论文部分内容阅读
远东国际军事法庭确认了侵略行为的犯罪属性及侵略罪中的个人责任原则,却因未对“侵略”做出界定而为今日日本当局的“侵略未定论”埋下了伏笔。本文认为“侵略未定论”应当受到批判:从侵略罪定义的演变来看,虽然对“侵略”的定义存在不同版本,但无论以何种版本审视,日本均构成“侵略”;从国际刑法的渊源与使命来看,国际刑法作为一套逐渐形成的客观规则不会为战胜国随意改易,国际刑法所维护的是战后世界秩序而也不仅是战胜国的利益。
The Far East International Military Tribunal confirmed the criminal nature of the act of aggression and the principle of personal responsibility in the crime of aggression but foreshadowed the “aggressive conclusion” of the Japanese authorities today because no definition of “aggression” has been made. This article argues that “the undecided aggression” should be criticized: in view of the evolution of the definition of aggression, although there are different versions of the definition of “aggression,” no matter what version it is examined, Japan constitutes “aggression” "From the origin and mission of international criminal law, international criminal law as a set of objective rules will not be arbitrarily changed for the victorious countries. International criminal law maintains the postwar world order and not only the interests of the victorious countries.