nonintervention

简明释义

英[ˈnɒnˌɪntəˈvenʃən]美[ˌnɑːnɪntərˈvenʃn]

n. 不干涉；放任；不介入

英英释义

单词用法

同义词

反义词

例句

1.Nonintervention pact or not, the fact remains that they were attacked, overrun, thrown into modern slavery at an hour's notice — or even without any notice at all.

不干涉协定或不，事实上，他们被攻击，超限，扔到现代奴隶制一小时通知——甚至没有注意到这一切。

2.Nonintervention pact or not, the fact remains that they were attacked, overrun, thrown into modern slavery at an hour's notice — or even without any notice at all.

不干涉协定或不，事实上，他们被攻击，超限，扔到现代奴隶制一小时通知——甚至没有注意到这一切。

3.A few years ago, almost no Chinese scholar challenged the principle of nonintervention, of infringing on the sovereignty of other nations.

几年前，“不干涉他国内政”、“不侵犯他国主权”等原则罕有学者挑战。

4.A few years ago almost no Chinese scholar challenged the principle of nonintervention of infringing on the sovereignty of other nations.

仅在几年以前，几乎都没有中国学者敢去挑战不干涉不侵犯别国主权的原则。

5.Lula altered Brazil's long-standing policy of nonintervention and got involved in conflicts in Haiti, Honduras and most controversially Iran.

卢拉改变了巴西长期的不干涉政策，参与了海地，洪都拉斯和富有争议的伊朗冲突。

6.Some nations of Europe were bound by solemn nonintervention pacts with Germany.

欧洲一些国家的不干涉协定庄严德国束缚。

7.My center nonintervention concerns the ruling of civil rights and interests.

我中心不介入有关民事权益的裁定。

8.The challenge for China is its policy of nonintervention.

中国的难题在于不干涉政策。

9.Generally, I think the policy of nonintervention is the correct one.

总的来说，我认为不干涉政策是正确的。

10.The policy of nonintervention has been adopted by several countries to avoid foreign conflicts.

多个国家采取了非干预政策，以避免外国冲突。

11.During the crisis, the government's stance on nonintervention was heavily criticized.

在危机期间，政府对非干预的立场遭到了严重批评。

12.Many economists argue that nonintervention in the market can lead to better economic outcomes.

许多经济学家认为，市场中的非干预可以带来更好的经济结果。

13.The principle of nonintervention is often cited in discussions about international law.

在国际法的讨论中，非干预原则经常被提及。

14.Her approach to parenting is based on nonintervention, allowing her children to learn from their own mistakes.

她的育儿方式基于非干预，让孩子们从自己的错误中学习。

作文

In the realm of international relations, the concept of nonintervention plays a crucial role in shaping the policies of nations. Nonintervention refers to the principle that a country should not interfere in the internal affairs of another sovereign state. This principle is rooted in the respect for national sovereignty and the belief that each nation has the right to govern itself without external interference. The debate surrounding nonintervention often arises in the context of humanitarian crises, civil wars, and political upheavals. Proponents of nonintervention argue that countries should prioritize diplomacy and dialogue over military intervention. They believe that intervening in another country's affairs can lead to unintended consequences, including prolonged conflict and destabilization of the region. For instance, the military interventions in Iraq and Libya are often cited as examples where nonintervention might have led to a more stable outcome, as these interventions resulted in chaos and suffering for the local populations. On the other hand, critics of nonintervention argue that there are instances where intervention is necessary to prevent human rights abuses or to stop genocides. They contend that the international community has a moral obligation to protect vulnerable populations from oppressive regimes. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which emerged in the early 2000s, emphasizes the importance of intervention in cases where a state fails to protect its citizens. This raises complex questions about when and how to intervene, and whether nonintervention should always be upheld. The situation in Syria serves as a pertinent example of the challenges associated with nonintervention. Since the onset of the civil war in 2011, millions of Syrians have suffered from violence, displacement, and humanitarian crises. The international community has been divided on how to respond, with some advocating for military intervention to support opposition groups, while others emphasize the need for nonintervention to avoid further escalation. This dilemma highlights the tension between the principles of nonintervention and the moral imperative to protect human rights. Furthermore, nonintervention is not only a principle in foreign policy but also a guiding philosophy in domestic affairs. In many democratic societies, the idea of nonintervention extends to the relationship between the government and its citizens. Individuals advocate for minimal government interference in personal lives, arguing that too much intervention can infringe upon personal freedoms and autonomy. This perspective resonates with libertarian ideals, emphasizing the importance of individual rights and self-determination. In conclusion, the principle of nonintervention remains a contentious issue in both international and domestic contexts. While it upholds the sovereignty of nations and respects individual freedoms, it also presents challenges when faced with humanitarian crises. The balance between respecting nonintervention and addressing urgent moral obligations is a delicate one, requiring careful consideration and a nuanced approach. As global dynamics continue to evolve, the discussions surrounding nonintervention will undoubtedly persist, prompting nations to reevaluate their stances on intervention and sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world.

在国际关系领域，非干预的概念在塑造国家政策方面发挥着至关重要的作用。非干预是指一个国家不应干涉另一个主权国家内部事务的原则。这一原则根植于对国家主权的尊重，以及每个国家都有权在没有外部干涉的情况下自我治理的信念。围绕非干预的辩论通常出现在人道主义危机、内战和政治动荡的背景下。非干预的支持者认为，各国应优先考虑外交和对话，而不是军事干预。他们认为，干预另一个国家的事务可能导致意想不到的后果，包括冲突的延续和地区的不稳定。例如，伊拉克和利比亚的军事干预常被引用为如果采取非干预可能导致更稳定结果的例子，因为这些干预导致了当地民众的混乱和痛苦。 另一方面，非干预的批评者则认为，在某些情况下，干预是必要的，以防止人权侵害或制止种族灭绝。他们主张，国际社会有道义责任保护脆弱群体免受压迫政权的侵害。责任保护（R2P）原则在21世纪初出现，强调在国家未能保护其公民的情况下进行干预的重要性。这引发了关于何时以及如何干预，以及是否应始终坚持非干预的复杂问题。 叙利亚的局势就是一个与非干预相关挑战的恰当例子。自2011年内战爆发以来，数百万叙利亚人遭受暴力、流离失所和人道主义危机。国际社会在如何应对这一问题上存在分歧，有些人主张军事干预以支持反对派，而另一些人则强调需要非干预以避免进一步升级。这一困境突显了非干预原则与保护人权的道德责任之间的紧张关系。 此外，非干预不仅是外交政策中的一个原则，也是国内事务中的指导哲学。在许多民主社会中，非干预的理念扩展到政府与公民之间的关系。个人倡导政府对个人生活的最小干预，认为过多的干预可能侵犯个人自由和自主权。这一观点与自由主义理想相呼应，强调个人权利和自我决定的重要性。 总之，非干预原则在国际和国内背景下仍然是一个有争议的问题。虽然它维护了国家的主权并尊重个人自由，但在面临人道主义危机时也提出了挑战。在尊重非干预和解决紧急道德义务之间取得平衡是一项微妙的任务，需要仔细考虑和细致的方法。随着全球动态的不断演变，围绕非干预的讨论无疑会持续，促使各国重新评估在日益互联的世界中对干预和主权的立场。