远东国际军事法庭审判战争罪的思路

The Reasoning Approach of International Military Tribunal for Far East to Try War Crimes

纽伦堡国际军事法庭及远东国际军事法庭均管辖战争罪,但二者对确认战争罪法律依据的思路不同。前者认为海牙公约规则特别是1907年《海牙第四公约》在整体上属于国际习惯法;而后者没有此种确认,导致远东国际军事法庭以条约规则作为主要法律依据、单方面保证作为辅助起诉战争罪的状况。依赖条约规则必然受到条约效力相对性原理的制约,使远东国际军事法庭在认定战争罪方面面临一系列难题,本可在习惯法框架下轻而易举解决的问题在条约规则框架下受条约效力破碎化影响而变得充满不确定性,是为远东国际军事法庭判决说理的一大缺陷。以单方行为理论作为解释远东国际军事法庭管辖战争罪合法性的路径,在一定程度上可补充说理不充分的缺点。

Both the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for Far East(IMTFE)have jurisdiction over war crimes,but the two have different approaches for confirming the legal basis for war crimes.The former considers that the rules of the Hague Conventions 1899/1907,in particular the Fourth Hague Convention 1907,are generally accepted as customary International Law;the latter does not have such confirmation,which led the IMTFE to prosecute war crimes primarily in accordance with the rules of the treaties,with unilateral assurance as a complementary ground.The reliance on treaty rules indicates that it would have been affected by the relativity of binding force of said treaties,and consequently caused a series of difficulties in identifying war crimes with which the IMTFE was in confrontation.However,these issues could easily be resolved in the framework of customary law.The fragmentation,full of uncertainty,constitute a major flaw in the reasoning of IMTFE.The doctrine of unilateral act of state,as a way to explain the legitimacy of war crimes jurisdiction in IMTFE,can provide remedial explanation,in a degree,to ameliorate the shortcomings of the tribunal’s reasoning.