【國際方面】
1996年，聯合國就曾針對此議題做出相關人權報告
【Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes
and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45: Report on the mission
to the DPRK, the ROK and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery
in wartime】
末段，Recommendations from the Special Rapporteur were:（節錄）
1. At the national level, the Government of Japan should:
a. Acknowledge the violation of its obligations under international
law and accept legal responsibility for that violation;
b. Pay compensation to individual victims of Japanese military
sexual slavery according to principles outlined by the Special
Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities on the right to restitution, compensation
and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
c. Make a full disclosure of documents and materials;
d. Make a public apology in writing to women victims;
f. Identify and punish perpetrators involved in the recruitment and
institutionalization during the War.
2. At the international level:
There should also be an attempt to seek an advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The Governments of the DPRK and the ROK may consider requesting
the ICJ to help resolve the legal issues concerning Japanese responsibility
and payment of compensation.
[In December 2000] 女性國際戰犯審判（東京大審）
Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual
Slavery:
It was a people’s tribunal convened to gather testimony from victims,
and then, based on international laws that were in place during World
War II, to try groups and individuals for rape or sexual slavery.
在其判決中：
Part IV. State Responsibility --> F. Defences to State Responsibility {Peace
Treaties and Waivers --> para. 1053 (Conclusion):
The judges find that the application for state responsibility is valid and
that the Japanese government is liable for the harm inflicted by the
Japanese military sexual slavery system. With respect to Japan's reliance
on the Peace Treaties, the judges find that the negotiating parties had no
power to waive the claims of individuals fro harm suffered as a result of
the commission of crimes against humanity and we reject the assertion
that these claims were effectively or permanently waived. Further, we
find that Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention was intended to protect
the right of the victimised persons and those who are permitted to claim
on their behalf to seek compensations as individuals.
除所有national States of victim women都曾透過外交、政治手段
向日本政府請求道歉與賠償外，也有一些日本國內法院的裁判：
【中國方面】
整理自Comfort Women: Case Comment on Nishimatsu Construction
Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al., and Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan (by Mark Levin)
在Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al.一案中：
[In July 2002]
The court recognized a violation of the employer’s duty of consideration
for safety (obligation de sécurité), but nonetheless dismissed the action
owing to expiry of the applicable statute of limitations. (消減時效)
[On appeal, in July 2004]
The Hiroshima High Court reinstated the case and invalidating the assertion
of time limitations as an abuse of rights, then, recognizing the plaintiffs’
claims in their entirety. (原告勝訴法院認為在此適用消滅時效是為
權利濫用)
[註] 惟本案係｛個人v.個人｝，故難為援引，作為成立國家責任之證據
至於，在Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan的案件裡：
1996年2月
中國慰安婦侯巧蓮和郭喜翠向東京地方法院提起訴訟，要求日
本政府謝罪並給予賠償。
2002年3月
東京地方法院認定她們遭到性虐待的事實，但作出了駁回原告
訴求的判決。4月，原告繼續向東京高等法院提出上訴。
2005年3月
東京高等法院作出二審判決，駁回原告的索賠訴求；隨後，原
告和原告律師團向日本最高法院提出上訴。
2007年4月27日
日本最高裁判所作出終審判決，認定原告二戰時被侵華日軍綁
架和強暴的事實，但作為《日中聯合聲明》第五條所述的放棄
請求權對象，原告不具有法律上的賠償請求權。
[In February 1996]
The case, filed against Japan in Tokyo District Court, sought compensatory
damages and a public apology based upon the employer’s agency liability,
as provided in Chinese law of the time and also in Japanese Civil Code.
[In March 2002]
The District Court dismissed the action, finding that:
1. there were no grounds for claims by individuals under international law
pursuant to Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land, and
2. acts of illegal authority occurring outside the Application of Laws Act
were to be determined in accordance with domestic law, thereby raising
the question of sovereign immunity.
[In March 2005]
The Tokyo High Court upheld the lower court ruling on the separate ground
that the extinguishment of claims provisions in the Sino-Japanese Peace
Treaty of 1952 barred compensation claims by all Chinese nationals, and
dismissed the case.
由上可知，基本上日本法院的論述，大致不脫一個邏輯順序：
1. San Francisco Peace Treaty
According to the Court, the Treaty created a framework not only for the
disposition of claims between the participating states themselves (and their
citizens), but also for the disposition of claims under subsequent bilateral
treaties, both with parties to the San Francisco Treaty and with nonparties.
2. Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty of 1952
The disposition of claims in that treaty was explicitly accomplished by its
Article 11, which provided that “any problems” resulting from the former
state of war would be “settled in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.” Although the Sino-Japanese Treaty was
not directly applicable (because of the plaintiffs’ current status as nationals
of the PRC rather than the ROC), the Court used it as an instructive example
of how both public and private claims could be fully disposed of under a
treaty with a state not party to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
3. China-Japan Joint Communiqué of 1972
Article 5 is the dispositive provision: “The Government of the PRC declares
that in the interest of the friendship between the Chinese and the Japanese
peoples, it renounces its demand for war reparation from Japan.”
For the Court, this renunciation of claims was ambiguous since it did not
indicate whose demands were included - only those of the Chinese
government’s, or of its nationals as well.
The Court resolved this ambiguity in favor of the Japanese government,
accepting three of its central arguments:
(1) because Japan’s 1952 treaty with the Republic of China included claims
by individuals, Japan would not have wanted an inconsistent arrangement
with the Peoples’ Republic of China;
(2) the Joint Communiqué was functionally a peace treaty (and thus to be
considered part of the San Francisco Treaty framework); and
(3) nothing in the negotiation history suggests that the Joint Communiqué
was to be interpreted outside the San Francisco framework.
[補充資料]
1. Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei):
It was a peace treaty between Japan and the Republic of China signed in
Taipei, Taiwan on April 28, 1952.
2. Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of
the People's Republic of China (中華人民共和國政府和日本國政府聯
合聲明中日聯合聲明):
It was signed in Beijing on September 29, 1972. The treaty renounced any
claim for war reparations from World War II. It firmly maintains its stand
under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. (｛第五條｝中國政府宣布：
為了中日兩國人民的友好，放棄對日本國的戰爭賠償要求)
因此，Japanese lawyers have made the argument that the provisions of the
Treaty of Taipei and the subsequent Sino-Japan Joint Communiqué waived the
right of Chinese nationals to seek compensation from the Japanese government
or corporations based in Japan.
[補充說明]
但就在宣判的當天，中國外交部隨即就關於「中國政府是否在
《中日聯合聲明》中放棄了中國公民個人請求賠償權利」之問
題作出回應，表示在《中日聯合聲明》中，的確中國政府放棄
了對「日本國」的戰爭索賠，但並沒有放棄民間索賠。又《中
日聯合聲明》不是兩國的正式法律性文件，只是兩國在政府領
導人就雙方共識的聯合聲明。一直到1978年，兩國簽訂《中日
和平友好條約》，《中日聯合聲明》中的原則才以法律形式確
立下來。
事實上，中、美都放棄了對日索賠，但只放棄了政府索賠。不
過美國通過國內立法的方式，已使個人對日索賠獲得成效，而
中國公民若要索償，卻要到日本打官司，讓日本得以逕自片面
解釋《中日聯合聲明》，並援以駁回個人之起訴。
【台灣方面】
1999年8月17日
台灣慰安婦在東京地方法院遞訴狀，正式控告日本政府。
2003年，東京高等法院判決駁回上訴
理由：戰爭賠償問題在戰後，已由雙邊條約解決。
2004年，東京高等法院判決維持原判決
理由：
1. 根據日本國內法，關於侵權行為損害賠償請求權之消滅時效
為二十年，業已屆至；且
2. 條約中，僅規定向國家賠償，而不向個人賠償，因此個人不
得作為此求償主張之主體。
[1] Special Rapporteur’s Report can be available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b6ad5f3990967f3e802566d600575fcb?Opendocument
[2] Judgment of the Women's Tribunal can be available at:
http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/womenstribunal2000/Judgement.pdf
[3] Judgment of Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al. can be available at:
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20070427134258.pdf
[4] Judgment of Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan can be available at:
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20070427165434.pdf
1996年，聯合國就曾針對此議題做出相關人權報告
【Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes
and consequences, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, in accordance with
Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/45: Report on the mission
to the DPRK, the ROK and Japan on the issue of military sexual slavery
in wartime】
末段，Recommendations from the Special Rapporteur were:（節錄）
1. At the national level, the Government of Japan should:
a. Acknowledge the violation of its obligations under international
law and accept legal responsibility for that violation;
b. Pay compensation to individual victims of Japanese military
sexual slavery according to principles outlined by the Special
Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities on the right to restitution, compensation
and rehabilitation for victims of grave violations of human rights and
fundamental freedoms;
c. Make a full disclosure of documents and materials;
d. Make a public apology in writing to women victims;
f. Identify and punish perpetrators involved in the recruitment and
institutionalization during the War.
2. At the international level:
There should also be an attempt to seek an advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice or the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
The Governments of the DPRK and the ROK may consider requesting
the ICJ to help resolve the legal issues concerning Japanese responsibility
and payment of compensation.
[In December 2000] 女性國際戰犯審判（東京大審）
Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual
Slavery:
It was a people’s tribunal convened to gather testimony from victims,
and then, based on international laws that were in place during World
War II, to try groups and individuals for rape or sexual slavery.
在其判決中：
Part IV. State Responsibility --> F. Defences to State Responsibility {Peace
Treaties and Waivers --> para. 1053 (Conclusion):
The judges find that the application for state responsibility is valid and
that the Japanese government is liable for the harm inflicted by the
Japanese military sexual slavery system. With respect to Japan's reliance
on the Peace Treaties, the judges find that the negotiating parties had no
power to waive the claims of individuals fro harm suffered as a result of
the commission of crimes against humanity and we reject the assertion
that these claims were effectively or permanently waived. Further, we
find that Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention was intended to protect
the right of the victimised persons and those who are permitted to claim
on their behalf to seek compensations as individuals.
除所有national States of victim women都曾透過外交、政治手段
向日本政府請求道歉與賠償外，也有一些日本國內法院的裁判：
【中國方面】
整理自Comfort Women: Case Comment on Nishimatsu Construction
Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al., and Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan (by Mark Levin)
在Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al.一案中：
[In July 2002]
The court recognized a violation of the employer’s duty of consideration
for safety (obligation de sécurité), but nonetheless dismissed the action
owing to expiry of the applicable statute of limitations. (消減時效)
[On appeal, in July 2004]
The Hiroshima High Court reinstated the case and invalidating the assertion
of time limitations as an abuse of rights, then, recognizing the plaintiffs’
claims in their entirety. (原告勝訴法院認為在此適用消滅時效是為
權利濫用)
[註] 惟本案係｛個人v.個人｝，故難為援引，作為成立國家責任之證據
至於，在Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan的案件裡：
1996年2月
中國慰安婦侯巧蓮和郭喜翠向東京地方法院提起訴訟，要求日
本政府謝罪並給予賠償。
2002年3月
東京地方法院認定她們遭到性虐待的事實，但作出了駁回原告
訴求的判決。4月，原告繼續向東京高等法院提出上訴。
2005年3月
東京高等法院作出二審判決，駁回原告的索賠訴求；隨後，原
告和原告律師團向日本最高法院提出上訴。
2007年4月27日
日本最高裁判所作出終審判決，認定原告二戰時被侵華日軍綁
架和強暴的事實，但作為《日中聯合聲明》第五條所述的放棄
請求權對象，原告不具有法律上的賠償請求權。
[In February 1996]
The case, filed against Japan in Tokyo District Court, sought compensatory
damages and a public apology based upon the employer’s agency liability,
as provided in Chinese law of the time and also in Japanese Civil Code.
[In March 2002]
The District Court dismissed the action, finding that:
1. there were no grounds for claims by individuals under international law
pursuant to Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws
and Customs of War on Land, and
2. acts of illegal authority occurring outside the Application of Laws Act
were to be determined in accordance with domestic law, thereby raising
the question of sovereign immunity.
[In March 2005]
The Tokyo High Court upheld the lower court ruling on the separate ground
that the extinguishment of claims provisions in the Sino-Japanese Peace
Treaty of 1952 barred compensation claims by all Chinese nationals, and
dismissed the case.
由上可知，基本上日本法院的論述，大致不脫一個邏輯順序：
1. San Francisco Peace Treaty
According to the Court, the Treaty created a framework not only for the
disposition of claims between the participating states themselves (and their
citizens), but also for the disposition of claims under subsequent bilateral
treaties, both with parties to the San Francisco Treaty and with nonparties.
2. Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty of 1952
The disposition of claims in that treaty was explicitly accomplished by its
Article 11, which provided that “any problems” resulting from the former
state of war would be “settled in accordance with the relevant provisions
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty.” Although the Sino-Japanese Treaty was
not directly applicable (because of the plaintiffs’ current status as nationals
of the PRC rather than the ROC), the Court used it as an instructive example
of how both public and private claims could be fully disposed of under a
treaty with a state not party to the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
3. China-Japan Joint Communiqué of 1972
Article 5 is the dispositive provision: “The Government of the PRC declares
that in the interest of the friendship between the Chinese and the Japanese
peoples, it renounces its demand for war reparation from Japan.”
For the Court, this renunciation of claims was ambiguous since it did not
indicate whose demands were included - only those of the Chinese
government’s, or of its nationals as well.
The Court resolved this ambiguity in favor of the Japanese government,
accepting three of its central arguments:
(1) because Japan’s 1952 treaty with the Republic of China included claims
by individuals, Japan would not have wanted an inconsistent arrangement
with the Peoples’ Republic of China;
(2) the Joint Communiqué was functionally a peace treaty (and thus to be
considered part of the San Francisco Treaty framework); and
(3) nothing in the negotiation history suggests that the Joint Communiqué
was to be interpreted outside the San Francisco framework.
[補充資料]
1. Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty (Treaty of Taipei):
It was a peace treaty between Japan and the Republic of China signed in
Taipei, Taiwan on April 28, 1952.
2. Joint Communiqué of the Government of Japan and the Government of
the People's Republic of China (中華人民共和國政府和日本國政府聯
合聲明中日聯合聲明):
It was signed in Beijing on September 29, 1972. The treaty renounced any
claim for war reparations from World War II. It firmly maintains its stand
under Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration. (｛第五條｝中國政府宣布：
為了中日兩國人民的友好，放棄對日本國的戰爭賠償要求)
因此，Japanese lawyers have made the argument that the provisions of the
Treaty of Taipei and the subsequent Sino-Japan Joint Communiqué waived the
right of Chinese nationals to seek compensation from the Japanese government
or corporations based in Japan.
[補充說明]
但就在宣判的當天，中國外交部隨即就關於「中國政府是否在
《中日聯合聲明》中放棄了中國公民個人請求賠償權利」之問
題作出回應，表示在《中日聯合聲明》中，的確中國政府放棄
了對「日本國」的戰爭索賠，但並沒有放棄民間索賠。又《中
日聯合聲明》不是兩國的正式法律性文件，只是兩國在政府領
導人就雙方共識的聯合聲明。一直到1978年，兩國簽訂《中日
和平友好條約》，《中日聯合聲明》中的原則才以法律形式確
立下來。
事實上，中、美都放棄了對日索賠，但只放棄了政府索賠。不
過美國通過國內立法的方式，已使個人對日索賠獲得成效，而
中國公民若要索償，卻要到日本打官司，讓日本得以逕自片面
解釋《中日聯合聲明》，並援以駁回個人之起訴。
【台灣方面】
1999年8月17日
台灣慰安婦在東京地方法院遞訴狀，正式控告日本政府。
2003年，東京高等法院判決駁回上訴
理由：戰爭賠償問題在戰後，已由雙邊條約解決。
2004年，東京高等法院判決維持原判決
理由：
1. 根據日本國內法，關於侵權行為損害賠償請求權之消滅時效
為二十年，業已屆至；且
2. 條約中，僅規定向國家賠償，而不向個人賠償，因此個人不
得作為此求償主張之主體。
[1] Special Rapporteur’s Report can be available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b6ad5f3990967f3e802566d600575fcb?Opendocument
[2] Judgment of the Women's Tribunal can be available at:
http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/womenstribunal2000/Judgement.pdf
[3] Judgment of Nishimatsu Construction Co. v. Song Jixiao Et Al. can be available at:
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20070427134258.pdf
[4] Judgment of Ko Hanako Et Al. v. Japan can be available at:
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20070427165434.pdf
全站熱搜
留言列表
