人区分被动支持（提供武器、实施制裁）和主动战斗。 两者都发生在 1990 年伊拉克入侵科威特之后； 现在两者都被允许为乌克兰辩护。 根据这种观点，共和党要求政府采取更强有力的军事行动将得到国际法的认可。

*Indeed, if it sells munitions to Russia knowing they are likely to be used against civilians, it would be colluding in a war crime. In practice, of course, Russia claims—absurdly—that Ukraine is the aggressor, and that Russia invaded it to prevent the genocide of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking minority, a view that has been rejected by the International Court of Justice (icj), the un’s judicial arm.事实上，如果它向俄罗斯出售军火，就知道它们可能会被用来对付平民，这就是勾结战争罪。 当然，在实践中，俄罗斯声称——荒谬地——乌克兰是侵略者，俄罗斯入侵乌克兰是为了防止对乌克兰讲俄语的少数民族进行种族灭绝，这一观点已被国际法院 (icj)和 联合国的司法机构否定。

collude：/k?lu?d/ v勾结to act together secretly or illegally in order to deceive or cheat someone

The big questions, however, concern Ukraine’s Western allies. More military assistance might be justified legally. Would it make sense more broadly? And would Western countries be willing to accept the unpredictable consequences of giving more military support? Although Vladimir Putin has already declared the West’s sanctions on Russia “akin to an act of war”, he has not behaved as if he believes it. His foreign ministry has announced that weapons convoys from nato countries are “legitimate targets”. But where he might hit them—inside Ukraine or across the Polish border—could make a world of difference.然而，更大的问题涉及乌克兰的西方盟友。 更多的军事援助可能在法律上是合理的。 它会具有更广泛的意义吗？ 西方是否愿意接受提供更多军事支持后的不可预测的后果？ 尽管弗拉基米尔·普京已经宣布西方对俄罗斯的制裁“类似于战争行为”，但他并没有表现出他相信这一点。 他的外交部宣布，来自北约的武器车队是“合法目标”。 但他可能在哪里袭击他们——在乌克兰境内或越过波兰边境——其后果可能会完全不同。

Nato has suggested there should indeed be limits on how involved other countries get in the war in Ukraine. It has, for example, been willing to provide anti-tank missiles to Ukraine but has rejected the Ukrainian government’s request that it send fighter jets as too provocative and has turned a deaf ear to insistent demands for a no-fly zone. These decisions are based on a calculation of how Mr Putin might react. The alliance does not wish to give the Russian president even the flimsiest of excuses to widen the conflict and “retaliate”.北约建议确实应该限制其他如何卷入乌克兰战争。 例如，它愿意向乌克兰提供反坦克导弹，但拒绝了乌克兰政府要求它派出战斗机的要求，因为它过于挑衅，并且对坚持设立禁飞区的要求置若罔闻。 这些决定是基于对普京可能如何反应的计算。 联盟不希望给俄罗斯总统哪怕是最站不住脚的借口来扩大冲突和“报复”。

Whatever the legal position, there is no easy way to enforce the rules enshrined in the un charter, especially since Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, can veto almost any action the un might take. Russia is shrugging off proceedings against it at the icj, which has ordered it to cease attacks and withdraw its forces. It shows little concern for the Geneva Conventions, treaties to which it is party and which provide protections for civilians in war zones. It is this brutish conduct, in practice, that limits Western help for Ukraine and constrains the American administration: nato governments do not want to enrage an adversary with so few qualms about how it behaves.无论法律立场如何，都没有简单的方法来执行《联合国宪章》所载的规则，特别是因为俄罗斯作为安理会常任理事国，几乎可以否决联合国可能采取的任何行动。 俄罗斯对国际法院针对它的诉讼不屑一顾，国际法院已下令停止袭击并撤军。 它对日内瓦公约、它是缔约国的条约以及为战区平民提供保护的条约几乎没有表现出关注。 正是这种野蛮行为在实践中限制了西方对乌克兰的帮助并限制了美国政府：北约政府不想激怒一个对自己的行为毫不怀疑的对手。

---

相关阅读：