zh
stringlengths 1
4.19k
| en
stringlengths 1
3.42k
|
|---|---|
*1921908* | *1921908* |
第七十四届会议 | Seventy-fourth session |
议程项目 56 | Agenda item 56 |
影响非自治领土人民利益的经济活动和其他活动 | Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories |
2019 年 12 月 13 日大会决议 | Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 December 2019 |
[根据特别政治和非殖民化委员会(第四委员会)的报告(A/74/415)通过] | [on the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (A/74/415)] |
74/94. 影响非自治领土人民利益的经济活动和其他活动 | 74/94. Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories |
大会， | The General Assembly, |
审议了题为“影响非自治领土人民利益的经济活动和其他活动”的项目， | Having considered the item entitled “Economic and other activities which affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories”, |
审查了给予殖民地国家和人民独立宣言执行情况特别委员会 2019 年报告中有关该项目的章节，1 | Having examined the chapter of the report of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for 2019 relating to the item,1 |
回顾其 1960 年 12 月 14 日第 1514 (XV)号决议及其所有其他有关决议，特别是 1991 年 12 月 19 日第 46/181 号、2000 年 12 月 8 日第 55/146 号和 2010 年12 月 10 日第 65/119 号决议， | Recalling its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, as well as all its other relevant resolutions, including, in particular, resolutions 46/181 of 19 December 1991, 55/146 of 8 December 2000 and 65/119 of 10 December 2010, |
重申各管理国应根据《联合国宪章》所规定的庄严义务，促进其管理下领土的居民的政治、经济、社会和教育发展，并保护这些领土的人力资源和自然资源不被滥用， | Reaffirming the solemn obligation of the administering Powers under the Charter of the United Nations to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the Territories under their administration and to protect the human and natural resources of those Territories against abuses, |
又重申任何经济活动或其他活动、包括将非自治领土用于军事活动，若对非自治领土人民的利益及他们根据《宪章》和大会第 1514 (XV)号决议及联合国关于非殖民化的相关决议行使自决权产生不利影响，即违反《宪章》的宗旨和原则， | Reaffirming also that any economic or other activity, including the use of the Non-Self-Governing Territories for military activity, that has a negative impact on the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and on the exercise of their right to self-determination in conformity with the Charter, General Assembly lf-Governing Territories 2/4 19-21908 resolution 1514 (XV) and the other relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization is contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter, |
还重申自然资源是属于包括土著人民在内所有非自治领土人民的遗产，影响非自治领土人民利益的经济活动和其他活动 | Reaffirming further that the natural resources are the heritage of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the indigenous populations, |
考虑到根据《联合国宪章》和联合国关于非殖民化的有关决议，大会 1962 年12 月 14 日关于各民族对其自然财富和资源的主权的第 1803(XVII)号决议， | Taking into account its resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962 regarding the sovereignty of peoples over their natural wealth and resources in accordance with the Charter and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization, |
认识到每个领土的地理位置、面积和经济条件的特殊情况，铭记须促进每个领土经济的稳定和多样化，并使其得到加强， | Aware of the special circumstances of the geographical location, size and economic conditions of each Territory, and bearing in mind the need to promote the stability, diversification and strengthening of the economy of each Territory, |
意识到小领土特别易受飓风、自然现象或其他极端天气事件和环境退化的影响， | Conscious of the particular vulnerability of the small Territories to hurricanes, natural phenomena or other extreme weather events and environmental degradation, |
再次表示深为关切 2017 年在加勒比海非自治领土发生的飓风、自然现象或其他极端天气事件数量和规模及其破坏性影响，其后果是造成生命损失，对这些领土的脆弱社会造成经济、社会和环境负面影响，并阻碍它们实现可持续发展，特别是在安圭拉、英属维尔京群岛、特克斯和凯科斯群岛和美属维尔京群岛以及波多黎各，特别委员会讨论了这种情况， | Reaffirming its deep concern at the number and scale of hurricanes, natural phenomena or other extreme weather events and their devastating impact in 2017 in the Non-Self-Governing Territories in the Caribbean Sea, resulting in the loss of life and negative economic, social and environmental consequences for their vulnerable societies and hampering the achievement of sustainable development in these Territories, in particular in Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the United States Virgin Islands, as well as in Puerto Rico, whose situation is addressed in the Special Committee, |
强调联合国发展系统内包容各方和执行大会有关决议的重要性，包括 2015年 9 月 25 日题为“变革我们的世界：2030 年可持续发展议程”的第 70/1 号决议和 2018 年 12 月 20 日关于减少灾害风险的第 73/231 号决议， | Stressing the importance of inclusiveness within the United Nations development system and with respect to the implementation of relevant General Assembly resolutions, including resolution 70/1 of 25 September 2015, entitled “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ”, and resolution 73/231 of 20 December 2018 on disaster risk reduction, |
意识到外国经济投资如果是与非自治领土人民合作并根据他们的愿望进行，就能对这些领土的社会经济发展及对领土人民根据联合国相关决议行使自决权作出有效贡献， | Conscious that foreign economic investment, when undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes, could make a valid contribution to the socioeconomic development of the Territories and to the exercise of their right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations, |
关切任何以损害非自治领土居民利益的方式利用这些领土的自然及人力资源的活动， | Concerned about any activities aimed at exploiting the natural and human resources of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to the detriment of the interests of the inhabitants of those Territories, |
铭记历次不结盟国家国家元首和政府首脑会议的最后文件以及非洲联盟国家元首和政府首脑会议、太平洋岛屿论坛和加勒比共同体所通过的各项决议的有关规定， | Bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the final documents of the successive Conferences of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries and of the resolutions adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union, the Pacific Islands Forum and the Caribbean Community, |
1. 重申非自治领土人民根据《联合国宪章》和载有《给予殖民地国家和人民独立宣言》的大会第 1514 (XV)号决议及联合国相关决议享有自决权，并重申他们有权享有其自然资源，有权以最符合他们利益的方式支配这些资源； | 1. Reaffirms the right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), containing the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and with other relevant resolutions of the United Nations, as well as their right to the enjoyment of their natural resources and their right to dispose of those resources in their best interest; |
2. 申明与非自治领土人民合作并根据其愿望进行的外国经济投资有其价值，可对这些领土的社会经济发展作出有效贡献，尤其是在经济和金融危机时期； | 2. Affirms the value of foreign economic investment undertaken in collaboration with the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories and in accordance with their wishes in order to make a valid contribution to the socioeconomic development of the Territories, especially during times of economic and financial crisis; |
3. 重申管理国按照《宪章》规定有责任促进非自治领土的政治、经济、社会和教育发展，并重申非自治领土人民对其自然资源的合法权利； | 3. Reaffirms the responsibility of the administering Powers under the Charter to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and also reaffirms the legitimate rights of their peoples over their natural resources; |
4. 再次表示关切以损害加勒比、太平洋和其他区域的非自治领土人民包括土著人民利益的方式利用这些人民所继承的自然资源以及人力资源并剥夺其对这些资源支配权的任何活动； | 4. Reaffirms its concern about any activities aimed at the exploitation of the natural resources that are the heritage of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, including the indigenous populations, in the Caribbean, the Pacific an d other regions, and of their human resources, to the detriment of their interests, and in such a way as to deprive them of their right to dispose of those resources; |
5. 重申须避免任何对非自治领土人民的利益产生不利影响的经济活动和其他活动、包括将非自治领土用于军事活动，在此方面提醒管理国有责任根据联合国关于非殖民化的相关决议，对有损非自治领土人民利益的任何活动负责；影响非自治领土人民利益的经济活动和其他活动 A/RES/74/94 | 5. Reaffirms the need to avoid any economic or other activities, including the use of the Non-Self-Governing Territories for military activity, that adversely affect the interests of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and in this regard reminds the administering Powers of their responsibility and accountability vis-à-vis any detriment to the interests of the peoples of those Territories, in accordance with relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization; |
6. 再次促请尚未根据大会 1970 年 10 月 12 日第 2621 (XXV) 号决议有关规定行事的各国政府，对在非自治领土拥有并经营有损这些领土居民利益的企业的本国国民及本国管辖下的法人团体采取立法、行政或其他措施，关闭这类企业； | 6. Calls once again upon all Governments that have not yet done so to take, in accordance with the relevant provisions of General Assembly resolution 2621 (XXV) of 12 October 1970, legislative, administrative or other measures in respect of their nationals and the bodies corporate under their jurisdiction that o wn and operate enterprises in the Non-Self-Governing Territories that are detrimental to the interests of the inhabitants of those Territories, in order to put an end to such enterprises; |
7. 促请管理国确保在其管理下非自治领土内的海洋资源及其他自然资源开采不违反联合国有关决议，并且不会对这些领土人民的利益造成不利影响； | 7. Calls upon the administering Powers to ensure that the exploitation of the marine and other natural resources in the Non-Self-Governing Territories under their administration is not in violation of the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and does not adversely affect the interests of the peoples of those Territories; |
8. 邀请各国政府和联合国系统各组织依照联合国关于非殖民化的相关决议，采取一切可能措施，确保非自治领土人民对其自然资源的永久主权得到充分尊重和保障； | 8. Invites all Governments and organizations of the United Nations system to take all possible measures to ensure that the permanent sovereignty of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories over their natural resources is fully respected and safeguarded in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization; |
9. 再次敦促有关管理国采取有效措施，保障和保证非自治领土人民对其自然资源以及确立和保持对这些资源未来开发的控制享有不可剥夺的权利，并请管理国依照联合国关于非殖民化的有关决议，采取一切必要步骤，保护各领土人民的产权； | 9. Once again urges the administering Powers concerned to take effective measures to safeguard and guarantee the inalienable right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to their natural resources and to establish and maintain control over the future development of those resources, and requests the administering Powers to take all steps necessary to protect the property rights of the peoples of those Territories in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization; |
10. 促请有关管理国确保其管理领土内不存在歧视性的工作条件，推动在每个领土实行适用于所有居民的不带任何歧视的公平工资制度； | 10. Calls upon the administering Powers concerned to ensure that no discriminatory working conditions prevail in the Territories under their administration and to promote in each Territory a fair system of wages applicable to all the inhabitants without any discrimination; |
11. 又促请有关管理国向受飓风、自然现象或其他极端天气事件影响的非自治领土人民提供一切必要援助，以缓解受灾社区的人道主义需求，支持恢复和重建努力，并加强应急准备和减少风险； | 11. Also calls upon the administering Powers concerned to provide all the necessary assistance to the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories affected by hurricanes, natural phenomena or other extreme weather events in order to alleviate the humanitarian needs in the affected communities, support the recovery and rebuilding efforts and enhance capabilities for emergency preparedness and risk reduction; |
12. 鼓励联合国系统各专门机构和其他组织以及区域组织继续向受飓风、自然现象或其他极端天气事件影响的非自治领土提供援助，并制订适当方案以支持应急措施及恢复和重建努力，请秘书长就此向大会提出报告； | 12. Encourages the specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system and regional organizations to continue to provide assistance to the lf-Governing Territories 4/4 19-21908 Non-Self-Governing Territories affected by hurricanes, natural phenomena or other extreme weather events and to formulate appropriate programmes to support emergency response and recovery and rebuilding efforts, and requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly on this matter; |
13. 请秘书长继续通过一切可用手段，使世界舆论了解影响非自治领土人民根据《宪章》和大会第 1514 (XV)号决议及联合国关于非殖民化的相关决议行使自决权的任何活动； | 13. Requests the Secretary-General to continue, through all means at his disposal, to inform world public opinion of any activity that affects the exercise of the right of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories to self-determination in conformity with the Charter, General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the other relevant resolutions of the United Nations on decolonization; |
14. 呼吁工会、非政府组织和个人继续努力促进非自治领土人民的经济福祉，还呼吁媒体传播有关这方面动态的信息； | 14. Appeals to trade unions and non-governmental organizations, as well as individuals, to continue their efforts to promote the economic well-being of the peoples of the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and also appeals to the media to disseminate information about the developments in this regard; |
15. 决定关注非自治领土的状况，以确保这些领土内所有经济活动都从特别是土著居民的非自治领土人民的利益出发，旨在加强这些领土的经济并使之多样化，增进这些领土的经济和财政活力； | 15. Decides to follow the situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories so as to ensure that all economic activities in those Territories are aimed at strengthening and diversifying their economies in the interest of their peoples, in particular the indigenous populations, and at promoting the economic and financial viability of those Territories; |
16. 请给予殖民地国家和人民独立宣言执行情况特别委员会继续审查这一问题，并就此向大会第七十五届会议提出报告。 | 16. Requests the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples to continue to examine this question and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its seventy-fifth session. |
人权理事会第四十三届会议 | Forty-third session |
2020 年 2 月 24 日至 3 月 20 日 | 24 February–20 March 2020 |
议程项目 3 | Agenda item 3 |
增进和保护所有人权：公民权利、政治权利、经济、社会和文化权利，包括发展权 | Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development |
旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策和做法对人权的影响 | Human rights impact of policies and practices aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism |
反恐中注意促进和保护人权和基本自由问题特别报告员的报告* | Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism* |
摘要 | Summary |
在本报告中，反恐中促进和保护人权和基本自由问题特别报告员论述了广泛使用旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策和做法对全球和国家的影响。特别报告员承认应对暴力极端主义具有必要的社会和政治意义，但特别指出，只有确认和注重权利的政策才能在防止暴力方面取得长期成功。她强调，目前旨在防止和打 | In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism addresses the global and national effects of the widespread use of policies and practices aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism. The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the social and political imperatives of addressing violent extremism but underscores that only rights-affirming and rights-focused policies will have long-term success in preventing violence. |
注重权利的政策才能在防止暴力方面取得长期成功。她强调，目前旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策和做法缺乏强有力的科学基础，完全没有基于人权的监测和评估，包括联合国实体的监测和评估。 | She underscores the lack of a robust scientific basis for the current policies and practices aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism and the complete absence of human rights-based monitoring and evaluation, including by United Nations entities. |
特别报告员告诫不要在复杂的冲突和脆弱的环境中过于简单化地实施旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策，因为在这些环境中，需要采取更广泛的相互关联的干预措施来遏制暴力极端主义。她特别提到对极端主义和暴力极端主义缺乏准确的法律定义，以及由此产生的对人权的普遍侵犯。侵犯可减损和不可减损权利的情况尤其发生在宗教团体、少数群体和民间社会。特别报告员注意到，一直 | The Special Rapporteur cautions against the simplistic deployment of policy aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism in complex conflict and fragile settings, where a broader spectrum of interconnected interventions is necessary to stem violent extremism. She notes in particular the lack of precise legal definitions of extremism and violent extremism and the widespread abuses of human rights that that produces. |
利的情况尤其发生在宗教团体、少数群体和民间社会。特别报告员注意到，一直缺乏与防止和打击暴力极端主义措施所针对的社区进行有意义的协商，也一直缺乏这些社区的参与。她着重强调指出为推进旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策而将妇女和女童作为交易条件的问题，并确定存在多重伦理问题。她提醒联合国各实体，在支持防止和打击暴力极端主义方面的技术援助和能力建设时，负有基本的尽职调查义务。 | Violations of derogable and non-derogable rights are experienced particularly by religious groups, minority groups and civil society. The Special Rapporteur notes the persistent lack of meaningful consultation with and participation of communities targeted by measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. She highlights the commodification of women and girls to advance policy aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism, identifying multiple ethical concerns. She reminds United Nations entities of their foundational due diligence obligations when supporting technical assistance in and capacity-building on preventing and countering violent extremism. |
* 本报告在截止期限之后提交是为了反映最新事态发展。 | * The present report was submitted to the conference services after the deadline in order to reflect the most recent developments. |
一. 导言 | I. Introduction |
1. 防止和打击暴力极端主义已成为当代全球反恐政策和实践的核心和决定性问题。最近一次全面审查防止和打击暴力极端主义政策和做法对促进和保护人权的影响是在 2015 年进行的。1 促使编写本报告的原因是，旨在全球防止和打击暴力极端主义的方案编制工作正在加速、深化和扩大，并在国家、区域和全球各级对人权保护、执行和促进此类方案编制工作产生了可观的影响。在互联网上搜索“防止和打击暴力极端主义”会得到 820 万个结果。防止和打击暴力极端主义的日益标准化的政策和方案在全球得到推广，对于现任任务负责人来说，这在她针对具体国家的实质性工作中已变得显而易见。2 鉴于新出现的做法和趋势，以及国际组织和区域组织在这些政策和方案的构思、制定和执行中发挥的集中作用，本报告是及时和必要的。 | 1. Preventing and countering violent extremism has become a central and defining dimension of contemporary global counter-terrorism policy and practice. The most recent comprehensive examination of the human rights impact of preventing and countering violent extremism policies and practices on the promotion and protection of human rights was conducted in 2015.1 The present report is prompted by the acceleration, deepening and scale of programming aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism globally and the measurable effects on human rights protection, enforcement and the promotion of such programming at the national, regional and global levels. An Internet search for “preventing and countering violent extremism” provides 8.2 million results. The global expansion and breadth of increasingly standardized policies and programmes aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism2 has become evident to the current mandate holder in her substantive and country-specific work. The present report is timely and necessary, in the light of new and emerging practices and trends, as well as of the centralizing role of international and regional organizations in the conceptualization, creation and delivery of such policies and programmes. |
2. 防止和打击暴力极端主义是广泛的高级别法律和政策决定及做法的基础，因此，这种提法在政治、政策和法律环境中十分普遍。防止和打击暴力极端主义作为一种话语和相关的一套规范标准，普遍出现在反恐和人权领域。防止和打击暴力极端主义的措施对人权和法治，以及对国家和国际组织针对个人、团体和社区的公认的中立和不偏不倚的立场以及给予他们的平等待遇都有重大影响。特别报告员特别指出，防止和打击暴力极端主义的目标人口本质上比反恐措施的目标人口广泛得多，这使得各国以及国家和国际决策者迫切需要对该领域进行细致的人权和法治分析。注重人权的实体和组织也有责任更好地了解防止和打击暴力极端主义的影响和后果，关注各国和国际组织围绕这个新提法制定的实质性政策，确保在适用这些政策时恪守尽职调查义务，并避免这些政策被旨在预防和打击会破坏和削弱人权保护的暴力极端主义的安全保障政策所利用。 | 2. Preventing and countering violent extremism is found at the root of extensive high-level legal and policy decisions and practices, and the language thereof is pervasive in political, policy and legal settings. Preventing and countering violent extremism as a discourse and the related set of normative standards are ubiquitous in the counter-terrorism and human rights fields. Measures to prevent and counter violent extremism have significant effects on human rights and the rule of law, as well as on the perceived neutrality and even-handedness of, and the equal treatment afforded by, States and international organizations to individuals, groups and communities. The Special Rapporteur underscores that the target population of the prevention and countering of violent extremism is by nature much broader than that of counter-terrorism measures, which creates a compelling need for States and national and international policymakers to apply a fine-grained human rights and rule of law analysis to the domain. It is also incumbent upon human rights-focused entities and organizations to better understand the impact and effects of the prevention and countering of violent extremism, to take note when States and international organizations substantially shape their policies around the new vocabulary, to ensure the adherence to due diligence obligations in their application and to avoid their being co-opted by security-driven policies aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism that undermine and diminish human rights protections. |
3. 特别报告员的分析确认了暴力极端主义构成的无可争辩的全球挑战。正如秘书长在关于其《防止暴力极端主义行动计划》的报告中明确指出，3 我们关注一些重大威胁，并需要国家、区域和全球作出回应。4 从新纳粹支持者的大胆游行和暴力行为，到伊拉克和黎凡特伊斯兰国(伊黎伊斯兰国)狂热、残酷的暴力行为，暴力极端主义意识形态在全球无处不在。 | 3. The analysis of the Special Rapporteur reaffirms the indisputable global challenges posed by violent extremism. As made clear in the report of the Secretary-General on his Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, 3 there are significant threats that deserve our attention and require national, regional and global responses.4From the emboldened marches and violence of neo-Nazi supporters to the fanatical, brutal violence of Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), violent extremist ideology is pervasive across the globe. |
4. 然而，同样清楚的是，与任何涉及集体和个人暴力产生的复杂问题一样，诊断可能比治疗更简单。防止和打击暴力极端主义作为一个主题、一种话语和一套政策或干预措施，不会出现在真空中。在 2001 年 9.11 事件后经过近 20 年的反恐监管，防止和打击暴力极端主义已进入了一个定义明确的全球反恐架构，自那时以来，该架构已得到建立和巩固。全球颁布反恐准则，防止和打击暴力极端主义是其中的一部分，这些准则应该准确地理解为：一种全球性和国际化的现象。5 防 | 4. It is also clear however that, as with any complex matter that engages the production of collective and individual violence, the diagnosis may be simpler than the cure. Preventing and countering violent extremism as a motif, a discourse and a set of policies and interventions does not emerge in a neutral universe. It arrives after almost two decades of post-11 September 2001 counter-terrorism regulation, into a well-defined global counter-terrorism architecture that has entrenched and consolidated since then. The global promulgation of counter-terrorism norms, of which the prevention and countering of violent extremism is a part, should be understood as precisely that: a global and internationalized 1 A/HRC/31/65. |
止和打击暴力极端主义经由安全理事会、安全理事会第 1373(2001)号决议和随后安理会关于该问题的决议倡导，在 2001 年 9.11 之后整合全球化安全制度方面发挥着越来越明显的作用。6 | phenomenon.5 The prevention and countering of violent extremism is playing an increasingly visible role in the consolidation of a globalized security regime post-11 September 2001, led by the Security Council, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) and subsequent Council resolutions on the subject.6 |
5. 因此，至关重要的是，人权分析不仅要处理防止和打击暴力极端主义的独立构架，而且要结合具体情况，将这种政策和做法与更广泛的反恐监管情况结合起来，同时认识到女权主义政治学家所说的“嵌套制度主义”。7 尽管旨在防止和打 | 5. It is essential therefore that a human rights analysis not only address the stand-alone structure of preventing and countering violent extremism, but rather engage in a contextual way the broader production of such policy and practice with the wider landscape of counter-terrorism regulation, recognizing what feminist political scientists call “nested institutionalism”. |
来，同时认识到女权主义政治学家所说的“嵌套制度主义”。7 尽管旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策看起来可能是全新的，但事实并非如此。防止和打击暴力极端主义的法律、政策和体制对策概览是传统反恐法律曾走过的路线，追踪这些路线和重叠部分将是本报告的一个主题。 | 7 Although policy aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism may appear as entirely new, it is not. The outlines of legal, policy and institutional responses to preventing and countering violent extremism are pathways that have been well trodden by traditional counter-terrorism law, and tracing those pathways and overlaps will be a subject of the present report. |
二. 暴力极端主义的定义和法律依据 | II. Definition and legal basis of violent extremism |
6. 虽然防止和打击暴力极端主义的说法相对较新，但应对暴力极端主义的初衷在一定程度上是为了寻求广泛和战略性的对策，以应对暴力极端主义团体的社会后果和暴力行为，并阻止这些后果和行为。8 早期方案和政策举措旨在防止和遏制某些极端意识形态的扩张，并寻找到社会融合和广泛进步的融合战略，而不是监禁战略，以遏制暴力并扭转基于仇恨的意识形态。9 防止和打击暴力极端主义可追溯到德国、挪威和瑞典在 1990 年代中后期涌现的“去激进化”方案(称为“退出方案”)，以对付日益壮大的极右翼极端团体。10 | 6. Although the language of preventing and countering violent extremism is relatively new, the genesis of addressing violent extremism results in part from seeking broad and strategic responses to address the social consequences and violent manifestations of violent extremist groups and disrupting them. 8 Early programmes and policy interventions were aimed at preventing and containing the expansion of certain extreme ideologies and finding social and broadly progressive integration strategies, as opposed to carceral ones, to contain violence and positively evolve hate-based ideologies.9 Preventing and countering violent extremism has roots in the “deradicalization” programmes that sprang up in Germany, Norway and Sweden (known as “exit programmes”) in the middle to late 1990s to tackle growing far-right extremist groups.10 |
7. 这些早期举措与当今防止和打击暴力极端主义政策之间的联系体现在以下领域：《联合国全球反恐战略》在各国之间的演变；安全理事会第 2178(2014)号决议的推动作用；秘书长提出的《防止暴力极端主义行动计划》；在过去十年中，制定了国家一级的预防战略，主要侧重于遏制与某些伊斯兰武装团体有关的恐怖主义行为。由于防止和打击暴力极端主义的工作是在 2001 年 9 月 11 日之后发展起来的，人们认识到，需要密切关注有助于暴力极端主义猖獗的环境，并认识到，仅采取安全和军事反恐措施似乎是不够的，而且适得其反。11 | 7. The link between those early ventures and present-day preventing and countering violent extremism policies is found in the following areas: the evolution of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy among States; the impetus of the Security Council by its resolution 2178 (2014); the articulation of the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism; and the development, over the past decade, of prevention strategies at the national level that are primarily focused on the containment of terrorism associated with certain Islamic armed groups. As the prevention and countering of violent extremism evolved after 11 September 2001, it was recognized that the enabling environments in which violent extremism flourished required close attention and that exclusively security and military counter-terrorism measures11 appeared to be failing and were counter-productive. |
8. 在美利坚合众国政策要求的推动下，暴力极端主义的当代说法从 2000 年代中期开始进入国际政策议程，这些说法借鉴了主要但不限于在冲突背景下制定的早期英国和法国模式。12 | 8. The contemporary language of violent extremism made its way into the international policy agenda from the mid-2000s, driven by the policy imperatives of the United States of America, drawing on earlier British and French models developed primarily, but not exclusively, in conflict contexts.12 Governmental endeavours arose from efforts to reframe |
政府努力重新制订反恐战略，从完全的军事手段转向硬实力和软实力相结合的方式，这种方式强调“思想之战将与领土之战并驾齐驱；13 与‘激进伊斯兰’的斗争不仅是在身体上的斗争，而且也将是在文化上的斗争。”14 | counter-terrorism strategy away from a strictly military approach to an approach that combines hard and soft power,13 whereby “the battle of ideas would be engaged alongside the battle for territory; the fight against ‘radical Islam’ would be cultural as much as corporeal”. |
‘激进伊斯兰’的斗争不仅是在身体上的斗争，而且也将是在文化上的斗争。”14 | 14 |
9. 在联合国，根据安全理事会第 1963(2010)号决议，自 2010 年起，“暴力”和“极端主义”开始出现在同一句话中。15 “打击暴力极端主义”于 2014 年首次出现在安全理事会第 2178(2014)号决议中，而“防止暴力极端主义”出现在 2015年秘书长的《防止暴力极端主义行动计划》中。正如《行动计划》所指出，暴力极端主义是一种多样化的现象，没有明确的定义。它既不是新的，也不是任何地区、民族或信仰体系所独有的。正如《行动计划》所强调，暴力极端主义意识形态通常宣扬不容忍不同宗教、文化和社会观点的信息，暴力极端主义团体采用的策略挑战和平、正义和人的尊严的价值观，暴力极端主义在治理不善和不公正的环境中猖獗。16 | 9. At the United Nations, the words “violent” and “extremism” began appearing in the same sentence beginning in 2010, with Security Council resolution 1963 (2010). 15 “Countering violent extremism” appeared for the first time in 2014, in Security Council resolution 2178 (2014), whereas “preventing violent extremism” appeared in 2015, in the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism. As noted in the Plan of Action, violent extremism is a diverse phenomenon, without a clear definition. It is neither new nor exclusive to any region, nationality or system of belief. As highlighted in the Plan of Action, violent extremist ideologies usually promoted messages of intolerance for differing religious, cultural and social views, that violent extremist groups employed tactics that challenged the values of peace, justice and human dignity and that violent extremism flourished in environments characterized by poor governance and injustice.16 |
10. 大会第 72/284 号决议回顾，在滋生恐怖主义的情况下防止暴力极端主义的重要工作牢牢植根于《联合国全球反恐战略》。特别报告员指出，虽然在概念上可以区分打击暴力极端主义和防止暴力极端主义，前者侧重于打击现有暴力极端主义分子的活动，后者侧重于防止暴力极端主义的进一步蔓延，但在实践中，这些概念往往是模糊的，方法往往是一致和结合的。在这些类别中，可以更好地区分打击暴力极端主义和防止暴力极端主义之间的短期、中期和长期协同效应，或更好地区分那些特别旨在寻求阻止激进化和招募进程以防止暴力极端主义的干预措施，与那些寻求使已经加入暴力极端主义组织的个人重新融入社会的干预措施之间的差异。17 处理“吸引因素”的措施已广泛落入打击暴力极端主义的领域。与防止暴力极端主义相关的干预措施的最佳定义是指那些寻求解决暴力极端主义的结构性驱动因素(即“推动因素”)的干预措施。18 在防止和打击暴力极端主义既包括安全又包括发展的情况下，需要确保采取平衡的做法，不能将前者置于后者之上。19 | 10. In its resolution 72/284, the General Assembly recalled that the important work on preventing violent extremism as and when conducive to terrorism was firmly rooted in the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. The Special Rapporteur notes that, although it is conceptually possible to distinguish between countering violent extremism and preventing violent extremism, with the former focused on countering the activities of existing violent extremists and the latter focused on preventing the further spread of violent extremism, in practice, those notions are often blurred and approaches are aligned and combined. Within those categories, increased distinctions can be made between what is envisioned for short-term, medium-term and long-term synergies between countering violent extremism and preventing violent extremism17 or between interventions specifically aimed at preventing violent extremism that seek to disrupt the radicalization and recruitment processes and those that seek to reintegrate individuals who have already joined a violent extremist organization. Addressing “pull factors” has broadly fallen into the domain of countering violent extremism. Interventions relevant to preventing violent extremism are most usefully defined as those that seek to address the structural drivers of violent extremism, or “push factors”. 18 Where preventing and countering violent extremism includes both security and development, there is a need to ensure a balanced approach that does not privilege the former over the latter.19 |
11. 与防止和打击暴力极端主义有关的术语、政策和做法现已纳入联合国、国家机构以及新的和非政府的国际机构。联合国全球反恐协调契约防止和打击滋生恐怖主义的暴力极端主义工作组由联合国开发计划署(开发计划署)和联合国教育、科学及文化组织(教科文组织)联合主持。金融行动特别工作组在 2016 年修订了建议 8 和相关的解释性说明，以表明特别工作组认识到非营利组织迄今为止有意或正在努力提高其业务透明度，并防止资助恐怖主义行动泛滥，包括通过制定旨在阻止激进主义和暴力极端主义的方案。20 同样，全球反恐论坛的打击暴力极端主 | 11. Terminology, policy and practice relating to the prevention and countering of violent extremism is now embedded within the United Nations, national institutions and new and non-institutional international bodies. The Working Group on Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism Conducive to Terrorism of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Coordination Compact is chaired jointly by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The Financial Action Task Force revised its recommendation 8,and the related interpretative note, in 2016, to indicate that the Task Force recognized the intent and efforts to date of non-profit organizations to promote transparency within their operations and to prevent terrorist financing abuse, including through the development of programmes aimed at discouraging radicalization and violent extremism. 20 Similarly, the countering violent |
阻止激进主义和暴力极端主义的方案。20 同样，全球反恐论坛的打击暴力极端主义工作组通过在国际、区域、国家和地方各级打击暴力极端主义的相关办法，解决日益减少的激进化和恐怖主义招募问题。工作组制定了一些办法，如全球反恐论坛达成的《关于以多部门方式打击暴力极端主义良好做法安卡拉备忘录》，以指导工作组的行动，包括与性别、康复、重返社会和监狱有关的事项。 | extremism working group of the Global Counterterrorism Forum addresses diminishing radicalization and recruitment to terrorism through relevant approaches to countering violent extremism at the international, regional, national and local levels. It has developed a number of tools, such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum Ankara Memorandum on Good Practices for a Multi-Sectoral Approach to countering Violent Extremism, aimed at guiding the working group’s actions, including on matters relating to gender, rehabilitation, reintegration and prisons. |
12. 特别报告员感到关切的是，在“暴力极端主义”一词写入联合国决议近十年后，在秘书长将该词汇列为联合国各机构和方案以及各国政府的优先事项约五年之后，“暴力极端主义”的定义仍然不透明，争论不休。21 她警告说，不要使用新的术语，如“恐怖主义”等术语，这种术语过于含糊，并允许在应用时具有广泛的自由裁量权。22 采用新术语本身并不能保证其不被滥用，也不能保证采取全面措施来防止和打击暴力极端主义。缺乏国际定义导致了这样一个事实，即在全球范围内，越来越多的措施属于防止和打击暴力极端主义这个范畴。这些措施一方面是反恐机构的组成部分，即执法部门可利用的“软工具”，最终目的是增加被判犯有与恐怖主义有关罪行的人数，另一方面是解决边缘化社区和个人面临的长期挑战的社会和经济措施，取代个人和社区根据国际法享有的基于社会、文化和经济权利的应享权利。这两种方法都面临多重人权挑战，必须谨慎对待每一步。从这个意义上说，使用“暴力极端主义”作为通过新战略、措施和立法的基础，必须被视为比“恐怖主义”一词对人权的危害要大得多。特别报告员强调指出，由于暴力极端主义缺乏语义和概念上的清晰度，这阻碍了深入审查打击暴力极端主义的战略和政策对人权的影响，以及在减少恐怖主义威胁方面的效力。23 | 12. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, almost a decade after the term made its way into United Nations resolutions, and some five years after the Secretary-General21 made it a priority for United Nations agencies and programmes, as well as Governments, the definition of “violent extremism” remains opaque and deeply contested. She warns against the use of new terminology that, like terrorism, is overly vague and allows for broad discretion in its application.22 The introduction of new terminology does not in and of itself provide any guarantee against its abusive application and the adoption of sweeping measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. The absence of an international definition contributes to the fact that, across the globe, an ever-expanding range of measures fall under that umbrella. They include, on the one hand, measures that are part of the counter-terrorism apparatus –the “soft tools” available to law enforcement – ultimately aimed at increasing the number of individuals convicted for terrorism-related crimes and, on the other hand, social and economic measures that address the long-term challenges faced by marginalized communities and individuals, substituting social, cultural and economic rights-based entitlements held by individuals and communities under international law. Both approaches come with multiple human rights challenges and must be approached with caution at every step. In that sense, the use of “violent extremism” as a basis for the adoption of new strategies, measures and legislation must be seen as significantly more hazardous for human rights than the term “terrorism”. The Special Rapporteur underscores that the lack of semantic and conceptual clarity surrounding violent extremism is an obstacle to any in-depth examination of the impact on human rights of strategies and policies to counter violent extremism, as well as of their effectiveness in reducing the threat of terrorism.23 |
13. 特别报告员强调指出了另一个关键的、表面上不符合人权的做法，即在多个国家的国内法中使用和适用“极端主义”一词，而不仅仅是“暴力极端主义”。她对在多个国家的政策和法律中使用“极端主义”这一术语及其不断扩大的范围24深表关切。25 她十分担心这个术语会让人对什么是极端主义做出不正当的判断，并强调这可能会导致非暴力团体被列入“极端主义”实体的政府名单，其中一个明显的例子是应对气候紧急情况的团体。26 | 13. The Special Rapporteur highlights another critical and prima facie non-human rights compliant practice, namely, the use and application of the term “extremism” – and not only “violent extremism” – in national law in multiple States. She has grave concerns about the use of the terminology of “extremism” and its expanding ambit,24 in both policy and law in multiple States.25 She has serious concerns that the term lends itself to illegitimate judgments about what extremism is, highlighting that this can lead to the inclusion of non-violent groups on executive lists of “extremist” entities, one notable example of which is groups responding to the climate emergency.26 |
14. “极端主义”犯罪的类别特别模糊，而且会产生问题。如果没有“滋生恐怖主义的暴力极端主义”的限定词，这个术语仍然是宽泛和过于模糊的，可能会对人权产生深远的影响。特别报告员认为，“极端主义”一词在具有约束力的国际法律标准中没有任何作用，但当作为刑事法律类别使用时，与法律确定性原则是不可调和的，因此，这个术语本身与行使某些基本人权是不相容的。 | 14. The category of “extremist” crimes is particularly vague and problematic. Absent the qualifier of “violent extremism conducive to terrorism”, the term remains broad and overly vague and may encroach on human rights in profound and far-reaching ways. The Special Rapporteur takes the view that the term “extremism” has no purchase in binding international legal standards and, when operative as a criminal legal category, is irreconcilable with the principle of legal certainty; it is therefore per se incompatible with the exercise of certain fundamental human rights. |
15. 定义难题仍然是一个长期存在的问题，因为旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的政策仍在发展中，而对这些政策旨在解决的现象没有明确的概念。本报告所述的 | 15. The definitional conundrum remains a persistent problem, as policies aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism continue to develop without a clear notion of the phenomenon they are aimed at addressing. Many of the issues addressed in the present 21 A/70/674, para. 4. |
许多问题根源于对“防止和打击暴力极端主义”这一短语中的几乎每一个词都没有明确的定义。使得政策措施和监管框架完全依赖一个本质上取决于背景的未定义概念，永远不能符合人权所依据的相称性和必要性原则。因此，最终会对合法行使基本自由的个人和团体歧视性地或过度广泛地适用这些措施。与恐怖主义一样，防止和打击暴力极端主义的过于宽泛定义和做法正在影响“普通”法律，造成新形式的法律例外论，包括撤销正当程序权、诉诸特殊法院，以及对安全罪行施加严厉处罚。与恐怖主义一样，打着打击极端主义幌子对人权捍卫者和公民社会活动人士的广泛镇压是可以预见的情况。具有明显讽刺意味的是，各国向安全理事会关于反恐的第1373(2001)号决议所设委员会或金融行动特别工作组等其他全球实体报告其关于“恐怖主义和极端主义”指控和处理情况的统计数据，宣传这些数字是它们致力于反恐的证据，并因其遵守起诉、管制和击败恐怖主义的全球义务而获得奖励，然而，人权与法治妥协的相互矛盾现实却是这一格局的重要组成部分。定义不清晰只是防止和打击暴力极端主义以复杂和多重方式挑战人权的原因之一。 | report are rooted in the absence of a clear definition of almost every word in the phrase “preventing and countering violent extremism”. Making policy measures and regulatory frameworks entirely reliant on a non-defined concept that is by nature context-dependent can never be compatible with the principles of proportionality and necessity in which human rights are grounded. Doing so ultimately allows for a discriminatory or overbroad application of those measures to individuals and groups that legitimately exercise their fundamental freedoms. As with terrorism, overbroad preventing and countering violent extremism definitions and practices are infecting the “ordinary” law, creating new forms of legal exceptionalism, including the retraction of due process rights, the resort to exceptional courts and the imposition of severe penalties for security offences. As with terrorism, the wide-spread crackdown on human rights defenders and civil society activists under the guise of countering extremism is a predictable feature. In a notable irony, States report their statistics on “terrorism and extremism” charging and processing to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism or other global entities, such as the Financial Action Task Force, promoting such numbers as evidence of their commitment to countering terrorism, and are rewarded for their “good practice” of adhering to global obligations to prosecute, regulate and defeat terrorism, despite the contradictory realities of the human rights and rule of law compromises that are part and parcel of that landscape. The lack of definitional clarity is only one of the reasons that preventing and countering violent extremism challenges human rights in complex and multiple ways. |
三. 防止和打击暴力极端主义的“科学” | III. “Science” of preventing and countering violent extremism |
16. 特别报告员会见了许多政府官员，这些官员声称他们开展的旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的方案行之有效。当他们被要求提供证据、方法和评估办法时，很快就发现，对这类方案和做法很少或根本不存在有力的监测和评价，27 这些方案的实地影响评估存在切实缺陷。联合国支助的旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的项目也存在同样缺陷，这至少意味着存在系统性地不遵守联合国尽职调查政策的行为。正如一个人道主义非政府组织指出：“发展干预措施是否真的减少了暴力极端主义，充其量未经证实。很少有证据能够证明有意识的[打击暴力极端主义]办法成功减少了极端主义。但这并不妨碍某些干预措施的可能效果被夸大，尤其是在教育部门。”28 事实上，特别报告员发现，尽管扩大了对暴力极端主义驱动因 | 16. The Special Rapporteur has met with many government officials who claim that their programmes aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism work. When they are pressed for evidence, methodology and assessment methods, it quickly becomes clear that there is little or no robust monitoring and evaluation of such programmes and practices,27 leaving a real gap in assessment of their impact on the ground. The same lacuna is true for projects supported by the United Nations aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism, which implies, at a minimum, a systematic lack of adherence to the United Nations due diligence policy. As one humanitarian non-governmental organization noted: “whether development interventions actually reduce violent extremism is at best unproven. Evidence that conscious [countering violent extremism] approaches have successfully reduced extremism is scarce. This does not prevent exaggerated claims being made as to the likely efficacy of particular interventions, especially in the education sector.” |
在教育部门。”28 事实上，特别报告员发现，尽管扩大了对暴力极端主义驱动因素和临界点的了解，但这方面的辩论往往主要由私人行为体和咨询人所主导，这些人或是自诩专家，或是受到仍在推进已被科学证伪问题的政府政策的影响。29这一现象突显了以下挑战，即如何将研究和证据同政策和方案相挂钩，确保政策和方案不会无效和适得其反，不会加剧助长恐怖主义滋生的不满情绪。30 学术专 | 28 In fact, the Special Rapporteur finds that, despite some increase in the knowledge base on the drivers and tipping point of violent extremism, the debate thereon is often largely dominated by private actors and consultants who are self-proclaimed experts or influenced by government policies that continue to pursue issues that have been scientifically disproven, 29 which highlights the challenge of linking research and evidence to policies and programmes to ensure that they are not ineffective and counterproductive, exacerbating the grievances on which terrorism feeds.30 Academic experts, professionals and civil society actors who could |
家、专业人员和民间社会行为体能够为决策者提供参考，说明地方驱动因素和考量因素，但这些人在决策和方案设计环节严重缺席。那些身为防止和打击暴力极端主义方案规划对象的社区和个人进一步受到排斥，引发了一系列道德问题，同时削弱了有关方案效力的说法。 | inform policymakers about local drivers and factors are significantly absent frompolicymaking and programme-designing forums. The communities and individuals who are the subject of programming aimed at the prevention and countering of violent extremism are further excluded in ways that raise a myriad of ethical issues, as well as undermine claims to effectiveness. |
17. 关于激进化和恐怖主义之间是否存在可预测的关系，正在出现一场新的学术和科学辩论。承认这场辩论正在进行，同时认识到各国政府和私营实体正在部署的可用工具和指示系统缺乏确定性，对于开展有关广泛使用防止和打击暴力极端主义的方案规划的审议至关重要。31 一些工具已经在区域一级得到部署，包括经修订的宗教原教旨主义量表、暴力极端主义风险评估工具二次修订版(VERA-2R)、极端主义风险准则(ERG22+)以及由相关专业团体在暴力激进化识别和应对项目下制定的检查清单，还包括欧洲各机构提供的各类工具，如欧洲边境和海岸警卫队编写的共同风险指标手册。32 使用这类工具引发了一些道德和功能方面的挑战。例如，VERA-2R 和 ERG22+等心理测量工具的共同特点是，它们将传统上聚焦精神疾病和越轨行为的结构化法证分析模型同其他带有强烈意识形态和政治内涵的情报分析模型相结合。33 在实际应用中，这些心理测量工具始终使用模糊因素，造成激进化评估与刑事和法律惯例脱节，使得精神因素成为预防性刑事司法领域的主流。34 此外，许多防止和打击暴力极端主义的风险评估工具在实践中被当作类型分析工具使用，使得用户(主要但不限于国家)在使用风险模型时容易陷入以下误区：(a) 使用的风险模型受到偏见、政治化或某方面无知的影响，尤其是在多文化环境下；(b) 使用的风险模型无法预测监测对象和社区；(c) 使用的风险模型在预防实践中引发大量行政专断行为；(d) 使用的风险模型在大多数应用情况下完全不受司法监督。35 特别报告员对上述所有风险感到关切，她着重指出，当风险模型被应用到政策领域时，上述风险似乎被系统性地忽略或低估了。 | 17. There is an emerging scholarly and scientific debate concerning whether there is a predictive relationship between radicalization and terrorism. Acknowledging that that debate is ongoing – and recognizing the lack of certainty in the available tools and indication systems being deployed by Governments and private entities – is essential for framing deliberations concerning the widespread use of programming aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism. 31 A number of tools deployed at the regional level, including the Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale, the Violent Extremist Risk Assessment 2 (VERA-2R), the Extremism Risk Guidelines (ERG22+) and the checklists developed under a project on the recognition of and responses to violent radicalization by professional groups concerned, as well as various tools made available by European agencies, such as the common risk indicators booklet prepared by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex.32 The use of such tools poses a number of ethical and functional challenges. For example, the common peculiarity of psychometric systems, such as VERA-2R and ERG22+, is that they mix structured forensic analysis models, traditionally focused on mental illness and deviance, with other models of intelligence analysis containing strong ideological and political connotations. 33 Those psychometric tools consistently use ambiguous factors in their application, detaching radicalization assessment from criminal and legal practices and mainstreaming psychiatric factors into the preventative criminal justice arena.34 Moreover, many of the risk assessment tools used in practice for preventing and countering violent extremism function as profiling tools, which expose their users, primarily but not exclusively States, to the pitfalls of using risk models that: (a) are tainted by prejudice, politicization or specific ignorance, particularly in multicultural contexts; (b) generate unpredictability in the monitored subjects and communities; (c) open up wide administrative arbitrariness in the practice of prevention; and (d) entirely lack judicial supervision in most applied contexts.35 All of those risks are of concern to the Special Rapporteur, and she stresses that they appear to be systematically ignored or discounted in their use in policy arenas. |
18. 众所周知，必须对有关暴力极端主义驱动因素和深层因素的推定和假设提出有力质问。36 特别报告员在审查了大量有关防止和打击暴力极端主义的国家计划和政策后得出结论，在调查人们如何走上激进化道路以及制定旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的战略时，对宗教意识形态的重视是以没有适当处理其他因素为代价的，尽管尚无实证数据支持宗教意识形态助长恐怖主义的假设。37 她承认，一些防止和打击暴力极端主义的国家计划确实属于良好做法，尤其是瑞士的国家计划，该计划最大力度地纳入了人权框架。她还承认，奥地利、加拿大、芬兰和大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国的计划切实纳入了人权作为重要考量因素。 | 18. As is now widely recognized, presumptions and assumptions about the drivers of violent extremism and the underlying factors must be robustly challenged.36 Having reviewed numerous national plans and policies on the prevention and countering of violent extremism, the Special Rapporteur concludes that the importance given to religious ideology in both mapping the pathways to radicalization and devising strategies aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism was done at the expense of appropriately addressing other factors, despite the lack of empirical data to support the assumption that religious ideology supports terrorism. 37 She recognizes evidence of good practice in national plans for the prevention and countering of violent extremism, specifically that of Switzerland, which has the strongest incorporation of a human rights framework, and acknowledges the meaningful incorporation of human rights as a key reference point into the plans of Austria, Canada, Finland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. |
19. 开发署关于非洲极端主义的研究显示，尽管有 51%的受访者表示出于宗教原因加入暴力极端主义团体，但多达 57%的人也承认对宗教经文一知半解或一无所知。相反，实证数据显示，治理问题才是极端主义的主要驱动因素。值得一提的是，71%的受访者表示，国家对暴力极端主义起到推手作用，这些人认为“政府行动”是最终促使他们加入暴力极端主义团体的关键事件。研究结果还显示，招募流程高度本地化，通往极端主义的路径因人而异。其他研究也证实，个人心理是投身极端主义的关键要素，对政治家、政治制度和安全机构的压迫做法丧失信任也是关键要素。38 值得注意的是，无力在境内施展权力、维护权威的弱小和脆弱国家也可能成为导致暴力极端主义泛滥的因素，因为它们制造了可为暴力极端主义团体利用的无政府空间。39 特别报告员注意到有不少研究脆弱国家政策和做法的文献，但在防止和打击暴力极端主义的大背景下推出的各项分析和政策没有利用这些文献。40 | 19. In its study on extremism in Africa, UNDP showed that, whereas 51 per cent of people interviewed cited religious grounds as a reason for joining violent extremist groups, as many as 57 per cent also admitted to having limited or no understanding of religious texts. Instead, the empirical data revealed that governance challenges were key drivers of extremism. In particular, the role of the State as a push factor to violent extremism was noted by 71 per cent of respondents, who identified “government action” as being the critical event that finally pushed them to join a violent extremist group. The results also revealed that recruitment was a highly localized process and that the path to extremism was highly personal. Other studies also confirm the significance of individual psychology as an essential component in the turn to extremism, as is a loss of trust in politicians and the political system and security agencies’ repressive approaches.38 Notably, weak and fragile States, incapable of projecting power and asserting authority within their own borders, can also be factors leading to the proliferation of violent extremism, creating ungoverned spaces exploited by violent extremist groups.39 The Special Rapporteur notes the extensive literature on policy and practice on fragile States and the lack of the application thereof to the analysis and policy being rolled out in the context of preventing and countering violent extremism.40 |
20. 地方上与国际圣战的联系并不如全球言论所显示的那般紧密。一项又一项研究表明，遭受政府当局虐待和侵权的经历或这方面的印象是决定在多大程度上易受暴力极端主义影响或在多大程度上可以抵御暴力极端主义的因素。此外，从多个角度审视暴力极端主义就会发现，分离主义运动和旷日持久的冲突是有待处理的核心因素。41 鉴于事关重大，决策者未能考虑到数十年来有关地方政治不满、冲突深层动因、长期结构性不稳定以及资源分配引发的政治紧张局势的信息和数据，是不可原谅的。开发署的概念框架着重指出了可能导致暴力极端主义行动的八大驱动因素：(a) 全球政治的影响；(b) 经济排斥以及有限的向上流动机会；(c)政治排斥以及不断缩小的公民空间；(d) 不平等、不公正、腐败和侵犯人权行为；(e) 对社会经济和政治制度的失望；(f) 对社会日益多元化的反对；(g) 薄弱的国家能力和恶化的安全状况；(h) 不断变化的全球文化以及媒体和娱乐中暴力行为的庸俗化。42 | 20. The link with international jihadism is more tenuous on the ground than the global rhetoric suggests. Study after study reveals that the experience or perception of abuse and violations by government authorities are determining factors that contribute to the level of vulnerability to violent extremism, or resilience thereto. In addition, separatist movements and protracted conflicts are central factors to be addressed when examining violent extremism in multiple contexts. 41 The failure of policymakers to take into account the decades of knowledge and data on local political grievances, underlying drivers of conflict, long-term structural instability and political tensions over resource allocation is unforgivable, given the stakes involved. The UNDP conceptual framework highlights eight drivers that can result in violent extremist action: (a) the impact of global politics; (b) economic exclusion and limited opportunities for upward mobility; (c) political exclusion and shrinking civic space; (d) inequality, injustice, corruption and the violation of human rights; (e) disenchantment with socioeconomic and political systems; (f) rejection of growing diversity in society; (g) weak State capacity and failing security; and (h) a changing global culture and the banalization of violence in the media and entertainment.42 |
21. 战略、政策和方案应借鉴这些研究结论，确保发挥效力，而不基于过度简单的笼统概括和陈规定型观念，不适得其反或污名化。上文强调的主要研究结论表明，成功的方案应着重建设社区应对能力，引发人们对以安全为出发点的暴力极端主义应对战略的反作用以及不尊重人权现象的关注。这些研究结论强调，必须重建边缘化社区与政府之间的信任，优先实行国家问责制，特别是对腐败行为问责，尤其是对安全部门、治理和司法领域的腐败行为问责，并为边缘化个人的繁荣发展创造条件。 | 21. Those findings should inform strategies, policies and programmes to ensure that they are effective, not based on overly simplistic generalizations and stereotypes and not counter-productive or stigmatizing. The key findings highlighted above show that successful programmes should focus on building the resilience of communities and drawing attention to the counter-productive impacts of security-driven strategies to respond to violent extremism and to the lack of respect for human rights. They underscore the importance of restoring trust between marginalized communities and their Governments, prioritizing State accountability, including for corruption, and in particular that of the security sector, governance and justice and creating conditions in which individuals who are marginalized can thrive. |
22. 然而，特别报告员发现，总体来看，方案、政策和措施并没有借鉴上述研究结论。尽管研究否定了贫困或恶劣经济环境本身是助长恐怖主义的条件这一观点，43但许多措施和方案往往狭隘地针对底层社会经济背景的个人，没有认识到相对匮乏可能存在于社会各个阶层，造成社会成员的希望与现实脱节；44 或者强调教育，尽管有证据表明，青年人不论是否受过教育，都可能受到暴力极端主义的影响，易受激进化影响乃是社会大环境所致。45 同样，尽管最近的研究表明，关于暴力极端主义宣扬的讯息、迷思、承诺、目标、荣耀和其他诱惑可以被一套替代性宣传所取代或破除的假设仍然未经证实，46但不少防止和打击暴力极端主义的国家和国际措施都把重点放在反宣传工作上。特别报告员强调，没有可靠的数据表明，在不切实承诺改变实地物资条件并兑现承诺的情况下，这种办法可以奏效。47如果做不到这一点，反宣传就无异于夸大其词，其目标社区也会形成这样的看法。问题在于，联合国也在通过其反击恐怖主义宣传的综合性国际框架、安全理事会第 | 22. The Special Rapporteur generally finds however that programmes, policies and measures do not draw from those findings. Just as studies disprove the idea that poverty or poor economic circumstances in themselves are conditions conducive to terrorism,43 many measures and programmes tend to place a narrow emphasis on individuals from dire socioeconomic backgrounds, at the expense of recognizing that the effects of relative 38 Anneli Botha, “Radicalization to terrorism in Kenya and Uganda: a political socialization perspective”, Perspectives on Terrorism, vol. 9, No. 5. 39 UNDP, “Root causes of radicalization in Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States”, discussion paper, July 2015. 40 See www.politicalsettlements.org. 41 International Alert, “If victims become perpetrators”, 2018; UNDP, “Root causes of radicalization”; and UNDP, “Journey to extremism in Africa”. 42 UNDP, “Preventing violent extremism through promoting inclusive development, tolerance and respect for diversity: a development response to addressing radicalization and violent extremism”, 2016. 43 Anneli Botha, “Radicalization to terrorism”. deprivation can be felt at all levels of society, creating a disconnect between thehopes and realities of those in a society,44 or an emphasis on education, despite evidence that both educated and non-educated young people are potentially vulnerable to violent extremism and that it is the broad societal environment that creates vulnerability to radicalization. 45 Similarly, despite recent research indicating that it remains an unproven assumption that messages, myths, promises, objectives, glamour and other enticements propagated through violent extremism can be replaced with, or dismantled by, an alternative set of communications,46 many national and international measures to prevent and counter violent extremism are focused on counter-narratives. The Special Rapporteur underscores that there is no robust data showing that that approach works,47 absent a meaningful commitment to and the delivery of transformed material conditions on the ground. Without that, counter-narratives are little more than exaggerations and are perceptively recognized as such by their target communities. Problematically, the counter-narrative approach is also being pushed by the United Nations, through its comprehensive international framework to counter terrorist |
2354(2017)号决议和秘书长《防止暴力极端主义行动计划》推动反宣传办法，呼吁会员国与社交媒体公司和私营部门密切合作，制定和实施国家传播战略，反击宣扬暴力极端主义的言论。48 特别报告员担心，这种做法可能适得其反，因为它 | narratives, Security Council resolution 2354 (2017) and the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, in which Member States are called upon to develop and implement national communications strategies, in close cooperation with social media companies and the private sector, to challenge narratives associated with violent extremism.48 |
宣扬暴力极端主义的言论。48 特别报告员担心，这种做法可能适得其反，因为它既可能被视为对现状的维护，也可能导致对民间社会和政府失去信任，在允许反宣传言论不透露真实意图的情况下尤其如此。49 同样，虽然关于传播和极端主义之间的联系、包括极端主义在线内容消费和线下暴力活动之间的联系的证据有限且存在争议，50 但许多防止和打击暴力极端主义的措施坚决实行内容监管。在多个国家，内容监管已经直接转化为对表达自由的广泛、不加区别和过度的限制。 | The Special Rapporteur is concerned that that approach may be counterproductive, given that it can both appear as a defence of the status quo49 and contribute to a loss of trust in civil society and in government, in particular where opacity with regard to the genuine nature of the countering voices is tolerated. Similarly, while there is limited and contested evidence on the connection between communication and extremism, including the link between consuming online extremist content and offline violent activity,50 many measures to prevent and counter violent extremism have ploughed definitively into content regulation, which is directly translated in multiple national contexts into broad, indiscriminate and overreaching limitations on freedom of expression. |
四. 防止和打击暴力极端主义的趋势 | IV. Trends in the prevention and countering of violent extremism |
23. 特别报告员认识到，存在大量防止和打击暴力极端主义的方案以及或旧或新的法律和政策措施。这些方案、法律和政策措施包括各国政府、民间社会和国际组织制定的国家、区域和地方各级方案和行动计划，以及涵盖一系列领域的能力建设方案和技术援助。这些领域包括极端主义驱动因素、青年、教育、离队作战人员和回返者重返社会、媒体、监狱去激进化方案以及针对不同性别特别是与妇女的互动协作。防止和打击暴力极端主义的措施牵涉到学校、卫生服务部门、监狱、当地社区、宗教场所和宗教领袖以及执法部门。特别报告员着重指出这方面一些令人担忧的趋势，每一种趋势都值得进行审慎、深入、注重人权的分析和评估。 | 23. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the existence of a broad range of programmes and entrenched and emerging legal and policy measures to prevent and counter violent extremism. They include programmes and plans of actions at the national, regional and local levels, which are developed by Governments, civil society and international organizations, and capacity-building programmes and technical assistance across a range of sectors, such as drivers of extremism, youth, education, the reintegration of disengaged fighters and returnees, the media, de-radicalization programmes in prisons, as well as gender-specific engagement, in particular with women. Measures to prevent and counter violent extremism involve schools, health services, prisons, local communities, religious centres and leaders and law enforcement. The Special Rapporteur highlights some of the main worrying trends across the sector, each of which would benefit from considered and in-depth human rights-centred analysis and assessment. |
A. 转向对“成为恐怖主义分子前”阶段进行监管 | A. Shift to the regulation of the “pre-terrorist” space |
24. 特别报告员深感关切的是，对所谓的“犯罪前”或更准确地说是“成为恐怖主义分子前”阶段的思想和行为的监管力度日益加大，形成了刑事监管与社会、宗教和行政监管多管齐下的做法。这种转变使得受国际法和国内法保护的合法权利被定为犯罪，51 动摇了法律确定性、相称性和不歧视等法治基本原则，并主要依据对宗教或族裔群体和地理位置的陈规定型观念将群体和个人列为“嫌疑对象”。52 | 24. The Special Rapporteur is profoundly concerned about the increased regulatory focus on thought and action in the so-called “pre-criminal” or, more accurately, “pre-terrorist” space, involving the fluid interaction of the criminal with social, religious and administrative regulation. The shift criminalizes legitimately protected rights under international and domestic law,51 destabilizes fundamental tenets of the rule of law, including legal certainty, proportionality and non-discrimination and renders groups and individuals as “suspect” often primarily on the basis of stereotypes concerning religious or ethnic groups and geographical location.52 |
25. 在防止和打击暴力极端主义目标的激励或指引下，监管做法已经从制裁个人行为转向预测这些行为，全球范围内预防性刑事制裁大行其道，并得到多管齐下的社会行政监管措施的支持和扩充。一些国家已改为加大使用行政措施作为管理和预防恐怖主义的基本法律依据，确立了事后而不是先验的司法审查制度，这显然是朝着防范于未然的防止恐怖主义的方向转变，对个人权利的保护造成严重后果。 | 25. Enabled or led by the goal of preventing and countering violent extremism, regulatory practices have moved from sanctioning the acts of individuals to anticipating those acts, in a sweep of pre-emptive criminal sanctions supported and extended by multipronged socio-administrative regulation around the globe. Some countries have shifted towards the increased use of administrative measures as the undergirding legal basis for managing and preventing terrorism and the establishment of a posteriori rather than a priori judicial review, a perceptible shift towards the anticipatory prevention of terrorism, with substantial consequences for the protection of individual rights. |
26. 这类法律和政策存在问题，没有规定必须具备实施恐怖主义行为的意图，所针对的行为远远够不上实施恐怖主义行为。监管活动往往专门针对合法行使基本自由、特别是表达自由和宗教自由的行为。将赞扬、正名、辩解、鼓励、美化、倡导、或为恐怖主义申辩的言论定为犯罪的立法，其责任依据是言论内容，而不是说话人的意图或言论的实际影响。53 同样，当宗教内容成为被禁内容，那些强制要求托管第三方内容的信息和通信技术公司删除被认为涉及恐怖主义或极端主义的内容的法律和做法，或允许行政当局封锁、即便只是间接封锁网站的法律和做法(不设置任何司法控制或事后司法补救办法)，以及干脆封锁网站或整个互联网的措施，使政府规避了本身保护表达和意见自由权以及宗教信仰权的义务。54 | 26. In targeting acts that are far removed from the commission of an act of terrorism, such problematic law and policy fail to require that the intent to commit an act of terrorism existed. Regulation often solely targets acts that are the legitimate exercise of fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Legislation that criminalizes speech that praises, justifies, excuses, encourages, glorifies, advocates or that is an apologia of terrorism bases liability on the content of the speech, rather than the speaker’s intention or the actual impact of the speech.53 Similarly, law and practice that forces information and communications technology companies hosting third-party content to take down content deemed to be related to terrorism or extremism, or that allows executive authorities to – even indirectly – block websites, in the absence of any judicial controls or ex post facto judicial recourse, and measures to simply block websites or the entirety of the Internet allow Governments to bypass their own obligations to protect the rights to freedom of expression and opinion and to religious belief, when the banned content is religious material.54 |
27. 正如促进和保护意见和表达自由权特别报告员所指出，当前的一些办法(其特点是在法律上对禁止哪些内容措辞模糊，对中介机构进行严厉惩罚)可能会产生很大的反作用，导致寒蝉效应。55 特别报告员回顾，不能单纯因可能批评政府或政府支持的政治或社会制度，56 或信奉宗教信仰或不持有政府认可的宗教信仰，而禁止网站或信息传播系统发布相关材料。根据人权机制以及《关于禁止构成煽动歧视、敌意或暴力的鼓吹民族、种族或宗教仇恨言论的拉巴特行动计划》57 的建议，确定构成未完成罪的标准应当是有关言论具备成功煽动恐怖主义行为的合理可能性，据此可确定发生被禁止事件的因果关系或实际风险。58 这类罪行必须 | 27. As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, some of the current approaches, characterized by vaguely worded laws on what is proscribed and draconian intermediary penalties, are likely to be highly counterproductive and to have a chilling effect.55 The Special Rapporteur recalls that no site or information dissemination system should be prohibited from publishing material solely on the basis that it may be critical of the Government, or the political or social system espoused thereby,56 or the religious beliefs or lack thereof adopted by the Government. In line with the recommendations of human rights mechanisms and the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,57 the threshold for those inchoate crimes should be the reasonable probability that the expression in question would succeed in inciting a terrorist act, thereby establishing a causal link or actual risk of the proscribed result occurring.58 Such 51 Jude McCulloch and Sharon Pickering, “Pre-crime and counter-terrorism: imagining future crimes in the ‘War on Terror’”, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 49, No. 5. 52 A/HRC/28/66. 53 A/HRC/40/52, para. 37; and A/HRC/31/65, para. 39. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 46; and A/63/337, para. 61. 54 See https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile? gId=24234. 55 A/HRC/40/58, para. 53. 56 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 43. 57 A/HRC/22/17/Add.4. 58 Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4), para. 29; and A/HRC/16/51, para. 30 and practice 8. |
理可能性，据此可确定发生被禁止事件的因果关系或实际风险。58 这类罪行必须在表述上加以严格限定，符合法律确定性原则，并严格限制其适用，符合相称性和必要性原则，从而确保不过度限制表达和宗教自由权。 | offences must be strictly circumscribed in both their wording, to comply with the principle of legal certainty, and their application, to comply with the principles of proportionality and necessity, so as to not unduly restrict the rights to freedom of expression and religion. |
B. 侧重宗教信仰和行为 | B. Focus on religious adherence and behaviour |
28. 大多数防止和打击暴力极端主义的战略都明确指出，暴力极端主义并不独属于任何区域、国籍或信仰体系，但特别报告员清楚地看到，正如宗教或信仰自由特别报告员在彻底审查后所指出，许多这类方案和政策在执行过程中歧视性地针对特定群体和社区，特别是基于宗教理由。59 多个国家在政策中广泛提及伊黎伊斯兰国、基地组织和“博科圣地”组织等特定恐怖主义团体，极大地影响了辩论，60 尽管有多种来源的有力证据表明，全球范围内增长最快的恐怖主义威胁来自极右翼暴力极端主义。61 在一些国家，防止和打击暴力极端主义的议程专门针对暴力伊斯兰极端主义，掩盖了其他形式的极端主义，导致污名化和两级分化。62 只关注伊斯兰极端主义的做法低估了其他团体构成的严重危害。63 与此同时，特别报告员感到不安的是，对于曾经从事恐怖主义暴力活动的人员的改造和重返社会问题，缺乏更广泛的、基于科学的认识，取而代之的是神学标准。 | 28. Most strategies for preventing and countering violent extremism clearly state that violent extremism is not exclusive to any region, nationality or system of belief, but it is clear to the Special Rapporteur that, in their implementation, many of those programmes and policies have discriminately targeted certain groups and communities, particularly based on religious grounds, as thoroughly examined by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.59 The widespread references across multiple countries to specific terrorist groups, including ISIL, Al-Qaida and Boko Haram, in policies have gone a long way towards colouring the debate,60 notwithstanding the robust evidence from multiple sources that the fastest accelerating terrorism threat globally stems from far right-wing violent extremism.61 In certain countries, the agenda for preventing and countering violent extremism is focused exclusively on violent Islamist extremism, obscuring other forms of extremism and leading to stigmatization and polarization.62 An exclusive focus on Islamic extremism belittles the severity of the danger posed by other groups.63 In parallel, the Special Rapporteur voices unease at theological criteria being used as a stand-in for a broader and scientifically based understanding of the rehabilitation and reintegration of individuals previously engaged in terrorist violence. |
29. 特别报告员对以“极端主义”思想、信仰和内容或“仇恨言论”是恐怖主义前兆为由而加以定罪的立法深表不安，因为这类立法经常被用来压制非主流或少数派宗教团体，或用来压制非多数意见。特别程序任务负责人对助长广泛使用任意拘留和“再教育”作为防止和打击暴力极端主义方法的立法表示关切。64 | 29. The Special Rapporteur has expressed her profound disquiet at legislation that criminalizes “extremist” thought, belief and content or “hate speech” on the basis that it is a precursor to terrorism, because it is often used as a placeholder for silencing non-established or minority religious groups or non-majority opinions. Special procedures mandate holders have expressed concern about legislation that enables the widespread use of arbitrary detention and “re-education” as a method of preventing and countering violent extremism.64 |
30. 正如宗教或信仰自由特别报告员所强调，各国以防止和打击暴力极端主义为名，对禁止“仇恨言论”法意欲保护的少数群体动用这些法律。在某些情况下，禁止“仇恨言论”法甚至被用于限制少数群体成员宣传其文化和身份，或限制其表达对受到多数人歧视的关切。65 无论“极端”如何定义，仅仅持有或和平表达“极端”观点绝不应被定罪，除非结合了暴力或犯罪活动。和平谋求政治、宗教或任何其他议程——即便该议程与政府的宗旨相左并被视为“极端”——必须受到保护。政府应驳斥意见，但不应试图阻止对非暴力观点和意见的讨论。66 法治国家绝不能钳制思想和信仰，更不能就此加以定罪。67 | 30. As highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, States use “hate speech” laws against the very minority groups that those laws have been designed to protect, framed by the justification of preventing and countering violent extremism. In some cases, “hate speech” laws are even used to restrict members of minority groups from promoting their culture and identity or from expressing concern about discrimination against them by the majority.65 Simply holding or peacefully expressing views that are considered “extreme” under any definition should never be criminalized, unless they are associated with violence or criminal activity. The peaceful pursuance of a political, religious or any other agenda – even where that agenda is different from the objectives of the Government and considered to be “extreme” – must be protected. Governments should counter ideas that they disagree with but should not seek to prevent the discussion of non-violent ideas and opinions.66 In a State governed by the rule of law, thought and belief can never be limited, let alone criminalized.67 |
31. 信仰自由的绝对权利是一项普遍权利，也是人性本质的固有方面，这项权利使每个人都可以从事自己的宗教活动或信奉信仰，无论是单独还是与他人一道，无论是私下还是公开。旨在防止和打击暴力极端主义的立法看似无害，却对这项权利构成了日渐严重的歧视性影响，特别报告员对此表示关切。严格约束宗教活动的立法，包括规定繁复或无法达到的宗教团体登记要求的措施，将未经登记的宗教习俗和仪式定为犯罪的措施，限制宗教文献进口可能性的措施，或针对被判犯有“极端主义”罪的个人的额外制裁措施，如禁止前往礼拜场所、大声祈祷、食用宗教认可的食物或向他人宣传信仰，所有这些都直接侵犯了宗教自由权。这些立法对某些宗教团体和个人行使思想、良心和宗教自由造成了尤为严重的影响。特别报告员回顾说，这项权利独立存在，无需行政批准。68 限制措施不能针对信仰本身，根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十八条第三款，限制必须是由法律 | 31. The Special Rapporteur views with concern legislation aimed at preventing and countering violent extremism, which appears innocuous, but poses a serious cumulative 59 A/73/362; Sahar F. Aziz, “Losing the ‘War of Ideas’: a critique of countering violent extremism programmes”, Texas International Law Journal, vol. 52, No. 2; and Faiza Patel and Meghan Koushik, “Countering violent extremism”, Brennan Center for Justice, 2017. 60 Department of State of the United States of America and USAID, joint strategy on countering violent extremism, May 2016, p. 4; and A/70/674, para. 2. 61 Institute for Economics and Peace, Global Terrorism Index 2019. Available at http://visionof humanity.org/app/uploads/2019/11/GTI-2019web.pdf. 62 UNDP, “Report on Oslo II”, p. 20. 63 UNDP, “Preventing violent extremism through promoting inclusive development”. 64 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/OL_CHN_18_2019.pdf. 65 A/HRC/40/58, para. 33. 66 A/HRC/31/65, para. 38. 67 A/HRC/43/46/Add.1. discriminatory impact on the absolute right to freedom of belief, a universal right and an intrinsic aspect of a person’s humanity, which allows everyone to practice their religion or belief, individually and in community with others, in private or in public. Legislation tightly regulating religious exercise, including measures placing burdensome or unattainable requirements on the registration of religious groups, measures criminalizing religious practices and rituals absent registration, measures limiting the possibility of importing religious literature or added sanctions for individuals convicted of “extremism”, such as bans on visiting places of worship, praying aloud, consuming religiously sanctioned food or sharing their faith with others, all directly impinge on the right to freedom of religion. They have a disproportionate impact on certain religious groups and individuals exercising their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The Special Rapporteur recalls that that right exists independently of administrative approval.68 Limitations do not apply to belief per se |
仰本身，根据《公民及政治权利国际公约》第十八条第三款，限制必须是由法律规定、明确必要(即作为最后手段)、追求正当目标、相称(即干预程度最低)，并在意图和效力上不歧视。 | and, under article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, they must be legally prescribed, be clearly necessary (i.e., as a last resort), pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate (i.e., minimal degree of interference) and non-discriminatory in intention and effect. |
32. 不少防止和打击暴力极端主义的做法针对特定人员、社区和群体，助长了假定“嫌疑人”身份、类型分析和排斥的做法，加剧了监视和骚扰等结构性歧视和排斥。69 特别报告员对所谓的“全社会”办法尤其感到关切。在这种办法下，发现“激进化迹象”的责任落在了社会各行为体身上，包括教师、社会工作者、医务人员和其他卫生保健专业人员、监狱工作人员、邻里和家庭成员、社区领袖和宗教团体成员。70 她认为，让医疗工作和社会工作等关爱性质的工作承担安全职责，侵犯了这些领域专业人员对服务对象的特有道德义务。71 这种做法制造了暴力极端主义威胁无处不在、无孔不入的环境，其负面影响怎么强调都不为过。这些措施打破了个人和社区对主要负责保护和赋能的专业人员的脆弱信任，而且在对造成个人投身暴力极端主义的过程没有任何可靠科学认识的情况下，准确识别基本无法实现。这类政策导致过度筛查和过度报告，主要依据被禁止的歧视性理由进行筛查和报告，对宗教和言论自由权及隐私权造成影响。此外，在使用生成的信息方面缺乏透明度，对政府实体共享信息的行为也往往缺少监管，这些促使人们相信，防止和打击暴力极端主义不过是国家情报部门反恐工作的又一工具，而不是抵御暴力极端主义威胁的真正努力。 | 32. Many practices for preventing and countering violent extremism involve targeting particular people, communities and groups, giving rise to assumptions about their “suspect”, profiling, excluding and compounding structural discrimination and exclusion, including surveillance and harassment.69 The Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned by the so-called “whole of society” approach, in which responsibilities to detect “signs of radicalization” fall upon various actors in society, including teachers, social workers, medical staff and other health-care professionals, prison staff, neighbours and family members, community leaders and members of faith-based groups.70 She views the securitization of care professions, including medical professions and social work, as impinging on the unique ethical obligations of professionals in those fields to those they serve.71 In addition to creating an environment in which the threat of violent extremism is ubiquitous and pervasive, the negative impact cannot be overstated. Not only do those measures break the fragile trust that individuals and communities place in those professionals, whose primary duty is to protect and empower, but, without any reliable scientific understanding of the process that makes individuals turn to violent extremism, accurate identification is largely unattainable. Such policies lead to overselection and overreporting, largely on prohibited discriminatory grounds, having an impact on the rights to freedom of religion and expression and privacy. Furthermore, the lack of transparency about the use of the information generated and its often underregulated sharing across government entities lends credence to a perception that preventing and countering violent extremism is yet another tool of a State intelligence entity’s counter-terrorism efforts, rather than a genuine effort at building resistance to the threat of violent extremism. |
Subsets and Splits