东京审判与南京大屠杀

南京大屠杀无疑是第二次世界大战日军暴行中最突出的一个事件,它的残酷程度令全世界感到震惊。但时至今日,日本国内仍有人要否认这段历史,认为南京大屠杀纯属"虚构",要求中国撤走抗日战争纪念馆展出的相关照片等。二战后东京国际法庭的审判是对日本战犯罪行的彻底清算。东京国际法庭的审判与二战中的反侵略战争一样,是对邪恶势力的清算。但从某种意义上讲,它是比战争更具有长久意义的清算,因为它动用的不是军队,而是法律;它通过公开的审判,将日本军事主义分子的滔天罪行记录在案,将日寇在南京的暴行永远地钉在历史的耻辱柱上,昭示后代,永志不忘。     

东京审判与南京大屠杀

Nanjing massacre is undoubtedly an outstanding event that indicates the savage acts of the Japanese soldiers during World War II, and its cruelty shocked the whole world. But up to now, there are still some people in Japan denying this period of history. The Trial by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (“Tokyo International Tribunal”) puts the monstrous crimes committed by the Japanese militarists in record, nails their violence in Nanjing to the history’s pillar of shame for ever, and declares publicly to the later generations that such violence shall never be forgot. Zhu Wenqi, professor of international law, works at Law School of China Renmin University (since 2002 till now). He got Ph.D in University of Paris II and finished his post-doctor research programs in Europe and USA, and started to work in the China Foreign Ministry as Diplomat and also Legal Advisor (1988). And then, he worked in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia as legal assistant of the judges, Legal Advisor and Appeals Counsel of the Officer of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal (1994–2002).     

梅汝璈东京审判不辱使命

1946年3月20日，作为远东国际军事法庭的中国代表团的成员，时任国民政府立法院委员兼外交委员会主席、武汉大学法律系主任，时年42岁的梅汝璈肩负祖国重托，飞赴东京。他是这样理解自己所肩负的职责的：“今天我能高居审判台惩罚这些元凶巨憝，是我千百万同胞的血肉换来的。”     

浅析东京审判中的国际刑事司法独立问题

现代的法治国家中,司法独立是实现司法公正的一个最基本的法律制度。司法独立作为一项法律理念应当而且也已经逐渐地从国内法原则上升到了国际法原则。虽然东京审判大体上可以算一个公正的审判,但从司法独立角度而言,东京审判不是这方面的一个正面的范例。在国际刑事司法中,如何保证其独立,至少不受一些国家或组织的干涉,的确是一个难题。本文旨在通过对东京审判的一些解读,来探讨这一问题。     

如何解读东京审判对南京大屠杀遇难人数的认定

50多年来,我国学术界部分学者认为,东京审判的《判决书》对南京大屠杀遇难人数虽作出了"20万人以上"的总体估计,但连同文件中所称被毁尸灭迹者及其他因素,对中国法庭关于"30万人以上"的判定本质认可或并不排斥.2005年出版的《南京大屠杀史料集·东京审判》对《判决书》作了新译,进一步明确了其认定人数,连同毁尸灭迹的数字为"超过20万".因此,学术界有必要实事求是地重新解读东京审判的判词.对《判决书》判定屠杀人数作出新的解读,并不影响我们对南京大屠杀死难人数继续坚持既往的认识与判断,也并不影响对东京审判的总体评价;但是,不宜再过份强调东京法庭与南京法庭在判定南京大屠杀遇难人数上的一致性,应当如实地承认这两者之间事实上存在的差别.     

从东京审判看国际法的新发展

法律是一个带模糊性的边际性概念;法学发展历史上存在自然法学派和规范法学派两大学说;从东京审判看恶法非法,那么自然法学派理论是国际法的最低底限而使国际法得以普济;在国际法上法律原则的介入,是自然法学派理论对国际法理论体系渗透的一个重要方面。     

浅析国际刑事法院对于侵略罪的管辖权问题

本文通过对《罗马国际刑事法院规约》中有关侵略罪的管辖权问题的文本分析、背景分析,指出存在的问题,并联系国际社会对侵略罪的新的发展及理论分析,可以看到,虽然国际刑事法院时侵略罪的管辖权在法律和实践两方面中有很大阻碍,但是并非完全不能实现,而是有赖于相关国际实践的进一步发展和更加普遍的国际认同。     

论侵略罪的定义及其管辖

侵略一词早在古希腊时代已经出现,然而,侵略罪的提出却经历了一个曲折的过程。侵略行为无疑是一种最严重的国际罪行,是国际法明确规定的应予惩治的危害人类和平与安全的国际犯罪行为。本文结合最新的《罗马规约》修正案,从侵略罪定义历史演进过程及其管辖权展开论述,进而探析我国在侵略罪问题上的选择。     

错案追究与审判独立的博弈

审判独立对法治建设意义重大,而错案追究制的弊端却严重影响了审判独立。本文通过对错案追究制度的问题研究及对审判独立的影响,以寻求改变错案追究的办法,促进审判独立。     

国际刑事审判的早期模式——以远东国际军事法庭为例

东京审判作为国际特设刑事法庭,是国际刑事审判的早期模式,这一针对二战战犯而设立的国际法庭,抚慰了人们那段痛苦的记忆。本文从国际组织角度,由其设立到审判过程,围绕《远东国际军事法庭宪章》的内容,旨在从回顾中梳理出它在国际刑事审判发展脉络中的贡献和教训。     

Criminalizing the State

In this article, I ask whether the state, as opposed to its individual members, can intelligibly and legitimately be criminalized, with a focus on the possibility of its domestic criminalization. I proceed by identifying what I take to be the core objections to such criminalization, and then investigate ways in which they can be challenged. First, I address the claim that the state is not a kind of entity that can intelligibly perpetrate domestic criminal wrongs. I argue against it by building upon an account of the modern state as a moral agent proper, capable of both culpable moral and legal wrongdoing. I then consider objections to the intelligibility and legitimacy of subjecting states to domestic criminal processes, which primarily find their source in the assumption that such subjection would necessarily involve the state prosecuting, judging, and punishing itself. I argue that whether this (questionable) assumption is sound or not, it does not create the kinds of unsolvable quandaries its exponents think it does. I then move on to reject the distinct, yet related, objection that, at least in aspiring liberal jurisdictions, treating the state as a criminal objectionably involves extending to it various substantive and procedural guarantees that, given its nature and raison d’être, it should not have. Finally, I discuss three central objections to punishing the state. First, that organizations like states do not have the phenomenal consciousness required to suffer punishment. Second, that the constant possibility of dispersion of state punishment amongst individual members stands in the way of its justification. Lastly, that whatever justification there may be for making things harder for the state in response to its culpable wrongdoing, such treatment need not be understood as punishment. While partially conceding the strength of these objections, I strive to loosen their grip in ways that show that justified punishment of the state, meaningfully understood as such, remains a distinct possibility. I conclude by contrasting supposed alternatives to the criminalization of states, and by contending that my analysis leaves us with enough to keep the possibility of state criminalization on the table as a justifiable response to state wrongdoing.     

论犯罪化的原则

宪法或者国际条约没有提供过多的显性规定约束刑事立法权,以立法道德的方式存在的隐性立法理性是:伤害原则或者法益保护原则为制约犯罪化的政治原则,其不仅担负着刑罚法规正当化的正面解释功能,而且还应当构成入罪的最低门槛;效用原则、自由主义原则和刑法价值原则,应当作为伦理原则制约着犯罪化。     

Criminalizing the Financing of Terrorism

This article begins with the widespread expectation that ‘followingthe money trail’ would be an effective means of hamperingterrorist activity. So far, however, that effectiveness hasbeen less than certain, and financial services providers arguethat, at most, they would be able to check names against lists(they are adamant that the risk-based approach does not applyhere). Legal difficulties deepen the factual problems: boldstatements in international Conventions that terrorist activitiesare not political crimes, do not really solve the fundamentaldilemma that a distinction needs to be made between freedomfighters and terrorists if combatants are merely aiming at therestoration of the democratic order. On a more practical level,international organizations (namely the United Nations and theFinancial Action Task Force on Money Laundering) have createda system of mechanisms to freeze suspected funds of terrorism.So far, the procedures for freezing and de-freezing do not meetthe generally accepted standards of a fair hearing (as definedby the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rightsor the European Convention on Human Rights). The author concludesthat the current way of dealing with the issue of financingof terrorism is far from convincing.     

Criminalizing the Political in a Digital Age

Critical Criminology - There is an emergent interest by criminologists in theorising problems that arise when states breach conventional legal norms. This article considers the criminalisation of...     

论考试舞弊犯罪化的根据

考试舞弊现象呈高发态势且屡禁不止,已成为一种社会流弊,极大地损害了考试的信誉,破坏了公平竞争的原则,影响到学风乃至社会风气.无论从其危害性上分析还是从我国的历史经验上考察,均应当将之予以犯罪化.     

Crossing Borders and Criminalizing Identity: The Disintegrated Subjects of Administrative Sanctions

This paper draws on in‐depth, qualitative interviews that examine individual experiences in two different legal contexts: deportation regimes and supermax prisons. Through putting these contexts and experiences into dialogue, we identify common legal processes of punishment experiences across both contexts. Specifically, the U.S. legal system re‐labels immigrants (as deportable noncitizens) and supermax prisoners (as dangerous gang offenders). This re‐labeling begins a process of othering, which ends in categorical exclusions for both immigrants and supermax prisoners. As individuals experience this categorical exclusion, they cross multiple borders and boundaries—often against their will—moving from prison to detention center to other countries beyond the U.S. border, and from isolation to prison to “free” society. In both cases, the state action that subjects experience as punishment is civil and, therefore, nominally not punitive. Ultimately, excluded individuals find themselves in a space of legal nonexistence. By examining these common processes and experiences, we argue that a new kind of subject is revealed: a disintegrating subject (as opposed to a juridical or disciplinary subject) whose exclusion reinforces the power of the state.