I. Introduction 一，导言

On February 17, 2008, Kosovo became a new state by seceding from Serbia.关于2008年2月17日，科索沃成为一个新的国家由分裂来自塞尔维亚。 It was the second time in less than a decade that Kosovo declared its independence.这是第二次在不到10年，科索沃宣布独立。

Pundits warned against this precedent-setting event and foresaw a disintegration of sovereign states from Belgium to Macedonia, whose restive western part is populated by Albanians.专家警告，对这个先例，设置事件和预见解体的主权国家从比利时到马其顿，其西部的一部分，是由人口的阿尔巴尼亚人。 In 2001, Macedonia faced the prospect of a civil war.在2001年，马其顿面对的前景是一场内战。 It capitulated and signed the它投降，并签署了 Ohrid Framework Agreement . 奥赫里德框架协定 。

Yet, the truth is that there is nothing new about Kosovo’s independence.然而，事实的真相是，有没有新的关于科索沃的独立。 Macedonians need not worry, it would seem.马其顿不用担心，这似乎是。 While, under international law, Albanians in its western parts can claim to be insurgents (as they have done in 2001 and, possibly, twice before), they cannot aspire to be a National Liberation Movement and, if they secede, they are very unlikely to be recognized.同时，根据国际法，阿尔巴尼亚人在其西部的部分可以声称自己是反叛分子（他们的所作所为在2001年，可能的话，前两次） ，他们不能期望是一个民族解放运动和，如果他们分裂出去，他们是非常不可能得到承认。

To start with, there are considerable and substantive differences between Kosovo’s KLA and its counterpart, Macedonia’s NLA.首先，有相当大的实质性分歧，科索沃的科索沃解放军和其对应，马其顿的民族解放军。 Yugoslavia regarded the Kosovo Liberation Army (南斯拉夫把科索沃解放军（ KLA or UCK, in its Albanian acronym) as a terrorist organization. 科军或科军，在其阿尔巴尼亚的简称）列为恐怖组织。 Not so the rest of the world.并非如此世界其余地区。 It was widely held to be a national liberation movement, or, at the very least, a group of insurgents.它被广泛认为是一个民族解放运动，或者，至少，一群武装分子。

Between 1996-9, the KLA maintained a hierarchical operational structure that wielded control and authority over the Albanians in large swathes of Kosovo. 1996-9之间，科军保持了层次业务结构，掌握控制权和权威超过阿尔巴尼亚人在大片科索沃。 Consequently, it acquired some standing as an international subject under international law.因此，后天有些常委会作为一个国际课题，根据国际法的规定。

Thus, what started off as a series of internal skirmishes and clashes in 1993-5 was upgraded in 1999 into an international conflict, with both parties entitled to all the rights and obligations of ius in bello (the law of war).因此，什么起步，作为一系列的内部冲突和冲突，在1993-5升格为在1999年成为一个国际冲突，双方享有的所有权利和义务，学生联合会在贝洛（战争法） 。

II. 二。 Insurgents in International Law 反叛分子在国际法律

Traditionally, the international community has been reluctant to treat civil strife the same way it does international armed conflict.传统上，国际社会一直不愿意对待内乱相同的方式是否涉及国际武装冲突。 No one thinks that encouraging an endless succession of tribal or ethnic secessions is a good idea.没有人会认为，鼓励层出不穷，继承的部落或民族secessions是一个好主意。 In their home territories, insurgents are initially invariably labeled as and treated by the “lawful” government as criminals or terrorists.在他们的家领土，反叛分子在最初总是打成和治疗由“合法”政府视为罪犯或恐怖分子。

Paradoxically, though, the longer and more all-pervasive the conflict and the tighter the control of the rebels on people residing in the territories in which the insurgents habitually operate, the better their chances to acquire some international recognition and standing.矛盾的是，虽然，时间更长，更所有无孔不入的冲突和更严格的控制，叛军对人民居住在该地区的叛乱分子，其中惯性运作，更好的机会，以取得某种国际承认和常委会。

Thus, international law actually eggs on rebels to prolong and escalate conflicts rather than resolve them peacefully.因此，国际法律，其实对蛋叛军延长和升级的冲突，而不是解决这些问题的和平。

By definition, insurgents are temporary, transient, or provisional international subjects.根据定义，武装分子是暂时的，短暂的，或临时国际科目。 As Antonio Cassese puts it (in his tome, “International Law”, published by Oxford University Press in 2001):作为安东尼奥卡塞塞把它（在他的圣多美和普林西比， “国际法” ，由牛津大学出版社出版于2001年） ：

“…(I)nsurgents are quelled by the government, and disappear; or they seize power, and install themselves in the place of the government; or they secede and join another State, or become a new international subject.” “ … … （一） nsurgents是平息了由政府，并消失;或他们夺取政权，并安装在自己的地方的政府;或他们分裂出去，并加入另一个国家，或成为一个新的国际议题” 。

In other words, being an intermediate phenomenon, rebels can never claim sovereign rights over territory.在其他换句话说，作为一个中间的现象，叛军绝不能索赔的主权权利的领土。 Sovereign states can contract with insurrectionary parties and demand that they afford protection and succor to foreigners within the territories affected by their activities.由主权国家才能合同insurrectionary各方，并要求他们负担得起的保护和救济，以外国人的领土受他们的活动。 However, this is not a symmetrical relationship.然而，这并不是一个对称的关系。 The rebellious party cannot make any reciprocal demands on states.反叛的党不能作出任何互惠的要求。 Still, once entered into, agreements can be enforced, using all lawful sanctions还有，一旦进入，协议可强制执行的，利用一切合法制裁

Third party states are allowed to provide assistance - even of a military nature - to governments, but not to insurgents (with the exception of humanitarian aid).党的第三国允许提供援助-甚至具有军事性质的-向各国政府，而不是武装分子（除人道主义援助）。 Not so when it comes to national liberation movements.并非如此，当谈到民族解放运动。

III. 三。 National Liberation Movements in International Law 民族解放运动的国际法律

According to the First Geneva Protocol of 1977 and subsequent conventions, what is the difference between a group of “freedom fighters” and a national liberation movement?根据第一次日内瓦议定书， 1977年和随后的公约，之间的区别是什么一群“自由战士”和一个民族解放运动呢？

A National Liberation Movement represents a collective - nation, or people - in its fight to liberate itself from foreign or colonial domination or from an inequitable (for example: racist) regime.一个民族解放运动所代表的集体-一个民族，一个人-在其解放的斗争本身从外国或殖民统治或从一个不公平的（例如：种族主义）制度。

National Liberation Movements maintain an organizational structure although they may or may not be in control of a territory (many operate in exile) but they must aspire to gain domination of the land and the oppressed population thereon.民族解放运动，维持一个组织结构，虽然他们可能是也可能不是在控制的领土（其中许多流亡海外的运作） ，但他们必须渴望获得统治的土地和被压迫的人口就此。

They uphold the principle of self-determination and are, thus, instantaneously deemed to be internationally legitimate.他们坚持的原则，自决权和，因此，即时被认为是国际上合法的。

Though less important from the point of view of international law, the instant recognition by other States that follows the establishment of a National Liberation Movement has enormous practical consequences: States are allowed to extend help, including economic and military assistance (short of armed troops) and are “duty-bound to refrain from assisting a State denying self-determination to a people or a group entitled to it” (Cassesse).虽然同样重要，从的角度来看，国际法的规定，即时承认的其他国家如下建立一个民族解放运动有巨大的实际后果：国家允许延长帮助，包括经济和军事援助（短期的武装部队）和是“责无旁贷的协助，不要从一个国家否认自决权，以一人或一组题为给它” （ cassesse ） 。

As opposed to mere insurgents, National Liberation Movements can claim and assume the right to self-determination; the rights and obligations of ius in bello (the legal principles pertaining to the conduct of hostilities); the rights and obligations pertaining to treaty making; diplomatic immunity.作为反对仅仅是叛乱分子，民族解放运动，可以索赔，并承担的权利，自决权;的权利和义务，学生联合会在贝洛（法律原则有关的敌对行为） ;权利和义务有关的条约的决策;外交免疫力。

Yet, even National Liberation Movements are not allowed to act as sovereigns.然而，即使民族解放运动，均不得作为主权国。 For instance, they cannot dispose of land or natural resources within the disputed territory.举例来说，他们不能处置土地或自然资源的内部有争议的领土。 In this case, though, the “lawful” government or colonial power are similarly barred from such dispositions.在这种情况下，虽然， “合法”的政府或殖民地的权力同样是禁止这类处分。

IV. 四。 Internal Armed Conflict in International Law 内部武装冲突的国际法律

Rebels and insurgents are not lawful combatants (or belligerents).叛乱分子和叛乱分子是不合法的战斗（或交战） 。 Rather, they are held to be simple criminals by their own State and by the majority of other States.相反，它们是举行简单的罪犯，由他们自己的国家和大多数其他国家。 They do not enjoy the status of prisoner of war when captured.他们不喜欢的地位战俘时被俘。 Ironically, only the lawful government can upgrade the status of the insurrectionists from bandits to lawful combatants (”recognition of belligerency”).讽刺的是，只有合法政府可以提升地位的insurrectionists从土匪合法的战斗（ “承认交战” ） 。

How the government chooses to fight rebels and insurgents is, therefore, not regulated.政府如何选择扑灭叛乱分子和叛乱分子，所以不受监管。 As long as it refrains from intentionally harming civilians, it can do very much as it pleases.只要它不故意伤害平民，它可以做的很，因为它随心所欲。

But international law is in flux and, increasingly, civil strife is being “internationalized” and treated as a run-of-the-mill bilateral or even multilateral armed conflict.但国际法律是在通量，并越来越内乱正在“国际化” ，并当作一个运行的- -轧机的双边或多边的，甚至武装冲突。 The doctrine of “human rights intervention” on behalf of an oppressed people has gained traction.学说“人权干预”就代表一个被压迫人民得到了牵引。 Hence Operation Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999.因此，运作联军在科索沃在1999年。

Moreover, if a civil war expands and engulfs third party States and if the insurgents are well-organized, both as an armed force and as a civilian administration of the territory being fought over, it is today commonly accepted that the conflict should be regarded and treated as international.此外，如果内战的扩大和engulfs第三次缔约国，如果武装分子是良好的组织，无论是作为一个武力作为一个平民，政府当局的领土被打，这是今天普遍接受的，这一冲突应被视为和被视为国际。

As the Second Geneva Protocol of 1977 makes crystal clear, mere uprisings or riots (such as in Macedonia, 2001) are still not covered by the international rules of war, except for the general principles related to non-combatants and their protection (for instance, through Article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions) and customary law proscribing the use of chemical weapons, land and anti-personnel mines, booby traps, and such.作为第二个日内瓦议定书1977年，使清晰，仅仅起义或暴动（如在马其顿， 2001年）还不是所涵盖的国际规则的战争，除了一般原则与非战斗人员和他们的保护（例如通过第3条的1949年日内瓦四公约）和习惯法，禁止使用化学武器，土地和杀伤人员地雷，诱杀装置，例如。

Both parties - the State and the insurrectionary group - are bound by these few rules.双方-国家和i nsurrectionary集团-都受这些少数的规则。 If they violate them, they may be committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.如果他们违反了他们，他们可能会犯下战争罪和危害人类罪。

V. Secession in International Law 五，分裂国家，在国际法律

The new state of Kosovo has been immediately recognized by the USA, Germany, and other major European powers.新的国家，科索沃已立即予以承认的由美国，德国，和其他主要欧洲列强。 The Canadian Supreme Court made clear in its ruling in the Quebec case in 1998 that the status of statehood is not conditioned upon such recognition, but that (p. 289):加拿大最高法院作出明确的在其裁决在魁北克省的情况在1998年的地位，国家是没有条件后，这种承认，但（第289条） ：

“…(T)he viability of a would-be state in the international community depends, as a practical matter, upon recognition by other states.” “ … … （吨）的可行性，他一想成为国家在国际社会，取决于，作为一个实际问题，一旦承认了其他国家” 。

The constitutional law of some federal states provides for a mechanism of orderly secession.宪制性法律，一些联邦国家提供了一个机制，有序的分裂。 The constitutions of both the late USSR and SFRY (Yugoslavia, 1974) incorporated such provisions.宪法双方的后期苏联和南斯拉夫社会主义联邦共和国（南斯拉夫， 1974年）注册成立的此类规定。 In other cases - the USA, Canada, and the United Kingdom come to mind - the supreme echelons of the judicial system had to step in and rule regarding the right to secession, its procedures, and mechanisms.在其他情况下-美国，加拿大和联合王国想到-最高人民法院高层司法系统已加强在法治和权利方面分裂国家，其程序和机制。

Again, facts on the ground determine international legitimacy.再次，事实在地面上确定的国际合法性。 As early as 1877, in the wake of the bloodiest secessionist war of all time, the American Civil War (1861-5), the Supreme Court of the USA wrote (in William vs. Bruffy):早在1877年，在后最血腥的分裂战争的所有时间，美国内战（ 1861-5 ） ，最高法院在美国写了（在威廉与bruffy ） ：

“The validity of (the secessionists’) acts, both against the parent State and its citizens and subjects, depends entirely upon its ultimate success. “的有效性（分裂势力' ）的行为，无论对母公司国家及其公民和科目，完全取决于其最终取得成功。 If it fail (sic) to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it.如果失败（原文如此） ，以建立本身的永久，所有此类行为的亡与它。 If it succeed (sic), and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation.”如果它成功（原文如此） ，并成为公认的，其行为展开它的存在是坚持那些一个独立的国家“ 。

In “The Creation of States in International Law” (Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 2006), James Crawford suggests that there is no internationally recognized right to secede and that secession is a “legally neutral act”.在“建立国家在国际法律” （克拉伦登出版社，第二版， 2006年） ，詹姆斯克劳福德表明，不存在国际公认的权利分裂出去，并分裂国家是一个“中立的法律行为” 。 Not so.并非如此。 As Aleksandar Pavkovic observes in his book (with contributions by Peter Radan), “Creating New States - Theory and Practice of Secession” (Ashgate, 2007), the universal legal right to self-determination encompasses the universal legal right to secede.作为亚历山大帕夫科维奇注意到，在他的著作（与贡献，由Peter radan ） ， “创造新的国家-理论与实践的分裂国家” （阿什盖特， 2 007年） ，普遍的法律权利，自决权包括普遍的法律权利分割出去。

The Albanians in Kosovo are a “people” according to the Decisions of the Badinter Commission.科索沃阿尔巴尼亚人是一个“人”根据该决定，巴丹泰委员会。 But, though, they occupy a well-defined and demarcated territory, their land is within the borders of an existing State.不过，虽然，他们占据一个清楚界定和划分领土，他们的土地是内部边界的一个现有的国家。 In this strict sense, their unilateral secession does set a precedent: it goes against the territorial definition of a people as embedded in the United Nations Charter and subsequent Conventions.在这严格意义上讲，他们的单方面分裂国家是否开创了一个先例：它违背了领土的定义，一个人作为嵌入式在联合国宪章和随后的公约。

Still, the general drift of international law (for instance, as interpreted by Canada’s Supreme Court) is to allow that a State can be composed of several “peoples” and that its cultural-ethnic constituents have a right to self-determination.还有，一般漂移的国际法律（例如，解释加拿大的最高法院） ，是让一个国家可以组成几个“人民”和它的文化族裔的选民有权利的自决权。 This seems to uphold the 19th century concept of a homogenous nation-state over the French model (of a civil State of all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religious creed).这似乎是要坚持十九世纪的概念，同质的民族国家超过法国模式（一个国家公务员其所有公民，不论任何种族或宗教信条） 。

Pavkovic contends that, according to principle 5 of the United Nations’ General Assembly’s Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter of the United Nations, the right to territorial integrity overrides the right to self-determination.帕夫科维奇争辩说，根据原则5联合国大会的宣言对国际法的原则，建立友好关系及合作经营各国之间在遵照联合国宪章，有权领土完整是压倒权利自决权。

Thus, if a State is made up of several “peoples”, its right to maintain itself intact and to avoid being dismembered or impaired is paramount and prevails over the right of its constituent peoples to secede.因此，如果一个国家是弥补了几个“人民” ，它的权利，以维持本身的完整，避免被肢解或受损是首要的和压倒的权利，其组成民族分裂出去。 But, the right to territorial integrity is limited to States:但是，有权领土完整，是有限的国家：

“(C)onducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples … and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed, or colour.” “ （三） onducting自己在遵守的原则，平等权利和自决的决心和人民… …因此，拥有一个政府代表全体人民的属于领土，不分种族，信仰，或肤色” 。

The words “as to race, creed, or colour” in the text supra have been replaced with the words “of any kind” (in the 1995 Declaration on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations).改为“以种族，信仰，肤色或”在文本中跨已改为“任何形式” （在1995年就宣言五十周年纪念的联合国） 。

Yugoslavia under Milosevic failed this test in its treatment of the Albanian minority within its borders.南斯拉夫米洛舍维奇未能这项测试在其治疗的阿尔巴尼亚少数民族在其边界内。 They were relegated to second-class citizenship, derided, blatantly and discriminated against in every turn.他们被降级的二等公民，讥讽，公然歧视，在每一个转。 Thus, according to principle 5, the Kosovars had a clear right to unilaterally secede.因此，根据原则5 ，科索沃有一个明确有权单方面分裂出去。

As early as 1972, an International Commission of Jurists wrote in a report titled “The Events in East Pakistan, 1971″:早在1972年，国际法学家委员会写了一份报告，题为“的事件，在东巴基斯坦， 1971年” ：

“(T)his principle (of territorial integrity) is subject to the requirement that the government does comply with the principle of equal rights and does represent the whole people without distinction. “ （ t ）的他的原则（领土完整）是受的规定，即政府是否遵守的原则，享有平等的权利和是否代表整个人毫无区别。 If one of the constituent peoples of a state is denied equal rights and is discriminated against … their full right of self-determination will revive.” (p. 46)如果其中一个组成民族的一个国家，是无可否认的平等权利和歧视…他们充分享有自决权会复苏。 “ （第46页）

A quarter of a century later, Canada’s Supreme Court concurred (Quebec, 998): “(T)he international law right to self-determination only generates, at best, a right to external self-determination in situations … where a definable group is denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, social, and cultural development.”四分之一个世纪后，加拿大的最高法院同意（魁北克省， 998 ）说： “ （ t ）的国际法律，他享有自决权只产生，在最好的，有权对外自决权的情况下…凡可定义集团是否认有意义的获取政府追求其政治，经济，社会，文化的全面发展“ 。

In his seminal tome, “Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Appraisal” (Cambridge University Press, 19950, Antonio Cassese neatly sums up this exception to the right to territorial integrity enjoyed by在他的精液圣多美和普林西比， “民族的自决权：法律评价” （剑桥大学出版社， 19950 ，安东尼奥卡塞塞整齐地总结了这一例外的权利，领土完整所享有的
States:国家：

“(W)hen the central authorities of a sovereign State persistently refuse to grant participatory rights to a religious or racial group, grossly and systematically trample upon their fundamental rights, and deny the possibility of reaching a peaceful settlement within the framework of the State structure … A racial or religious group may secede … once it is clear that all attempts to achieve internal self-determination have failed or are destined to fail.” (p. 119-120) “ （瓦特）母鸡，中央当局一个主权国家的坚持拒绝给予参与权，以宗教或种族群体，粗暴和有系统地践踏他们的基本权利，并否认的可能性，达成和平解决的框架内与国家结构… …有种族或宗教群体可能分裂出去…一旦它明确指出，所有试图实现内部自决权已失败或注定要失败的。 “ （页119-120 ）

VI. 六。 The Cases of Kosovo and Western Macedonia 该案件科索沃和马其顿西部

In former Yugoslavia (SFRY), Kosovo was an autonomous province within the Socialist Republic of Serbia.在前南斯拉夫（南斯拉夫社会主义联邦共和国） ，科索沃的一个自治省，与社会主义的塞尔维亚共和国。 The Albanians in Yugoslavia were not recognized as a “people” (narod), merely as a “nationality” (narodnost).阿族人在南斯拉夫不承认作为一个“人” （ narod ） ，仅仅作为一种“国籍” （ narodnost ） 。

In January 1990, the Constitutional Court of SFRY ruled illegal a unilateral secession from the Yugoslav Federation.在1990年1月，宪法法院的裁定，南斯拉夫社会主义联邦共和国非法单方面脱离南斯拉夫联邦。 The right to secede belonged to “the peoples of Yugoslavia and their socialist republics (and autonomous provinces)”.权分裂出去，属于“人民的南斯拉夫和他们的社会主义共和国（自治省） ” 。 Kosovo was an autonomous province, but the Albanians were not a “people”.科索沃的一个自治省，但阿尔巴尼亚人不是一个“人” 。 Indeed, in a later decision, dealing specifically with Kosovo’s first declaration of independence, the Constitutional Court事实上，在后来的决定，专门处理与科索沃的第一个独立宣言，宪法法院
spoke:发言：

“(O)nly peoples of Yugoslavia had the right of self-determination.” “ （海外） nly南斯拉夫人民已享有自决权” 。

Western Macedonia has always been an integral part of the Republic of Macedonia within the SFRY.西方马其顿一直是不可分割的一部分，马其顿共和国与南斯拉夫社会主义联邦共和国。 It had never acquired the status of an autonomous province, let alone a Republic.它从未获得地位的一个自治省，更遑论共和国。 Albanians in Macedonia are a minority.在马其顿的阿尔巴尼亚人是少数。 They are well-represented in government and law enforcement and have equal access to education and the institutions of the State.他们是良好的代表在政府和执法部门和有平等的受教育的机会和国家机构。 Their rights are guaranteed by multiple constitutional, legal, and international instruments.他们的权利得到保障由多个宪法，法律，和国际文书。 They have no leg to stand on if they choose to unilaterally secede from Macedonia (for instance, in order to join Kosovo).他们没有站不住脚的立场，如果他们选择单方面退出马其顿（例如，为了加入科索沃） 。

The Albanians of western Macedonia may, however, successfully secede from Macedonia within the framework of a realignment of borders between Serbia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, and, perhaps, Greece, and Bulgaria.阿尔巴尼亚，马其顿西部的可能，不过，成功脱离马其顿的框架内与一调整之间的边界，塞尔维亚，科索沃，阿尔巴尼亚，马其顿，以及，也许，希腊和保加利亚。 While Macedonia is extremely unlikely to welcome such a move, it may be coerced into acquiescence by the international community.而马其顿是极不可能欢迎这样的举动，它可能被迫默许，受到国际社会的。 Macedonia was马其顿是 strong-armed into the Ohrid Framework Agreement in 2001. 强大的武装分子进入奥赫里德框架协定在2001年。 There is no guarantee that this scenario will not repeat itself.我们不能保证这种情况不会重演。

Macedonia should urgently adopt steps to change the demographic composition of its western territories.马其顿应立即采取措施来改变人口组成的西部领土。 This is not without precedent.这并非没有先例。 Israel has done the same in its northern territory (the Galilee), Poland with its Ukrainian Borderlands, Germany in its east, the USA in its “wild” West.以色列已做了同样的在其北方领土（加利利） ，波兰与乌克兰borderlands ，德国在其东，美国在其“野生”西。

Macedonia should offer economic incentives to anyone willing to relocate from the rest of its territory to its west: jobs, free land and agricultural inputs, subsidized credits, housing, infrastructure, and educational opportunities.马其顿应提供经济诱因，任何人愿意搬迁，从其余的在其领土上其西：就业，免费土地和农业投入，信贷补贴，住房，基础设施和教育机会。 The government should move many of its ministries, agencies, and facilities from Skopje to western Macedonia.政府应该提出它的许多部委，机构和设施由Skopje ，以西方的马其顿。

Also Read 也看过

• Just War 正义战争


• The MinMaj Rule 该minmaj规则


• The Economics of Foreign Military Bases 经济学外国军事基地


• The Emerging Water Wars 新兴的水战争


• And Then There Were Too Many 然后有太多


• The Conclave of Exclaves 秘密会议的exclaves


• Burning the Oil - Development and Ethnic Tensions 燃烧石油-发展和族裔间紧张关系


• The Cost of Unification - German Lessons for Korea 成本的统一-德国的教训，韩国


• White Farms, Black Farmers 白人农场，黑人农民


• The Self-Appointed Altruists 自我任命altruists


• The Semi-failed State 半失败的国家

Popularity: 40% [人气： 40 ％ [ ? ？ ] ]