I. Background introduction
Chemical weapons refer to weapons of mass destruction caused by the toxic effects of certain chemicals on human beings and organisms. Because most toxic substances are converted into gases in practical applications, they are also called poison gas weapons. Immediately after World War I, Japan began to research and manufacture chemical weapons, and in the early 1930s, it became one of the powerful countries with chemical weapons in the world. In order to realize the ambition of annexing neighboring countries and dominating the world, Japanese militarists adopted the suggestion that "Japan lacking resources can only win by germ warfare", thus determining the germ warfare strategy and trying to win the war of aggression at the least cost. 1937 after the lugouqiao incident, according to the orders of the Japanese base camp, the Japanese invaders began to use chemical weapons against China soldiers and civilians on the battlefield in China, causing serious damage. In order to meet the large demand of germ warfare, the Japanese invaders successively set up large-scale germ warfare bases and factories in Harbin and Changchun in Northeast China, Beijing in North China, Nanjing in East China, Guangzhou in South China, Singapore and Malaysia in Nanyang, and set up branches and factories in 63 large and medium-sized cities across the country. The "achievements" of bacterial research by Japanese invaders were widely used in wars, and bacterial warfare was carried out in 20 provinces of China. They all used germ warfare in attacks, retreats, mopping up, slaughtering refugees, eliminating guerrillas and destroying aviation bases. , which led to the epidemic in our country, and caused many tragic deaths of China soldiers and civilians. According to statistics, it is well documented that 270,000 innocent people died in germ warfare, and the death toll of the military has not yet been counted. Due to the spread of epidemic diseases and the formation of new foci after years of epidemic diseases, countless deaths have occurred. 73 1 Force is the largest germ warfare force of Japanese invaders and the largest germ warfare force in the history of world war. It has been confirmed that this army has been frantically developing various germs such as plague, typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera, anthrax and tuberculosis. 12 years, and has infected at least 5000 prisoners of war and civilians from China, the Soviet Union and North Korea. Conduct a lot of inhuman experiments, including vivisection, and cultivate various biological bacteria [1]. On the one hand, the Japanese chemical warfare is a historical problem of violating international conventions, and on the other hand, it is a real problem that is extremely harmful in real life (civil claim for damage caused by legacy weapons), both of which have important practical significance. Based on the basic theory of international humanitarian law, this paper will analyze the chemical warfare of the Japanese army and explain Japan's national responsibility in this regard.
Second, the theoretical analysis of Japan's use of chemical weapons in violation of international humanitarian law
(1) Provisions of international humanitarian law on operational principles and rules:
The law of war is the criterion to adjust the relations between belligerents and between belligerents and non-belligerents in war [2]. Its main contents include the rules for the start and end of the war, the operational principles, means and methods that the warring parties should abide by, the protection system for prisoners of war, the wounded and civilians, the legislation of China and the punishment for war criminals. Among them, what is called "international humanitarian law" stipulates the operational principles, means and methods that warring parties should abide by and the protection system for prisoners of war, wounded and civilians. International humanitarian law is only applicable to armed conflicts, and its purpose is to ensure respect for people and alleviate the suffering caused by war without violating military needs and public order. Through a series of international treaties and international customary laws, the following principles have been established:
1, principle of distinction (principle of distinction):
(1) Distinguish between legitimate combatants and civilians: protect civilians and don't target them in battle.
(2) Distinguish between combatants and non-combatants: distinguish by whether to participate in armed struggle or not, and do not target non-combatants.
(3) Distinguish between combatants with combat capability and combatants without combat capability: the latter should not be targeted.
(4) Distinguish between military and civilian targets and between military and civilian objects. Do not attack civilian targets and objects.
2. Restriction principle: The warring parties are required to abide by the restrictions of the laws of war when choosing methods and means of warfare, and shall not implement methods and means prohibited or restricted by law.
3. Principle of proportionality: The combat means and methods required of combatants should be commensurate with the anticipated, concrete and direct military interests.
4. Military necessity and principles not stipulated in the treaty cannot exempt the obligations of international law: on the one hand, military necessity cannot be used to discredit or undermine the obligations of the laws of war. On the other hand, we cannot violate the obligations of the laws of war on the grounds that the treaty is silent.
At the same time, international humanitarian law prohibits the following means and methods of warfare:
1, it is forbidden to use extremely cruel and excessively harmful weapons:
2. It is prohibited to use indiscriminate means and methods of warfare: that is, to use force without distinction between combatants and non-combatants, combatants and civilians, military targets and civilian targets, and military and civilian objects.
3. It is forbidden to use combat means and methods that change the environment: it mainly refers to prohibiting the use of means or methods that may change the natural environment and cause extensive, long-term and serious damage.
4. It is forbidden to use treacherous means and methods of warfare: 1977 Article 37 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions stipulates: "It is forbidden to use treacherous means to kill, injure or capture the enemy. The purpose of luring the enemy's trust is to betray the enemy's trust and make the enemy think that he has the right or the obligation to give protection under the rules of international law applicable to armed conflicts. "
(2) Analysis of Japan's violation of international humanitarian law by using chemical weapons in its war of aggression against China;
The use of chemical weapons by the Japanese army on the battlefield in China can be roughly divided into the following three situations:
A use of chemical weapons as a means to achieve military objectives in large-scale campaigns
1938 in Yichang and Wuhan. Due to the large scale of this campaign, the Japanese army planned to use chemical weapons, and even conducted chemical weapons experiments during the war, so there are more detailed records, including the types and quantities of chemical weapons prepared and actually used.
B In general wars or small-scale battles, the Japanese army uses chemical weapons flexibly according to the situation. This situation is more complicated, and there are also cases where records are left carelessly. In most cases, there is no specific record. At that time, although the war participants of both sides were involved in the memoirs after the war, it was difficult to find specific data.
C. use of chemical weapons against civilians as a means of persecution
When the Japanese army swept through the areas controlled by the anti-Japanese forces at that time, it often used chemical weapons to attack peaceful residents hidden in tunnels, which mostly happened in the base areas behind enemy lines and areas where the Japanese army and the anti-Japanese forces were at loggerheads. This is recorded in Japanese literature, but it is more reflected in China's data. At that time, the word "poisonous gas" was still circulating among the people, which was the reason.
First, it violates the "principle of distinction" and prohibits indiscriminate means and methods of warfare:
1, legal combatants and civilians should be distinguished.
2, distinguish between military targets and civilian targets, military objects and civilian objects.
Civilians and civilian objects should not be targeted. Civilian residents and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection from dangers arising from military operations. Civilian residents themselves and individuals should not be targeted, and violence or threats of violence whose main purpose is to spread terror among civilian residents are prohibited. Civilian objects should not be the target of attack or retaliation. Civilian objects refer to objects that are not military targets. When it is doubtful whether an object usually used for civilian purposes, such as places of worship, schools, houses or other residences, is used for military operations, it should be presumed that the object has not been so used. It is forbidden to attack, destroy, move or disable objects indispensable to civilian residents, protect cultural relics and places of worship, and protect projects and devices containing dangerous forces such as dams and nuclear power plants. 1907 article 25 of the annex to Hague convention iv stipulates: "it is forbidden to attack and bomb undefended towns, villages, houses and buildings by any means." Article 27 stipulates: "During the siege and bombing, all necessary measures shall be taken to protect buildings, historical monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are concentrated as much as possible, provided that they are not used for military purposes at that time.". During the war of aggression against China, the Japanese army often used chemical weapons to attack peaceful residents hiding in tunnels, causing a large number of civilian casualties. Chemical and biological weapons are not only aimed at China People's Liberation Army, militia and volunteers, but also spared ordinary residents. Not only for military targets, but also for residential villages, it is self-evident to violate this principle and rule.
Second, it violates the rules prohibiting the use of means and methods of warfare that change the environment and the use of extremely cruel and excessively injurious weapons: extremely cruel and excessively injurious weapons include nuclear weapons, biological weapons and chemical weapons. 1899 The Hague Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land stipulates that the use of poison or poisonous weapons is especially prohibited. In the same year, The Hague Declaration II declared that the use of asphyxiating gas projectiles or gas bombs was prohibited. 1907 The annex to Hague Convention IV also prohibits the use of poison or poisonous weapons. 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol) not only reaffirms the provisions of the above-mentioned treaties, but also clearly stipulates that "the use of bacteriological methods of warfare is prohibited". As mentioned earlier, the "achievements" of bacterial research by Japanese invaders were widely used in wars, and bacterial wars were conducted in 20 provinces of China. They all used germ warfare in attacks, retreats, mopping up, slaughtering refugees, eliminating guerrillas and destroying aviation bases. , which led to the epidemic in China, resulting in the tragic death of many soldiers and civilians in China, which obviously violated the provisions of this rule. It is a new rule of the law of war to prohibit the use of operational methods and means that change the environment. It is based on the basic principle of protecting human environment. According to the 1977 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Environmental Modification Techniques for Military or Any Other Hostile Purpose, environmental modification techniques refer to technologies that change the dynamic composition or structure of the earth or outer space by deliberately manipulating natural processes. The operational method of changing the environment refers to the application of the above technologies to change the climate, cause earthquakes or tsunamis, destroy the ecological balance and destroy the ozone layer. Additional Protocol I (1977) prohibits the use of methods and means of warfare aimed at or likely to cause extensive, long-term and serious damage to the natural environment, thus endangering the health and survival of residents. The release of chemical and biological weapons has caused great environmental pollution throughout China. Poison pollutes the soil, and the contaminated soil contains poison and its degradation substances, which will seriously affect the ecological balance of the soil and then affect the growth of animals and plants. The pollution of air and water sources has also caused serious consequences. The mustard gas incident in Qiqihar, China on August 4th this year was the result of the use of chemical and biological weapons by the Japanese army. Although the 1977 Convention was not concluded when the Japanese army launched the war of aggression against China, according to the Ma Erdun clause (see below), the Japanese army should still bear the responsibility.
Third, it violates the "principle of proportionality":
This principle requires the warring parties not to carry out excessive or disproportionate attacks, and not to use combat means and methods that cause excessive injuries and unnecessary suffering. In the war of aggression against China, even the use of conventional weapons by the Japanese army was enough to achieve its aggressive purpose, while the large-scale use of chemical and biological weapons was obviously not commensurate with its military purpose.
Fourth, international humanitarian law is a mandatory law. Without a treaty, the Japanese army cannot be exempted from its obligations:
There is no provision in the treaty that obligations under international law cannot be exempted. On the one hand, belligerents are required not to violate the humanitarian rules of international treaties to which belligerents are not parties. On the other hand, it is not allowed to violate humanitarian obligations because the treaty does not stipulate it. The preambles of the two conventions concerning the laws and customs of war on land (1899 and 1907) point out that "it is not yet possible to formulate an agreed constitution for all situations that occur in practice, but on the other hand, it is obvious that the State party has no intention to allow commanders to act arbitrarily in unforeseen circumstances because of the lack of written provisions. Before the promulgation of more complete laws and regulations of war, the contracting States think it necessary to declare that civilians and combatants should still be protected and dominated by international law in all cases not covered by the laws and regulations they adopt, because these principles are derived from conventions formulated between civilized countries, humanitarian laws and the requirements of public conscience. " The principles and rules of international humanitarian law belong to the category of international mandatory law. According to 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international mandatory law is accepted and recognized by all members of the international community, and its main purpose is to safeguard the most important basic interests and social morality of all mankind. It is binding on every member of society and has veto power over any law that conflicts with it. Therefore, Japan's unilateral withdrawal from a large number of conventions prohibiting chemical and biological weapons during World War II cannot exempt it from its international obligations.
Fifth, the system of protecting prisoners of war and civilians in wartime in violation of international humanitarian law:
At that time, the conventions that stipulated the treatment of prisoners of war mainly included the annex to Hague Convention IV 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1929. According to the provisions of the Convention, prisoners of war should enjoy humanitarian treatment from being captured to losing their status as prisoners of war, prisoners of war should not be taken hostage, and atrocities or intimidation against prisoners of war and public curiosity are prohibited; Do not retaliate against prisoners of war, do not physically harm or mutilate their limbs, and do not provide any medical or scientific experiments. According to the annexes to the Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1899 and 1907), belligerents should give humanitarian treatment to residents who remain in their territory and protect their legitimate rights and interests; It shall not be placed in a certain place or area to protect the place or area from military attacks; Don't put physical and mental pressure on them and force them to provide information; Physical torture and torture of these civilians, especially medical and scientific experiments for non-medical purposes, are prohibited; Personal punishment and hostage-taking are prohibited.
During World War II, the "73 1" poison gas unit formed by the Japanese army conducted a large number of inhuman experiments on at least 5,000 prisoners of war and civilians from China, the Soviet Union and North Korea, including vivisection and cultivation of various biological bacteria, which blatantly violated international humanitarian law.
Third, the Japanese army should bear state responsibility for using chemical weapons in violation of international humanitarian law.
State responsibility refers to the international legal responsibility that the state should bear for its international misconduct. In principle, a country's international misconduct should have both subjective and objective elements. 1, an act can be attributed to the state according to international law. 2. A country's behavior violates its effective international obligations. According to the above situation, Japan's use of chemical and biological weapons in its war of aggression against China violated its humanitarian obligations. The draft articles on state responsibility prepared by the United Nations International Law Commission systematically explain the acts attributable to the state with the clause 1 1. According to draft article 5, "1", "for the purpose of this article, the behavior of any state organ with this status according to the domestic law of the country shall be regarded as the behavior of the country according to international law, provided that the organ acts in this capacity in the relevant event." No matter what position such a state organ holds in a state organization, as long as it acts as a state organ in the relevant incident, even if it exceeds the authority prescribed by domestic law or violates the instructions of its activities in the incident, its behavior should be regarded as that of the country to which it belongs according to international law. "2" In the eyes of many international law scholars, the armed forces have the status of state organs. Oppenheim's 8th and 9th editions of International Law clearly pointed out: "The armed forces are the state organs to maintain the armed forces, because the purpose of establishing the armed forces is to safeguard the independence, authority and security of the country." "3" Especially in the judgment of the International Court of Justice on June 27th 1986 on the substantive issues of "military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua", it is especially recognized that the actions of laying mines in Nigerian ports carried out, planned, directed and supported by American government agencies and military personnel can be attributed to the United States, thus being regarded as national actions of the United States. Therefore, Japan's aggression should be regarded as its national behavior. Japan should bear state responsibility for its actions.
The Influence of Globalization on International Law
The influence of globalization on contemporary international society is an indisputable fact. Especially since the 1990s, with the end of the cold war era of bipolar confrontation, the tide of globalization is surging, and mankind has truly entered the era of global survival and competition, which has produced many globalization phenomena such as economic globalization, political globalization, ecological globalization and legal globalization. Whether people like it or not, smart people will never deny its existence, especially in the economic aspect. [1] Globalization inevitably impacts the legal system, causing changes and even revolutions in the legal system. The emergence of economic globalization and information globalization, as well as the evolution of the status and role of international organizations such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, have brought unprecedented opportunities and challenges to world politics, economy and culture. A series of new problems arising from this need legal system to deal with, adjust and solve. [2] As a part of law, international law should also respond to the issue of globalization. The question in the field of international law is, what impact does globalization have on international law? How does international law handle international relations in the era of globalization? This paper is only a preliminary discussion on this issue, and its purpose is to arouse the criticism of * * *.
First, the influence of globalization in the field of international economic law.
Economic globalization is the foundation and important part of globalization. Reflected in the scope of international economic law, the influence of globalization shows that non-state actors (including international economic organizations and transnational corporations) are increasingly involved in matters that should belong to the internal jurisdiction of sovereign countries, or that national economic sovereignty is gradually deprived in the process of global economic integration. Non-state actors, especially the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and transnational corporations, have a great influence on national economic sovereignty. Globalization has promoted the global division of production. In the economic and trade field, countries are more closely linked than before, and the degree of economic integration is deepening. Some international economic organizations took the opportunity to extend their "tentacles" to the internal affairs under the sovereignty of member States. For example, the decision made by the International Monetary Fund in 1992 on the status of the former Yugoslavia in the organization ruled that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has ceased to exist, and the five republics divided by it are the successor countries of the former Yugoslavia's property and debts in the organization. The decision is not so much to decide the membership of a sovereign state in the organization as to decide and announce the existence of a sovereign state. When a country is in civil strife or armed conflict, when its ethnic minorities or several ethnic groups demand independence, intergovernmental international organizations rarely formally decide to recognize a new country by reviewing the status of its member States. [3] Take Thailand as an example. During the Southeast Asian financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund gave it a loan to implement the economic stabilization plan, but the condition was to supervise Thailand's budget and ask Thailand to reform and privatize its enterprises. Another example is South Korea, and the International Monetary Fund has also provided loans to help it tide over the financial crisis. However, South Korea must accept the following conditions: reduce government spending, reduce import restrictions, and ensure that the government does not interfere in the work of the central bank. In essence, the sovereignty of these countries has been weakened. Another important economic organization is the World Trade Organization. According to WTO rules, WTO members are not allowed to formulate tariff tariffs at will, and the formulation of non-tariff measures should also follow relevant regulations. The technical standards and measures adopted by member countries should take into account the relevant WTO agreements and be transparent, and so on. A large number of its policies have touched the exclusive territory that used to belong to the domestic jurisdiction of member States, and its scope has extended to industries that have been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the state. For example, since the 1990s, with the progress of globalization and the acceleration of negotiations on China's first accession to the WTO, China will gradually reduce tariffs and allow foreign investment to enter some industries exclusive to China enterprises, such as lawyers, finance and telecommunications. Therefore, the right of domestic independence derived from the principle of national sovereignty has been eroded.
As the main body of international economic activities, the influence of multinational corporations in the process of globalization can not be ignored. Nowadays, multinational corporations have developed into powerful non-state actors that influence and influence the world political and economic process, and their financial resources and energy even exceed those of some small and medium-sized ethnic countries. [4] Globalization makes multinational companies implement the best resource allocation and production factor combination on a global scale in order to reduce production costs and operational risks, which requires them to invest and use their land and natural resources in other countries, which weakens the country's resource allocation capacity and territorial jurisdiction to some extent. Economic globalization is based on the strong economic strength of multinational corporations. If sovereign countries take trade protection measures to protect their own economies, the result may be that multinational companies withdraw their investment and transfer their capital to areas with fewer trade barriers and greater interests. Faced with the strong pressure of globalization and domestic economic development, sovereign countries have to make concessions. However, it should also be noted that some multinational companies even interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries by purchasing and training agents, which affects the political process and economic policy direction of the host country. ITT's role in 1973 overthrowing the government of Allende in Chile and BP's role in 1953 helping to overthrow the government of Mossad in Iran are good examples. It can be seen that transnational corporations may become one of the important factors restricting the sovereignty of nation-States, especially the sovereignty of developing countries. How to coordinate the contradiction between multinational corporations and sovereign countries has become an important issue in globalization. The current international economic operation rules are largely formulated by western developed countries. In the era of globalization, developing countries need to intervene in order not to break away from the rules of international economic operation and make globalization truly global. At present, the deepening of interdependence and the process of globalization are mainly externalized into the extensive construction of international economic mechanisms, and participating in international economic mechanisms not only means that countries can no longer formulate economic policies according to their own interests and wishes, but also are restricted by relevant rules in their foreign economic behavior. In addition, because the system of international economic mechanism and "rules of the game" are mainly decided by western countries, the sovereign ability of developing countries to objectively dispose of natural wealth and resources decreases while participating in the mechanism, thus seeking development opportunities for them in the world market. [5] For example, the diversification of property rights of domestic enterprises in a country makes it difficult for the country to determine the scope of national industries, and the traditional content of protecting the economic sovereignty of national industries has been greatly weakened. The development of high technology makes the country more and more unable to manage and control it, which also weakens the national economic sovereignty to some extent. However, many global economic problems, such as the exhaustion of natural resources, cross-border disasters and famines, and the solution of ecological balance, are beyond the sovereign capacity of a single country or some countries, forcing countries to weaken their sovereignty consciousness to a certain extent, including weakening the absolute sovereignty concept of "freely disposing of natural wealth and natural resources" in order to promote the realization of the common interests of all mankind.
The influence of globalization on the field of international criminal law
Globalization has accelerated the links between countries, but it has also brought some new problems, such as transnational commercial crimes, drug trafficking and terrorism. These problems have already transcended national boundaries and require the concerted efforts of the international community, as shown by the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the establishment of the International Criminal Court.
In view of the increasing number of international crimes with the development of globalization since the end of the Cold War, the Rome Diplomatic Conference signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court established under the Statute enjoys universal and compulsory jurisdiction over the crimes listed in the Statute. However, this kind of jurisdiction stipulated in the Statute is not based on the state's voluntary acceptance of the court's jurisdiction, but stipulates the obligations of non-parties without the state's consent: this violates the principle of state sovereignty and does not conform to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. [13] The law also stipulates that prosecutors have the right to investigate on their own initiative, and gives individuals, non-governmental organizations and various institutions the right to sue state civil servants and military personnel. This startup procedure puts the will of individuals and non-governmental organizations above national sovereignty and is likely to become a tool to interfere in other countries' internal affairs. [14] Once the Statute comes into force, the International Criminal Court established according to it will become the first truly unified criminal court in the world. Although its jurisdiction is limited to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression, its main target is undoubtedly the state and its power. The member States that signed and ratified the Statute mean that their sovereignty will be limited to a certain extent. They originally had universal jurisdiction over the international crimes listed in the Statute. It is a challenge to the absolute state sovereignty for the International Criminal Court to bring the acts of sovereign states into its jurisdiction. In addition, the International Criminal Court established by the United Nations in response to civil wars in some countries can also illustrate this point. In addition, the impact of globalization on international law is also reflected in the emergence of some new branches of international law, such as international development law and international cooperation law.
Ending of intransitive verbs
International law is a law that regulates international relations. It goes without saying that globalization will inevitably have a certain impact on international law. The key lies in how to understand international law in the process of globalization. The author believes that in the process of globalization, when dealing with the relationship between globalization and international law, we should adhere to the following points: First, the main body of international relations regulated by international law is the country, and globalization has the most significant impact on the country, especially on sovereignty. Sovereignty, as the highest power for a country to handle its internal and external affairs independently, has been influenced, eroded, alienated or weakened to some extent in the process of globalization. At present, it is not advisable to adhere to the view of absolute sovereignty. Upholding absolute sovereignty means insisting that a sovereign country enjoys exclusive supreme jurisdiction over all people, things and events within its territory. In the international communication between sovereign countries, we should adhere to the basic principles of "independence, equality, mutual respect, mutual non-aggression and mutual non-interference". The theory of absolute sovereignty has played a great role in promoting history, and it has also played a certain role in blocking and protecting the national independence of Asia, Africa and Latin America after World War II. However, with the development of globalization, the development of every nation-state has been brought into an international and cosmopolitan track, and the theory of absolute national sovereignty has gradually exposed its limitations. On the one hand, globalization has brought unprecedented opportunities to all countries; On the other hand, globalization also restricts the development of countries and greatly affects the global political, economic and cultural relations, which are interactive. In other words, globalization challenges the theory of absolute national sovereignty. In the process of globalization and the formation of the global international community, it is no longer in line with the reality and trend of the development of the international community to limit national interests to safeguarding their own security, economy and political interests. [15] Therefore, international relations under the conditions of globalization need the cooperation of the international community and respect its values. In order to achieve this goal, sovereign countries must make sacrifices and cede part of their sovereignty in order to integrate into the international community in time, not to fall behind in the process of globalization and realize greater national interests. Secondly, national sovereignty is not absolute, but subject to certain restrictions and constraints, and the constraint of sovereignty is the sovereign state itself. Only when a country voluntarily cedes part of its sovereignty is in line with international law, but it is against international law to be forced to give up or cede part of its sovereignty under the action of external forces. The international community, which participates in globalization, needs to make some efforts to give up part of its sovereignty by participating in international organizations, international conferences and concluding treaties. In most cases, it is voluntary by the state, so it is in line with international law. However, we should also see that the fields of transferring sovereignty are limited, and in some sensitive international security and political fields, such as nuclear testing, nuclear monitoring and arms reduction, we should adhere to the indivisibility of sovereignty. The transfer of sovereignty is based on the interests of the country, which is different from the previous concept of sovereignty. Because sovereignty in international law is the product of the development of human society to class society, it is the same historical category as the state. To understand sovereignty in international law, we should look at it from the perspective of history and development, and don't fantasize about asking for it in a fixed mode. The fixed concept is difficult to understand the complicated reality of international relations, and the development and change of sovereignty are inseparable from the development and change of the international situation. Sovereignty is not eternal and static, but dynamic, which is constantly enriched and developed with the development of society. [16] Third, the development of globalization, the rapid development of science and technology and frequent international exchanges have brought some new problems in the field of international law, such as international environmental law, international development law, international cooperation law and the third generation of human rights. To solve these problems, it is impossible to rely on the strength of one country alone, and it requires the joint efforts of the international community. Because the goal they protect is the common interests of all mankind, not the unilateral interests of a certain country. In fact, the globalization and the challenge of globalization we are talking about today refer to globalization based on the theory of human holism and the theory of common interests of mankind. It focuses on the * * * essence of human social life, highlighting the * * * same values and * * * same interests of human beings. [17] These new issues of international law that reflect the common interests of mankind and how to standardize the legal system will become the focus of future international relations negotiations. But in any case, adhering to the basic principles of international law is the first thing to abide by.
Finally, with the development of globalization, there are more and more non-state actors, and their role in international relations has been paid more and more attention. Non-state actors play an important role in some departments of international law, and their role in the formation of some rules of international law can not be ignored. For example, the role of non-governmental organizations in international environmental law can be illustrated. However, it should be pointed out that no matter how non-state actors develop, sovereign States still dominate international legal relations. The relationship between countries is still the main content of international relations, the country is still the maker of international law, and as the main actor in the international behavior system, the country still plays a leading role in international relations. It is wrong to emphasize non-state actors and ignore the role of the state in international law. In a word, it is necessary to study international law in the era of globalization with a new way of thinking, which is limited by traditional research methods. Not only can it not promote globalization and the development of international law, but its role may be counterproductive.