莱顿大学法学院

《 欧洲法视界》【连载】欧洲法学院之旅:荷兰莱顿大学法学院

1575年,莱顿大学创校伊始,法学院便是当时的四大学院之一。她是荷兰第一所法学院,也是当前规模最大的法学院,每年约千人入学。每天早上无处存放的自行车会让你十分怀念假期的空荡。由于学生人数多,曾发生大冬天在没有暖气的彼得教堂考试的事情。

 

当前,法学院的教学楼之一,KOG,曾是物理系的实验室。该楼以获诺贝尔奖的物理学教授Heike Kamerlingh Onnes的名字命名。通过楼门口的雕塑,你就知道他长啥样了。爱因斯坦近百年前也曾在该楼里授课。KOG仍挂着莱顿大学许多物理学家的合影。物理和法学似乎毫不沾边,但是它们都研究“law”,也算是传承吧。法学院对旧楼的使用和新阅览室及涡旋型楼梯的设计,尽显荷兰人的念旧和创新。

 

近年莱顿法学院的世界QS专业排名一直在前二十多位。荷兰对儿童幸福感的重视在世界上首屈一指。莱顿法学院对儿童权利的法律研究算得上独领风骚。同时,法学院一直重视国际法的教学和研究,可称得上是学习和研究国际法的殿堂。国际法学的创始人之一格老秀斯曾在法学院求学。至今楼里还挂着他的照片,供后辈瞻仰其思想光芒。荷兰贝娅特丽克丝女王(Queen Beatrix)也毕业于法学院。法学院重视学生的论文写作和口头表达能力,有丰富多彩的模拟法庭课程。每逢法学院考试季,随处可见青春洋溢的学生们西装革履地忙着准备口头考试。

 

在莱顿法学院求学近四年,我时常觉得很幸运。我享受着荷兰干净的空气和新鲜的牛奶。当然,一年里能和阳光春天约会的时间太短暂了。同事间的独立平等和公法系良性竞争的环境,让我在这安心快乐并痛苦地研究工作。所有浪漫不浪漫的故事也时常萦绕左右,让我工作之余感受生活的美好。办公室外的屋顶上时常有海鸥求偶飞舞。诚然,当你构思结构时,海鸥们的叫声甚是烦人。然而,茶歇时观察它们却也有趣。看着一窝一窝的小海鸥们长大,我时常感叹我的论文宝贝啥时候才出生呢。

 

声名在外又幽默友好的导师总是鼓励我,不时给我打剂定神针。看到同事到其他大学交流访学,我也曾心动。我想去看看不一样的法学院,接触不一样的世界和人。当我询问导师是否有必要交流访问时,他反问我:研究国际刑法还有比离海牙如此近的莱顿更好的地方吗?是的,莱顿法学院是再好不过了!

Advertisements

以色列议会合法化定居点的行为是否违反国际法?(1)

2017年2月7日,以色列议会通过了一项颇具争议的决定:将所有未经以色列官方批准建立在约旦河西岸(west bank)的犹太人定居点(Israeli settlements)合法化。 联合国秘书长发言人当日指出:“这项法案违反国际法,并将为以色列带来深远的法律后果。据报道,该法案将为建立在被占领的约旦河西岸、私人拥有的巴勒斯坦土地上的定居点和前哨基地提供豁免。”

以色列议会的决定会为什么会引发联合国的关注和国际社会的争议呢?为了解约旦河西岸的现状及其法律地位,我们将首先回顾以色列的建国历史和西岸地区的控制。其次,这项合法化定居点的法案在国际法上存在哪些争议?最后,相关争端解决机制(国际刑事法院)能否解决定居点问题?本篇主要从犹太人的角度回顾以色列的建国以及对西岸地区的控制。

1.犹太人何以流散千年后建国?

说到二战后的成功建国,就离不开犹太民族的复国主义思想,更不得不说到三千多年前希伯来王国所在地-迦南。

1.1 迦南之地(巴勒斯坦)

由于时间久远,早期犹太人的历史主要是依据《圣经旧约》。以《圣经》作为历史证据不太恰当,但是它也反映了部分的历史轮廓。在美索不达米亚平原的迦南之地(现以色列国所在地)被犹太人视为上帝的“应许之地”(圣地),是流着牛奶和蜜的地方。流落在埃及的希伯来人在摩西的带领下重返迦南。摩西在归途得到了《摩西十诫》。该戒律被视为早期希伯来人的立法。

公元前11世纪,希伯来王国的大卫王建都耶路撒冷,立犹太教为国教。大卫王之子所罗门王在锡安山上建耶和华圣殿(后来的犹太复国主义就是根据锡安zoinism一词而来)。所罗门王死后,希伯来王国分裂为以色列国和犹大国。后来,两个国家分别被亚述和古巴比伦消灭。犹太人随后历经波斯帝国,希腊人,罗马人的统治。公元前100多年,犹太人三次起义反抗罗马人的统治,但都被镇压。起义失败后,犹太人逃离该地,开始了1800多年的大流散。

罗马统治其间,迦南被改名为巴勒斯坦。公元7世纪,阿拉伯人开始世代居住此地。这片土地先后又被拜占庭帝国,花剌子模,十字军,蒙古以及奥斯曼土耳其帝国统治。

1.2 犹太复国主义的出现

由于犹太人不愿改变宗教信仰,他们在欧洲流散的过程中经历惨痛,被视为异端,被驱逐,被隔离,被迫害。法国曾主张犹太人同化,改变宗教信仰,融入欧洲主体民族。但是,由于拿破仑战争的失败,该主张被放弃。很多犹太人后来从沙俄逃亡美国。

重返巴勒斯坦的犹太复国主义思想在俄国出现。原本主张同化道路的西奥多·赫茨尔创建政治锡安主义。他认为,犹太人无法融入欧洲主体民族不是社会宗教问题,而是民族问题。他致力于寻求大国,富国以及富人的支持,并于1897年召集举办了首届犹太人大会,通过《巴塞尔决议》。随后,设立犹太基金会,创办犹太垦殖银行,帮助世界各国的犹太人移民巴勒斯坦。早期移民巴勒斯坦的犹太人开始垦屯拓荒,创建农庄,发展农业,进一步为移民提供经济支持。与此同时,希伯来语开始复兴,成为世界各地犹太人的共同语言基础。

当魏兹曼接任赫茨尔的职务后,他开始寻求英国的支持。1917年英国发布《贝尔福宣言》:赞成在巴勒斯坦地区为犹太人建民族家园。一战结束,奥斯曼帝国战败。1920年,国际联盟授权英国委任托管巴勒斯坦地区,并承认英国的《贝尔福宣言》。1922年,英国托管当局将巴勒斯坦东部(现约旦)划为阿拉伯人居住地区,西部划为犹太人居住地区。

1.3 二战前巴勒斯坦地区的阿犹冲突

由于越来越多犹太人移民巴勒斯坦地区,原本居住在当地的阿拉伯人和犹太人之间的冲突日益加剧。一战前后,原本就有很多犹太人居住在巴勒斯坦地区。1929年,犹太建国会成立,犹太人社区逐步扩大。1933年,由于德国希特勒的排犹政策,许多犹太人开始移居巴勒斯坦地区。面对不断增多的犹太人,阿拉伯人多次反抗英国委任当局,发动起义。

1939年,英国政府迫于阿拉伯人和自身在阿拉伯殖民的压力,发表了《巴勒斯坦白皮书》:限制移民巴勒斯坦的犹太人数量。这样,犹太人又不满了。他们开始向美国寻求帮助。1942年,犹太复国主义者在美国开会并通过《本古里安》文件,要求结束英国的委任统治,建立犹太国,组建犹太军队,同时不受限制的购置巴勒斯坦地区的土地。美国的犹太人向美国政府施压。美国政府为涉入中东事务,也试图支持犹太复国主义者。

纳粹德国的排犹政策在1942年改为从肉体上消灭犹太人。这一政策使世界上近三分之一的犹太人被杀。美国人同情犹太人的遭遇。美国和苏联也为了各自利益先后公开支持犹太人在巴勒斯坦建国。犹太复国的精英以犹太人财团为经济后盾,在大国寻求支持复国的力量。

1.4以色列的建国

第二次世界大战结束,英国政府根据《巴勒斯坦白皮书》继续限制犹太人移民巴勒斯坦地区。一方面,英国委任当局和巴勒斯坦犹太人的冲突升级为暴力冲突。另一方面,阿犹之间也频繁发生暴力冲突。 犹太建国会提出巴勒斯坦分治方案,但该方案遭到阿拉伯人的反对。英国政府无法平息冲突,于是在1947年将巴勒斯坦地区的问题提交联合国。当时巴勒斯坦地区的人口中33%是犹太人(60.8万人),67%是阿拉伯人 (122.2万人)。

联合国大会的讨论分为多数派和少数派。多数派,如美国和苏联,支持阿拉伯人和犹太人的分治方案。少数派支持建立阿拉伯人和犹太人的联邦国家。犹太人支持多数派的方案,而阿拉伯人则反对两种方案。

1947年11月29日,第二届联合国大会通过了阿犹分治的181(ii) 号决议。该决议33票同意,13票反对,10票弃权。(Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen参会并投了反对票)该决议决定结束英国在巴勒斯坦的委任统治,将巴勒斯坦分为三部分:犹太国,阿拉伯国和国际共管的耶路撒冷市。其中犹太国面积占巴勒斯坦土地总面积的56.5%, 阿拉伯国占43%。耶路撒冷市占0.5%。边界确定的犹太国领土范围内有近49.8万犹太人和49.7万阿拉伯人(含Bedouins人) ,阿拉伯国领土范围也有近1万犹太人和72.5万阿拉伯人。 耶路撒冷市有10万犹太人和10.5万阿拉伯人。

由于巴勒斯坦的阿拉伯人没有参与联合国大会,该分治决议遭到了阿拉伯各国和巴勒斯坦人的质疑。最后引起了阿拉伯世界的抗议浪潮。1947年12月,阿拉伯联盟成员国宣布成立阿拉伯解放军,决心为反对联合国分裂巴勒斯坦的决议而战。

犹太人同意联合国的分治决议。犹太人同时前往美国筹款购买武器装备。征召年轻人入伍,扩大武装力量。此外,犹太人还加紧占领土地,驱赶平民。当时的犹太武装力量制造了一系列暴力恐怖事件,阿犹双方死亡惨重。由于英国要结束统治了,所以英国驻军干预得不太情愿。

1948年5月14日上午,英国结束委任统治。当天下午,本古里安宣读《独立宣言》,宣布犹太人国家以色列诞生。美国随即承认以色列。当月17日,苏联也承认以色列。1949年5月11日,以色列被批准加入联合国。这就是以色列建立的故事。

1.5 对约旦河西岸的控制

犹太人宣布建国的第二天5月15日,约旦,伊拉克,叙利亚,黎巴嫩和埃及组成的阿拉伯联军出兵以色列。第一次阿以战争爆发,以色列战胜。此时,联合国第181号决议中的阿拉伯国并没有成立,该决议确定的边界也发生了变化。耶路撒冷被分为东西耶路撒冷。也色列占据约旦河西边23.5%的额外领域;约旦占领现西岸地区和东耶路撒冷;埃及占据剩下的加沙地带。以色列管辖巴勒斯坦地区77%的土地。

随后阿以又爆发了4次中东战争:1956年的西奈半岛战争;1967年6月5日开始的6日战争;1973年赎罪日战争;以及1982年的第五次中东战争。 以色列均胜利且控制领土范围不断扩展。1967年 6日战争后, 以色列从约旦手中夺取西岸地区和东耶路撒冷,并占据巴勒斯坦地区所有剩余土地。联合国随即通过242号决议,要求以色列军队撤出1967年战争中占领的区域,并认为以色列的吞并行为无效。但是,该决议未被有效执行。

根据1993年以色列和巴勒斯坦解放组织签署的《奥斯陆协议》,西岸地区分为A、B、C三区。除死海,西岸地区面积为5659平方千米。其中A区的军事与民事管辖权均由巴勒斯坦民族权力机构控制(空域由以色列控制);B区由以色列军事控制,但民事管辖权由巴勒斯坦民族权力机构控制;C区的军事与民事管辖权均由以色列控制。由于阿以的持续冲突,该协议并未得到实施。

自1967年以来,西岸地区就被以色列军事控制。 也色列持续在该区域设置供犹太人居住的屯垦区(定居点)。截至2014年9月,在西岸地区约有52万以色列定居者。巴勒斯坦社区和以色列定居点在西岸地区相互交叉。

1.6 结语

巴勒斯坦这片土地曾经被不同人统治。犹太人能够在流散千年后建国是一个奇迹。他们的建国政治思想,共同的宗教基础,希伯来语的复兴,雄厚经济后盾以及在大国政治缝隙中左右逢源,共同促使他们实现建国目标。诚然,国际关系中大国的干预以及大国对小国的政治影响不可避免,不论大国是主动还是被动。2012年联合国大会承认巴勒斯坦作为联合国观察国, 西岸地区连同加沙地带共同被认为是巴勒斯坦领土。不管是否承认,巴勒斯坦国和以色列国现在各自作为独立国家,已客观存在了。两国人民的生活居住权利都应当保护。

依据以色列国内法,2007年开始,在西岸地区建定居点需经总理和国防部长批准。未经批准而私自建立的定居点是非法的。2017年,以色列议会2月6日的决议则将这些非法定居点合法化。以色列政府通过征收方式将把西岸私人土地变为以色列国有土地,不论被征收人是否愿意。那么,以色列批准设定居点的行为和合法化非法定居点的行为是否违法国际法呢?此外,关于军事占领的相关法律是否适用于西岸地区呢?博主将在后文分析这些问题。

莱顿大学: Cleveringa 教授

      莱顿大学法学院每年1126日都会在学术楼大礼堂举办一个演讲。这一传统是为了纪念一位法学教授Rudolph Cleveringa。莱顿大学为什么纪念他呢?他又是谁呢?

      Cleveringa教授是土生土长的荷兰人,1917年获得法制史的博士学位,并就职于莱顿大学。而荷兰莱顿法学院的著名犹太人教授 Eduard Maurits Meijers 正是他博士论文的导师。

      与其说莱顿大学纪念Cleveringa,毋宁说是纪念他传达的自由精神。这得追溯到1940的一次演说。1940年,德国占领荷兰。当年10月,德国占领当局要求荷兰的公务员,教授,以及大学的教职人员签署一个非犹太民族白人Aryan纳粹意识形态用语) 宣言。宣言的内容是确认自己不是犹太人,而是纯正的欧洲人,自己的身体里没有犹太人的血液。这一具有争议的措施引发了许多教授的讨论:我们是否应该合作呢?德国占领当局为什么关心我们是否是犹太人呢?最后,很多教授都同意合作并签署该宣言。他们认为,为维持大学的开放并继续教学,应当与德国当局合作并签署该宣言。比起学校被支持纳粹的人侵占而开展教学,选择签署宣言并继续教学或许是更好的选择。

      11月,纳粹的新一轮措施又开始了。所有犹太人或者犹太人后裔教职人员,公务人员都被纳粹解雇了。30岁就被任命为教授的Meijers 教授也在被解雇之列。这意味着他和其他优秀的犹太教授不能给学生授课或担任教职了,于大学是巨大的损失。学校的教授又开始讨论,应该怎么应对这一措施呢。是否进行抗议?如果抗议,是否采取关闭学校的方式?是否呼吁学生罢课?

     作为法学院的院长,Cleveringa教授主张应划清界限,不接受这一措施19401126日,他在莱顿学术楼大礼堂发表演讲,抗议德国占领当局解雇莱顿大学犹太同事和他的导师。1126日,他走到学术楼的大讲堂前,对本应等待Meijers教授授课的学生发表抗议演讲:

I stand here before you today, a time when you expect someone else: your teacher and mine, Meijer. The reason for this is a letter received by him this morning from the department of education, Arts and Science, which said the following, and I quote: ‘In name of the Reich Commissioner of the occupied Dutch territory, concerning non-Aryan government staff and equivalent personnel, I inform you that as of today you’ve been relieved of your duties as professor at Leiden University.’ [] In accordance with Dutch tradition, the Constitution states that every dutch person can serve his country in any way and be appointed to any function or dignity, and grants them equal civil and citizen’s rights, regardless of their religion. According to article 43 of the Law of Armed Conflict, the occupying force is obliged to respect the country’s laws unless absolutely prevented to do so. We can see it no other way than that the Germans were prevented in no way that would give cause to remove Meijers from where he was. […] This is where we draw the line. This is what we stand for as a University, as a people and as a nation.

      演讲结束,一个学生立即站起来唱荷兰国歌。所有其他在场人员也都一起唱了起来。可见,大家都认为德国的所做作为是卑鄙的,他们抗议这样的措施。他的演讲随后被学生印成册子,并分发给各个大学。然而,Meijers 教授仍被带往波兰集中营,直到解放。

       同时,1941年夏天,Cleveringa教授被德国秘密警察逮捕,并被关在海牙席凡宁根被称为奥兰治旅馆的监狱。莱顿学生因此罢课,大学也关闭。Cleveringa教授的第一个博士生当时也拒绝重新找导师。1944Cleveringa教授被转到另外一个监狱,解放时才被释放。19459Cleveringa教授和Meijers 教授重返课堂。

      每个人都知道,直接反对德国在当时是有风险的。Cleveringa教授并没有让学生罢课或者抗议,也没有敦促学生警醒。他告诉学生Meijers教授的学术成就,Meijers教授发表了什么文章,Meijers教授在国外如何有名。这是一个非常平静而谦虚的演讲,但却令人印象深刻。在当时的环境,Cleveringa教授敢于抗议德国纳粹的措施这一事实本身就使他的演讲意义非凡

      由于Cleveringa教授对纳粹的抵抗,美国政府授予他自由勋章。2015年,他的演讲被评为荷兰最佳演讲。此外,为了纪念他,莱顿大学专们设立一个Cleveringa教席,每年任命一位教授,履职一年。Cleveringa教席老师1126日(周末的时候会调整日期)在学术楼大礼堂发表就职演说。

    Cleveringa教授的演讲,对于我们每一个人都意义深远。莱顿大学的校训是Bastion of Freedom 自由的捍卫者/堡垒。为了科学研究,为了给每个人提供教育,学校需要思考的自由,表达的自由,宗教的自由。19401126日对于莱顿大学,对于荷兰变得如此重要,正是因为那天第一次有一个公共机构敢于抗议纳粹德国的措施。此种勇气和自由的精神,值得纪念和赞扬。

关于张学良和张作霖

一直以来,对于张学良的印象,只有历史书中他的一张相片。父亲张作霖被日本关东军在皇姑屯事件死亡后,他在国仇家恨之下改旗易帜,实现了中华民国自1911年以来的形式上的统一。那是1928年12月29日,张学良当时只有28岁。1929年,中东路事件,为了收回苏联所占部分铁路路权,与苏联作战,大败。两年后,也就是1931年日军发动的9.18事件,他放弃全面抵抗,不做无谓牺牲,东北沦陷。随后,就是1936年12月12日,他和杨虎城将军发动西安事变,兵谏蒋介石同意国共合作,共同抗日。那时,他只有36岁。随后,他的人生便是在被监禁中度过。

一直以来,我对民国有一种情怀,说不清楚,道不明白。或许是喜欢民国的服装。或许是欣赏当时北京大学,东北大学自由的学风。或许是对当时的国学大师们的崇拜之情。模糊的民国就是蒋介石领导下的中国。但是,一段段历史,总是被掩盖或故意避开。孙中山创立中华民国政府后,让位与袁世凯。从袁世凯算起,直到张作霖,北洋政府出现过15个总统或类似的国家元首。北洋军政府,各路军阀混战。今天奉系进入关内协调段祺瑞和曹锟的关系。一会直系和奉系打仗,战败偃旗息鼓退回奉天省(辽宁省)。东三省自治,休养生息后,继续第二次直奉战争。直系,奉系,皖系,各大军阀混战。今天我打你,明天你打我。后天大家联合起来一起打别人。

我们只看到了打仗,没看到打仗需要的东西。军需,军饷,每一样都需要钱。财政收支不足,军队规模过大,钱从哪里来?如果不想裁军,那就只有借。 找谁借?每个军阀都找支持自己的英国,美国,或者日本借钱。就东北而言,1895年中日甲午战争,1901-1904年日俄战争后,日本开始逐渐控制该地域。日本开始了在东北的殖民计划,移民,租界,驻军,建铁路。最臭名昭著的就是关东军和满洲里铁路局。满铁相当于就是银行,日本人经营的银行。奉系需要钱,就向日本借钱。日本当然不是免费借,它为了实现它殖民东北的计划,当然会索取利益,甚至趁机勒索,乘火打劫。日本索要最多的就是铁路权益。由日本和奉系军政首脑签署铁路承包合同,日本给奉系现金作为外资的投入,而奉系负责帮忙建设铁路。铁路建成,满铁就负责运营并赚钱。铁路线,经济线,生命线也。如果没有自己的铁路,运输军用物资,运输士兵,都得受制于人。同时,承包合同可不简单的就是建铁路,铁路沿线的腹地也将受到日本的控制。铁路越密集,日本对东北的控制也就越严密。一方面,军阀混战,导致不能休养生息发展经济,更别说把钱投资修铁路。另外,军阀混战,导致军阀不断出卖铁路权益。由于战争,一些承包合同没法履行。所以有了所谓的满蒙悬案,其实就是五条铁路线的问题。

张作霖,绿林响马,乱世枭雄。他有自己的一套个人观点,讲感情,重义气,知人善任。但是,历史的局限性导致,他仍然只是想做袁世凯一样的梦。在对日外交上,他一直是虚虚实实,就连签合同,也只写一个“阅”,以便反悔之用。但是,有句话,出来混,总要还。直奉战争,平定郭松龄反奉,荣登中华民国安国陆海军总司令,入主北京,他都向日本借债了。当日本索要利益时,他开始逐渐强硬。再值当时国民革命军北伐军节节胜利,日本关东军又在东北断其后路步步紧逼,他终于决定放弃北京返回奉天省了。1927年6月,他儿子27岁生日当天。他的专列途经皇姑屯时爆炸了。

27岁的张学良,他是勇敢的。我得承认,我没有他那样的经历,即便我有那样的经历我也没有他的胆量。在那种情况下,只有军事经验的他,要担起的责任,不光是对日外交,还有和南京国民政府的关系,东北的方向是什么,东北的经济如何振兴,东北的农业,东北的人事,驻守山海关的军团部队。所有的事情,虽说张作霖为他留下不少的人才,但我只能说佩服两字。

每个人的人生都是在不断做选择。可以说所有的选择决策构成了整个人的一生。不过,有的人有选择的机会,有人连选择的机会都没有。一次在别人看来风险很大的决策,没有人在当时会打保票,它是对的。即便在当时或者10年后别人人为是正确的决策,后人也会用更新的标准来对你作出判断。当然,这不是正确的历史批判。马后炮的行为是可耻的。

没有一个人是完美的,所有的都是别人给的标签。 如果你和你的良师益友战场对决,学生战胜了老师,老师却被自己父亲处决,你会如何?明知鸦片的危害, 为了躲避精神的崩溃,你会选择它麻醉自己吗?当你发现你只是被注射了吗啡来戒除鸦片,你怎么想?当你和自己的表嫂偷情,你会有罪恶感吗?当你选择和父亲为你指定的人结婚生子,她懂得人情世故,温柔贤惠,可谓贤内。可是随后,另外一个纯洁单纯的女孩令你心动时,你会怎么办?历史虽然是由后人评说,但评说的前提是知道历史。看了他的故事,我只能说,自己太无知,懂得太少了。 开阔眼界是努力距离真实,探索真理的第一步。

Sexual Slaves in so-called comfort stations–Yongsoo Lee’s Story

 

Last Saturday on 9 July, in Amsterdam, there was a Salon with the title of “Beyond Repair – A conversation with Yongsoo Lee about forced prostitution during the Second World War”.

Capture

I found it very interesting and immediately made a decision to participate in it. I was a bit late because of the offline google map. (The street  — Kleine Gartmanplantsoen – was not indicated on his offline map). Hence,  unfortunately, we missed the speech of the interviewer, Peter Keppy from the NIOD.  Luckily, we did not miss the main part of this salon.

There were around 30-40 audiences, the majority of which were Korean citizens. The Korean man next to me also had a notebook and wrote many notes in Korean. Since Ms. Yongsoo Lee could not speak English, some Korean students (might be students) translated her speech. She is the youngest survivor from South Korea, who suffered from severe sexual abuse in so-called ‘comfort stations’. Peter Keppy asked her questions, such as  when and how she was transferred to Taiwan, when she went home and how about her life after she was back to South Korea.

She was born in a family with six (?) elder brothers in 1928. However, in 1944, when she was catching snails with her friend close to a riverbank, they were taken by a Japanese soldier. At that time, she was 16. They firstly were taken by a train to Shanghai, and then transferred to a boat heading to Hsinchu County, Taiwan. When she was on the train, she was told that she was going to see her mom. When the train passed by her home, she screamed for her mom. Then, she told us her story regarding the torture she suffered from the electrical cable by a soldier. She was beaten and cut with a knife, and the scar of the cut remains.  At her 16, she was raped. She was too young to recognise what will happen and what is rape. She learned to submit so that she would not be beaten again. Even during her period, she still had to have sexual relations with men.

When the war was over, she did not realise what was happening. She was sent back to home. She did not receive the fresh Tofu from her mother(there is a tradition in South Korea that a person who was released from the jail will eat Tofu, which symbolises a new life and a hope of not going to a jail again), but the fire.  Her mother did not recognise her and used the fire to eliminate a ghost because she thought her daughter was dead. After that, she did not live with families at home, but in a mountain.  At that time, she did not realise that people would like to know her story; she was also ashamed for what happened to her.  The last word of one of her brothers was that “tell the truth.” After Kim Hak-sun (姜日出) openly talked to the public about her experience as a sexual slave, she also testified about her experience in that comfort Station  and registered as a comfort woman in 1992.  It is inspiring that she also attended university in 1996 and graduated in 2001 with her master degree.

During her speech, some people including two translators were moved to tears. Now, she is a women’s right activist. She always says that she is a Korean, rather than a comfort woman victim. She said that she is still healing, but she also wants to heal the world. She is still trying to testify and managing to argue against challenges to her testimony. She even went back to Taiwan, and a witness in Taiwan also pointed out that there was a military base where she was, and she was there. When one audience asked her a question regarding the Koren Film ‘Spirits’ Homecoming’ (鬼乡 ), she said what was described in the film is only one percent of their sufferings.

After the event, I walked to talk with her in a short time. “I come from China. Thank you for sharing your experience. You are so brave, and it is so inspiring for Chinese people.” We hugged each other, and she firmly held my right hand. During this conversation, I felt that my eyes were wet.  The translator also told me the information regarding the compensation of sexual slavery in Taiwan last year, and two female judges in San Francisco are also working on this issue.

In China, there were also many sexual slaves, who were tortured, raped, and forced to have sexual relations with military soldiers. However, the right-wing Government of Japan never acknowledges such a fact and even intends to deny the existence of comfort system by revising its textbook. Some try to mislead the public by using the ambiguity term “comfort women”, or justify its comfort system. Although some women were voluntary to work in a comfort Station, the existence of sexual slavery during the WWII cannot be denied.  Indeed, in 2007, there was a litigation before a Japanese Court for compensations to Chinese women for their sufferings during the WWII. Initially, this case was rejected as the local district court found that there was no sexual slavery. In the appeal, the sexual slavery was recognised. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled that these victims had no right to compensation, as that right was waived by the Chinese government. As a matter of fact, the individual right to compensation as a human right cannot be waived by a government or by another individual to whom no authorization was granted. Despite the final ruling of no compensation, this civil litigation case in Japan indicates that there was sexual slavery. Further research on the compensation is needed and urgent since many victims were dead and some of them were too old to testify.

The comfort women registration system is one thing; while the social context of tolerance is another thing, which is necessary for other unknown victims to openly share their experience. To be heard is also a kind of heal for their inner feelings.

 

 

 

A Documentary “what our fathers did:A Nazi legacy”

 

同事午餐时聊到这部纪录片,我非常感兴趣。我于是报名参加了它在海牙的放映。该纪录片的导演拍摄过唐顿庄园。

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-28 at 13.57.26

纪录片主要讲述了两个纳粹高官的儿子 Niklas Frank和Horst von Wächter对待各自父亲在波兰和乌克兰的犯罪行为的差异性理解。他们两人的纳粹高官父亲分别是在纽伦堡审判被判处绞刑的Hans Frank  和 逃到萨尔茨堡山中躲避4年,最后死于罗马的Otto von Wächter。Hans Frank  是希特勒左膀右臂,是被占领波兰地区的行政首脑。Otto von Wächter在波兰时,曾经是Hans Frank  的下属。随后Otto von Wächter到德占乌克兰,担任乌克兰地方行政长官。访问者是人权教授Phillipe  Sands。有趣的是,Phillipe  Sands教授的外祖父一家数十人居住在乌克兰的时候,被Otto von Wächter 的下属杀害。最后仅存其外祖父,随后才有了他的母亲和他。

两个儿子对于父亲的行为的评价差异很大。对horst而言,他的印象的父亲是一个好父亲。父亲的朋友对父亲的评价也极高。他不相信自己的父亲是罪犯,也不愿意相信。当 Niklas Frank还原历史,模仿父亲在议会楼里念出Hans Frank  对 Otto von Wächter在波兰的行为不满,Horst von Wächter不相信。当sands教授拿出原始文件证明其父亲曾签署相关杀害指令时,他也不相信。当sands教授带着他到其外祖父一家被屠杀的纪念碑面前,记录片显示,他变得紧张了,但是他仍不相信。相反,Niklas Frank直言自己的父亲是一个罪犯。他敢于在公开场合提及,甚至将父亲的照片留着,提醒自己父亲做过的事。

从第三者的角度来看,或许有人会承认自己父亲的犯罪行为。但是有的人即便面对证据,由于情感上的牵绊,他依然不愿意接受如此的事实。两人截然不同态度的原因,我认为有两点。第一,各自同父亲的感情不同。在Niklas Frank的童年里,他没有多少和父亲的愉快时光。他甚至曾被父亲怀疑不是亲生的孩子。父母关系不融洽,父亲想离婚,母亲不愿意,写信给希特勒。希特勒勒令两人不准离婚。他就是在那样的环境下成长大的。相反,Horst von Wächter 和父亲有非常密切的亲子关系。珍贵家庭影像显示他们一家家庭和谐,父母感情笃深。两人对父亲的情感,从道德上使得各自对父亲的不利证据采取不同的态度。

第二,是否受到审判对于犯罪人及其后代的反思影响深刻。Hans Frank 的行为在纽伦堡国际军事法庭进行了审判。此后联合国一系列的决议,国际法委员会编撰的纽伦堡原则,以及此后的各种法律文件,都再次确认了纽伦堡审判的合法性。小frank已经接受父亲的罪行。如果再尝试抗辩,将显得非常的苍白无力。相反,horst 的父亲没有接受战争审判。他躲避在山里的时候,母亲为父亲提供食物供应。49年一家还曾最后见面。母亲也一直相信父亲做的是正确的事情。在他的心里,父亲在道德上是一个好人,他怎会做那样残忍的事情。即便做了,也是情有可原,或者说是被逼无奈。他从父亲的同事朋友那听到父亲曾试图帮助别人免受迫害,他的父亲拒绝签署一份文件。据此,他一直相信父亲的行为值得原谅。可是,他不知道的更多,更多残忍的事实如果没有经过司法的确认作为证据,他仍会像一个辩护律师一样,持续质疑证据的真实性和相关性。

这个故事看完,或许有人会对horst 产生同情。一则,同情他在法律和亲情之间的挣扎。再则,同情他似乎被两个人逼迫接受自己的父亲应当承担大屠杀的责任。当你询问任何人,如果你的父亲杀害了数千万人,你会如何?答案不是只有一个。当然,他拒绝接受乌克兰士兵递过来的枪的行为,也有应当赞赏。的确,他对于自己父亲的情感可以理解。然而,从情感出发而对大屠杀行为事实的否认和辩解,只会让受害者产生厌恶。他只相信他认定的事实。

跳出这个故事,我们会发现,中国学界还有很多事情可做。中日战争结束这么多年,日本持续存在对侵略的否认,对大屠杀的质疑。诚然,犯罪刑事责任应该由行为人个人或者其指挥官承担,而非由一个国家的所有国民,或是行为人子孙承担。然而,为何日本当前存在如此多的horst呢?为何我们总说日本的反思不够彻底,总是沉渣泛起呢?要对德日反思进行比较研究,一篇观后感显然没法做到。

不过,抗日结束后的审判的公正性,以及中国和美国战后对日本战犯的处理方式对于反思有重大的影响。东京审判对各种甲级战犯进行了审判,随后亚洲地区各国的领土范围内也进行了许多战争犯的审判。但是,东京审判的甲级战犯中被判有罪的人,他们基本上在1960年以前都服刑完毕。随后,他们到日本新政府任职,甚至位高权重,成为内阁总理大臣。 另外,当时国民党政府和共产党分据台湾大陆。中国台湾的日本战俘(包含一些应该被审判的战犯)却被国民党台湾政府任命为军事官员,以训练国民党军队。各种历史因素德结合,再加上东京审判程序上的瑕疵, 当前日本修改历史教科书的事实,当代日本青年像horst 一样反映不足为奇。

最后,Sands教授提到他和Niklas是朋友。作为受害者的外孙,他并没有因为Niklas爸爸的行为,而阻碍他们的友情。对战争的理性反思任重道远。日本政府应有正面历史的态度。如果希望日本的horst们 能改变想法,中国一方也迫切需要更多的研究。

Palestine and the ICC

On 31 July 2014, a report of The Times of Israel covered that Palestine had decided to accede to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The exact time for this submission to the ICC has not been published. It seems that there is no declaration or application until now.

The purpose of its signatory was to investigate the war crimes committed by Israel. It also put itself on the other side of the scale. Before the application or submission of  Palestine, debates arose regarding the legal authority of Palestine to sign the Rome Statute. Whether the consent of the Hamas to the signatory is necessary?

On the one hand, since 2005, the president of the Fatah government of Palestine is Mahmoud Abbas. He has been a chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) since 2004. On the other hand, the Gaze area, which is occupied by Israel, has been governed by the Hamas since 2007 civil war, a de facto government.

Discussions on the test for the effective control and the different definitions of effective control can be found in Blogs. [see: Guest Post: Effective Control and Accepting ICC Jurisdiction;  Can the PA Ratify the Rome Statute? (A Response to Eugene).]

Discussions concerning the validity of the 2009 Declaration also arose. I would like to do factual research regarding the ICC and the Palestinian National Authority declaration.

–In 1994

According to the Oslo Accords, Israel and PLO established an interim self-government body, Palestinian National Authority (PA). The Palestinian National Authority governed the Area A and B, Gaze Strip and West Bank. The Executive Committee of the PLO is recognised as the “Provisional Government of the PA”.

–In 2006

Following an election, the Hamas party succeeded. However, after 2007 Civil War between the Fatah and Hamas in the Gaze Strip, the Hamas governed the Gaze Strip. Therefore, the Palestinian National Authority only exercises its power over West Bank and Area A and B, though it claimed authority over the whole Palestinian territories. The unity government of the Palestinian National Authority collapsed.

–On 29 January 2009

Palestinian National Authority  made its 2009 Declaration recognised the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 1 July 2002.

–On 3 April 2012

After 3 years consideration, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, formally rejected the Palestinian Authority’s 2009 Declaration on behalf of the ICC Office of the Prosecutors (OTP).

The rejection reasons are as follows:

  1. Palestinian Authority indeed made a one-off declaration to accept the jurisdiction of the Court.
  2. However, only a State can confer jurisdiction on the international criminal court by becoming a party to the Rome Statute or by making an ad hoc declaration accepting the court’s jurisdiction.
  3. The international criminal court does not have the competency, but the UN General Assembly plays the role, to determine who was a State.

If the court decided to accept the Declaration, it implied that the PLO was a State. It seems that the ICC only looked to the formal decision of the General Assembly, ignoring the fact that the objective criteria of statehood have been met by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

–On 29 November 2012

The UN General Assembly passed resolution 69/17, which recognized Palestine’s non-member observer State status in the UN.  Resolution 69/17 does not have retroactive effect. It means that Palestine has become statehood since 29 November 2012.

It should be noted that the application for membership in 2011 was signed ‘Mahmoud Abbas President of the State of Palestine, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization’. It means that the UN recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization, rather than Palestinian National Authority as the State of Palestine.

For further information regarding the relationship between the State of Palestine, the Palestinian National Authority, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, please retrieve State of Palestine, Palestinian National Authority, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

–On 5-6 January 2013

The President of Palestinian National Authority declared to change the name of ‘Palestinian National Authority’ into the ‘State of Palestine’. It appears that the interim government finished its task and the official government was established.

–On 20 March  2013

Fatou Bensouda, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, addressed the potential membership of Palestine in the ICC.

During the question time, she was asked:

“If and when the State of Palestine, whose state status has now been overwhelmingly confirmed by the UN General Assembly, revives its application for ICC membership, what will be the procedure for considering its application and, if it is approved, would the court’s jurisdiction be retroactive to 2002, permitting prosecutions for crimes already committed in Palestine or by Palestinians?”

She said that, now that the UN General Assembly had made its determination that Palestine is a state, “the ball is now in the court of Palestine”, “Palestine has to come back” and “we are waiting for them”.

While she said that any new application would have to be considered, there was no ambiguity or suspense as to the result of the requisite consideration.

On the issue of retroactivity, she said that she did not think that any retroactivity could extend back to the birth of the court in 2002 – at most, if prior to Palestine’s formal accession to the Rome Statute, to November 29, 2012.

—On 2 April 2014

Palestine ratified the Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land and the Geneva Conventions.

–On 9 April 2014

Palestine accessed into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

–On 2 June 2014

A new Palestine United Government was backed by both Hamas and Fatah, indicating toward the end of the separate governance since 2007. However, Israel advocated other States not rush to recognise the new government.

–On 3 August 2014

Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales ask the OTP to investigate Gaze. They Request for the initiation of an investigation, pursuant to Articles 15 and  12(3) of the Rome Statute. They held that the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over war crimes in Gaze, based on the 2009 Declaration. It seems that the British layers are so rush to challenge the answer to the legal effect of the 2009 Declaration.  But maybe they are right, and Prosecutor Bensouda is wrong.

–On 5 August 2014

The ICC Office of the Prosecutor has just released the following statement:

Palestine is not a State Party to the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC; neither has the Court received any official document from Palestine indicating acceptance of ICC jurisdiction or requesting the Prosecutor to open an investigation into any alleged crimes following the November 2012 United Nations General Assembly Resolution (67/19), which accorded non-member observer State status to Palestine.

The ICC has no jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on the territory of Palestine.

Since no application has been submitted to the ICC, this statement is reasonable. It also indicated some ideas of the ICC. First, the 2009 Declaration is void. Second, the temporal jurisdiction is based on Resolution 67/19. It means that the court has jurisdiction over crimes only after 29 November 2012. Third, the statement refers to the territory of Palestine. It means that an ad hoc declaration limited to Gaze Stripe may be rejected.

Q: Does Palestine can apply to accede to the Rome Statute or to make an ad hoc Declaration regarding the Gaze Area?

On 8 May 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor relied on effective control to determine which of two rival domestic Egyptian entities represented the government of Egypt. The legal test of the ICC said that,

The legal test of “effective control,” the entity which is in fact in control of a State’s territory, enjoys the habitual obedience of the bulk of the population, and has a reasonable expectancy of permanence, is recognized as the government of that State under international law.

It is true that Palestine does not have “effective control” over all territories of Palestine. And the ICC may reject its accession. In addition, as professor Eugene Kontorovich said,

the ’effective control’ is a double-edged sword for Mahmoud Abbas. On the one hand, his lack of it would bar accepting ICC jurisdiction. On the other hand, his lack of it is also what prevents him from being held responsible for the war crimes there.”

It seems that the decision of the application to be a State Party to the Rome Statue is at the hand of the International Criminal Court, and the Egyptian test may be an obstacle for its application. However, the situation in Palestine is different from Egypt. The legal test for effective control may not be applicable. It was submitted that Palestine has right to apply for the accession to the Rome Statute, while the consideration and procedure should be based on the Rome Statute.

With regard to an ad hoc declaration, the answer should be based on the following criteria.

Q: What are the criteria to assess the validity of an ad hoc Declaration?

–Did the authority that made it have authority? [State+ Effective Control?]

–Did the declaration specifically refer to the Situation in Gaze Strip / Palestine? [The declaration should not be limited to one side of the conflicts.]

–Did the declaration specify the temporal parameter for the jurisdiction giving to the International Criminal Court?