论文部分内容阅读
围绕战争罪犯的定罪问题而产生的分歧与斗争成为二战后战犯审判的基本议题,“事后法”问题则是其中最为重要的法律争议。东京审判中事后法的争议可以归结为两个方面的问题:一是司法过程是否存在瑕疵,二是法律价值之间是否存在冲突。以控辩审三方的视角反思重重迷雾中的事后法问题,试图拨开其迷雾,呈现了东京审判事后法争议的基本图景。通过回溯国际司法审判战争罪犯的先例以及国际法对于战争非法化认定的基本事实,并结合分析事后法的基本法理意涵,指出通过司法方式审判战争罪犯不仅有先例可循,而且拥有较为充分的法理正当性,实质上,东京审判所涉及的罪名并不构成事后法。东京审判需要实践法治的惩恶扬善、保障人权的基本功能,同时更需要实现人类对于人权、法治与正义的追求。
The differences and struggles that surround the conviction of war criminals have become the basic topics for the trial of war criminals after World War II. The issue of “aftermath” is one of the most important legal disputes. The controversy over the post-trial law in Tokyo trial can be summed up in two aspects: First, is there any flaw in the judicial process? Second, is there any conflict between legal values? In the perspective of accusation and defense of the three parties, the issue of after-the-fact law in many fogs was introspected. This attempt was made to get rid of the fog and present the basic picture of the dispute over Tokyo’s after-trial law. By backtracking the precedent of international judicial trials of war criminals and the basic fact that international law has affirmed the illegalization of war and analyzing the basic legal connotation of the ex post facto law, it is pointed out that judging war criminals through judicial means not only has a precedent to follow, but also possesses more adequate jurisprudence Legitimacy. In essence, the charges involved in the Tokyo trial do not constitute ex post facto laws. Tokyo trial needs to practice the rule of law to punish evil and promote good and safeguard the basic functions of human rights. At the same time, the pursuit of human rights, the rule of law and justice is even more necessary.