1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—2/5 Taimocracy翻譯

 1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—2/5　Taimocracy翻譯

“While it may be as yet premature to declare that recognition of the principle of self-determination of nations has already suffered to establish a rule of international law se to the effect that the validity of a cession of territory depends, under any circumstances, upon the consent of the inhabitants thereof, recent events have af forded significant proof of the readiness of important states to respect such a principle.  Nor is it to be doubted that their example and influence will develop a general practice serving to render internationally illegal attempts to disregard it, and to make with precision

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 4

the grounds on which the inhabitants of territory may reasonably invoke it."  「雖然現在宣佈承認民族自決原則已受到影響可能為時過早，但要確立一項國際法規則，其大意是：割讓領土的有效性在任何情況下都取決於當地居民的同意，最近發生的事件為重要國家願意尊重這一原則提供了重要證據。毫無疑問，他們的榜樣和影響將形成一種普遍做法，使國際上的非法企圖無法無視於它，並準確地確定領土居民可以合理援引它的理由。」

President Wilson in an address on Sept. 27, 1918, regarding terms on which the United States declared readiness to negotiates peace with Germany announced that one of the issues of the existing war was whether the military power of any nation or group of nations should be suffered to determine the fortunes of peoples over whom they had no right to rule except the right of force.  On February 4, 1920 with regard to the adjustment of a territorial dispute of Yugoslavia, Wilson addressed a note to the Prime Ministers of France and Great Britain holding that "The powers associated against Germany gave final and irrefutable proof of their sincerity in the war" by writing into the Treaty of Versailles Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which was said to constitute an assurance that all the great Powers had agreed to forego all territorial aggression and all interference with the free political self determination of the peoples of the world.  威爾遜總統在 1918 年 9 月 27 日的演講中，就美國宣佈準備與德國進行和平談判的條款宣佈，現有戰爭的問題之一，是任何國家或一群國家的軍事力量是否應該決定人民的命運，除了使用武力權利外，他們無權利統治這些人民。 1920 年 2 月 4 日，關於南斯拉夫領土爭端的調整，威爾遜在給英、法兩國首相的照會中稱：「與德國作戰的國家，最終和無可辯駁地證明瞭他們對戰爭的誠意」，將〈國際聯盟盟約〉第十條寫入〈凡爾賽和約〉，即所有大國同意放棄所有領土侵略和對世界人民自主政治自決的一切干涉的保證。

7.               Ethiopia, Cyrenaica and Territory X have in common the characteristics of being composed of people, less advanced than European peoples, who are now or previously were under the domination of nations of alien people.  It is therefore submitted that a different interpretation of the rules of the international law of belligerent occupation might apply to such people than might apply in the case of nations in which sovereignty resides in a national government of their own people.  衣索比亞、Cyrenaica和X領土的共同特點，是由比歐洲人民發展稍遜的人民組成，他們正在或以前處於外來民族統治下。因此，在可能與適用於主權屬於本國人民的國家政府的國家的交戰佔領，於國際法規則的詮釋上應有所不同。

8.               In making such an interpretation it appears correct to take into account the intent of the Hague Rules of 1907, "to revise the general laws and customs of war, either with a view to defining them with greater precision or to confining them within such limits as would mitigate their severity as far as possible" and "inspired by a desire to diminish the evils of war, as far as military requirements permit."  Article 43 states: The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure,
as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless abso-

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 5

lutely prevented, the laws in force in the country".  The right and duty to restore and ensure law and order plus his powers for legitimate military purposes give the occupant wide authority subject only to respect the laws in force in the country unless absolutely prevented."  在作出這樣的解釋時，似乎應考慮到 1907 年〈海牙陸戰規則〉的意圖，即「修訂一般法律和戰爭慣例，無論更準確地定義它們，或將它們限制在一定範圍內，以盡可能減輕其嚴重程度」，和「在軍事要求允許下，減少戰爭罪惡的願望」。 〈海牙陸戰規則〉第 43 條規定：合法當局的權力，已事實上轉移到佔領當局手中，佔領者應採取一切權力措施，盡可能恢復和確保公共秩序和安全；除非絕對阻止，應同時尊重該國之現行法律」。恢復和確保法律和秩序的權利和義務，加上他為合法軍事目的而擁有的權力，賦予佔領者廣泛的權力，但必須遵守該國現行法律，除非絕對阻止」。

However, Feilchenfeld states "the term" absolutely prevented' has never been interpreted literally", and Brierly states: "first, his powers are complete, in every department of government, legislative, executive, or judicial, provided that what he wants to do is really necessary to secure his own military position, the safety of his troops, the success of any operations so far as this may depend on what Happens in the occupied territory; but secondly, and to the extent that this primary purpose makes it possible, he must do what he can to enable the people of the country to carry on the routine of their lives as satisfactorily as the situation allows".  然而，Feilchenfeld 表示「『絕對禁止』這個詞，從來沒有按字面解釋過」，而 Brierly 表示：「首先，他的權力是完整的，在立法、行政或司法的每個統治部門，只要他想做的事情，確實有必要確保他自己的軍事地位，他的部隊安全，任何行動的成功，只要這可能取決於佔領區上發生的事情；其次，在使主要目的成為可能的範圍內，他必須盡其所能，使該國人民能夠在情況允許的情況下，盡可能令人滿意地過上他們的日常生活」。

9.               Thus it would appear reasonable that actions may be taken to change laws within occupied territory on a liberal interpretation of international law which gives weight to the intent of the Hague Rules, to the degree of the actual acceptance by the people of the institutions of the sovereign, and to the present increasing acceptance of principles of self-determination and in the case of less advanced peoples the concept of "Trusteeship" in preserving to the natives such of their own laws, customs and religion that is compatible with the advancement or good government of the natives themselves and the interests of humanity.   In general the interpretation may be such as to consider the changed conditions of the world today, particularly with regard to possible limitations of national sovereignty to permit new ideas of international morality to grow into law.  因此，似乎有理由根據對國際法的自由詮釋，採取行動改變佔領區內的法律，以重視〈海牙陸戰規則〉意圖，重視人民對主權機構的實際接受程度，重視目前日益被接受的自決原則，對發展較後的民族重視「託管」的概念，為當地人保留符合當地人自己的進步或善政以及人類利益的法律、習俗和宗教。一般來說，詮釋可以考慮到當今世界的變化情況，特別是對國家主權的可能限制，以允許國際道德的新思想發展成為法律。