While international inquiries have long been used by states and international organisations to address situations of human rights violations, it is only since the turn of the millennium that they have increasingly become the focus of academic reflection. Harwood’s book is unique in that it represents the first effort at systematically surveying and systematising the practice of atrocity-related UN inquiries. In this essay, building on both the arguments set out in the book and other relevant scholarship, I propose three lenses to read through Harwood’s meticulous review of the practice of UN inquiries: legitimacy, juridification, and roles and functions. While Harwood makes a largely critical-descriptive argument that positions atrocity-related UN inquiries in the liminal space between principle and pragmatism, I contend that any discussion about the roles and functions of international inquiries should be informed by a reflection on their legitimacy.

虽然国际调查长期以来一直被国家和国际组织用来解决侵犯人权的情况，但直到千禧年之后，它们才日益成为学术反思的焦点。哈伍德的书是独一无二的，因为它首次系统地调查和系统化了与暴行相关的联合国调查实践。在本文中，基于书中提出的论点和其他相关学术研究，我提出了三个视角来通读哈伍德对联合国调查实践的细致审查：合法性、法律化以及角色和职能。虽然哈伍德提出了一个主要是批判性描述的论点，将与暴行相关的联合国调查置于原则和实用主义之间的界限空间中，