SAE Theory of the State · Paper 6: The Last Resort / SAE 国家论 第六篇: 最后的手段

This paper asks five things: who determines the cannot-not of starting a war and of expanding it; to whom the "ought" in war is addressed; how the other side's people remain within this state's line in war; which part of what this state does in war is no longer defense, and who identifies it, and by what; and why occupation may not become colonization. The example is three decisions taken at the Boundary River between the United City-States of Ends (UCSE) and the Democratic Republic of Purposes (DRP): to repel the enemy who crossed the border, to declare a state of war, and to cross the river. The second went through a vote of both chambers; the third was made only in a meeting of the side that gave the order, and the case file shows no further confirmation. Starting a war follows Theorem One of the *War Treatise*, and expanding it follows Theorem Two; both are cited as they stand, and their range is not altered. What this paper adds is the determination: it is not monopolized by a single position, is time-limited, and is open to questioning; starting, expanding and crossing the boundary are each determined on their own, and the state of war does not stand in for the determination. The upstream left the "should" of the "war-party" at an address not yet fixed; this paper takes on only the slot within it that belongs to the state as a construct: the state takes the ought, those who declare war and those who command take accountability in their positions, and soldiers and civilians each have their own law. Civilians of the other side whom this state's war acts reach and who have no way to exit are, as regards those acts, in this state's interior, following the unified sentence (given in full in §3); so too are the other side's combatants who have laid down their arms, been captured, or are wounded or sick; the limit on using force against combatants in action follows the methods-constraint of the *War Treatise*, and this series sets up no other. The line is not discounted by war: the part that falls on a particular person and crosses the line is booked as crossing the line, and its account is booked; it is not renamed on account of war or of the cannot-not, nor is the act thereby shown to have been impermissible in the first place. The part that crosses the boundary of "dissolving the threat" is not within the cannot-not; the three criteria are whether the threat is being dissolved, whether the other side's internal affairs are being managed, and whether a control is being set up with no time limit and no path of exit. A decision to expand is determined beforehand; single acts in combat are checked afterward by a position independent of the commanding side. The other side's crossings are only identified, and no ought is written for that side; this state's crossing of the boundary is not excused by the other side's. On the facts of the UCSE cases, the ceasefire reaches the threshold (hostilities have ceased, and the attacking side has withdrawn); remaining stationed on the other side's land after that is an expansion that must be determined on its own. Occupation may not become colonization: this state exits the reorganization space of the other side's subjectivity; "maintained observation" does not mean setting up posts on the other side's land to manage it. The contrast with Walzer rests only on secondary literature and is made in place, at three points. Strategy and tactics, whether crossing the river was a cannot-not, and whether Junction Town should have been struck, this paper does not judge; what a third state does inside another state is handed to the Theory of Inter-State Cooperation. The paper has five propositions (N30 to N34), together with one section that draws a corollary; the propositions are listed together at the end.

这一篇问五件事:开战与扩大的"不得不"由谁认定;打仗时的"应当"说给谁;战时对方的人怎样仍在本国的线内;本国在战争中做的事,哪一部分已经不是防守,由谁、凭什么认出来;占领为什么不得成为殖民。事例是目的联合城邦(the United City-States of Ends,UCSE)与目的民主共和国(the Democratic Republic of Purposes,DRP)界河边的三个决定:击退越界之敌,宣布战时状态,越河;第二个经两院表决,第三个只在下令的一方自己的会议上作出,卷内未见另有确认。开战照战争论定理一,扩大照定理二,照引,不改射程;这一篇补的是认定:不由单一位置独占,限期,可被追问,开战、扩大、越界各自认定,不以战时状态代替。上游把"战争方"的"应该"留在一个未定的地址;这一篇只认领其中国家这一构的那一格:国家用应当,宣战者、指挥者在位置上用职责,士兵与平民各有自己的法。本国战争施为所及、无从退出的对方平民,就这些施为而言在本国内部,照统一句(全文见第三节);放下武器、被俘、伤病的对方战斗员也是这样;对作战中的战斗员动武,限度照战争论的手段约束,本系列不另立。线不随战争打折:落在某个人身上、越了线的那一部分,照记越线、照归账,不因战时或"不得不"改名,也不因此就是当初不可作。越过"解除威胁"的那一部分不在"不得不"之内;三条判准是:是否解除威胁,是否管理对方的内部事务,是否设下没有期限、没有退出路径的控制。扩大的决定事前认定,作战中的单个施为事后由独立于指挥一方的位置核。对方一侧只认出,不对它写应当;本国的越界不因对方越界而免。在国案的事实下,停火即到阈(敌对停止,攻击的一方撤出),此后仍驻对方土地,是须单独认定的扩大。占领不得成为殖民:退出对方主体性的重组空间;"保持观察"不等于在对方土地上设点管理。与沃尔泽的对照只据二手文献,随文三处。战略战术、越河是不是不得不、枢镇该不该打,这一篇不判;第三国在别国境内的作为,交国家间协作论。全篇五条(N30 至 N34),另有一节推论,末尾合列。

Related works