口头答复 · 2023-05-08 · 第 14 届国会
不可分割安全概念解析
Concept of "Indivisible Security” in Speech on Russia-Ukraine War and Impact on Southeast Asia
质询围绕"不可分割安全"概念及其在俄乌战争中的应用。政府回应强调主权、自决和领土完整为国际法基本原则，俄方以不可分割安全为由入侵乌克兰不被认可。核心争议在于不可分割安全是否为国际法原则，政府明确否认其法律地位，指出该概念被俄美双方引用但不具法律效力。
关键要点
- • 主权与自决为国际法基石
- • 俄乌战争违反国际法
- • 不可分割安全非法律原则
不可分割安全不能为侵略辩护
坚持国际法基本原则
"Indivisible Security is not of the same status as self-determination, sovereignty, or territorial integrity and the non-recourse to use of force."
参与人员（2）
- Minister for Law
- Vikram Nair
完整译文（中文）
Hansard 英文原文译文 · 翻译日期：2026-05-02
以下问题由维克拉姆·奈尔先生提出——
8. 请法律部长阐述他在2023年3月8日于ISEAS-尤索夫·伊沙克研究所研讨会上发表的题为《俄乌战争与东南亚一周年：影响与展望》的演讲中提及的“不可分割安全”概念。
穆拉利·皮莱先生（武吉巴督）：第8号问题。
法律部长（申慕达先生）：谢谢，副议长先生。我先从主权问题说起。自决权、主权和领土完整以及不诉诸武力是国际法的基本原则。这些原则载于联合国宪章，193个国家是宪章的缔约方，包括新加坡。
联合国宪章第一条第二款规定，联合国的宗旨之一是“发展基于对平等权利和民族自决原则的尊重的国家间友好关系，并采取其他适当措施加强普遍和平”。
第二条第一款规定，联合国“基于其所有成员国主权平等的原则”。
第二条第四款规定，所有成员国“应在国际关系中避免对任何国家的领土完整或政治独立进行威胁或使用武力……”。
第二条第七款规定，“本宪章任何内容均不得授权联合国干涉任何国家本质上属于其国内管辖范围的事务……”。
俄罗斯入侵乌克兰违反了这些国际法基本原则，包括自决权、主权、领土完整和不诉诸武力。在维克拉姆·奈尔先生提及的我的演讲中，我认为我四次强调俄罗斯入侵是无法辩解的。
俄罗斯以“不可分割安全”为入侵乌克兰的理由之一。正如我所说，“不可分割安全”不能成为俄罗斯入侵的理由。“不可分割安全”并不具有与自决权、主权、领土完整和不诉诸武力同等的地位。
“不可分割安全”我认为最好被理解为国际关系中被援引的一个概念。我指出，“不可分割安全”这一概念在某种形式上被俄罗斯和美国都曾援引。但这并不使其成为国际法原则，也未载于联合国宪章。
此外，在我的演讲中，我分享了关于乌克兰局势如何演变以及西方、北约和俄罗斯联邦所扮演角色的多元观点。结果是乌克兰成为不幸的受害者，其人民付出了惨重代价。
副议长先生：无追加问题。
英文原文
SPRS Hansard 原始记录 · 抓取日期：2026-05-02
The following question stood in the name of Mr Vikram Nair –
8 To ask the Minister for Law whether he can elaborate on the concept of “indivisible security” as referenced in his speech entitled “The Russia-Ukraine War and Southeast Asia One Year On: Implications and Outlook” that was delivered on 8 March 2023 at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute workshop.
Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) : Question No 8.
The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam) : Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will first start with the point of sovereignty. Self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity as well as the non-recourse to the use of force are fundamental principles of international law. These principles are enshrined in the UN Charter, and 193 states are party to the Charter, including Singapore.
Article 1(2) of the UN Charter states that one of the UN’s purposes is “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”.
Article 2(1) provides that the UN is “based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”.
Article 2(4) provides that all Members “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state …”.
Article 2(7) provides that “[n]othing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the [UN] to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state …”.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine violates these basic principles of international law, including self-determination, sovereignty, territorial integrity and the non-recourse to use of force. In my speech that Mr Vikram Nair refers to, I think I said four times that the Russian invasion cannot be justified.
Russia has invoked Indivisible Security as among the reasons for the invasion of Ukraine. And as I have said, Indivisible Security cannot give grounds for the Russian invasion. Indivisible Security is not of the same status as self-determination, sovereignty, or territorial integrity and the non-recourse to use of force.
Indivisible Security is, I think, best characterised as a concept that is invoked in international relations. And I pointed out that the concept of Indivisible Security, in some form, has been invoked by both Russia and the United States. But that does not make it a principle of international law. And it is not set out in the UN Charter.
In addition, in my speech, I shared diverse views on how the situation in Ukraine unfolded and the roles of the West, NATO and the Russian Federation. The result is that Ukraine is the unfortunate victim and its people are paying a terrible price.
Mr Deputy Speaker : No supplementary questions.