1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—4/5 Taimocracy翻譯

1944.05.04 菲利普中尉文書—4/5　Taimocracy翻譯

British Policy in Cyrenaica

英國在Cyrenaica的政策

17.            Great Britain's assurance to the Senussis that "H.M. Government are determined that, at the end of the war, the Senussis in Cyrenaica will in no circumstances again fall under Italian domination" should be considered a statement of Great Britain's policy in regard to the peace treaty at the end of the war.  The statement was made in Parliament on January 9, 1942 during an occupation of Cyrenaica by British forces which commenced December 25, 1941 and was terminated on January 29, 1942, just 20 days after the Parliamentary assurance.
A withdrawal of British forces had taken place on April 7, 1941 after an occupation which had commenced with the surrender of Benghazi on February 7, 1941.  The third and present occupation commenced November 11, 1942.  In view of the precariousness of the British position in Cyrenaica, to say nothing of the fact that the war of which it was one sector was still being waged, it is apparent that the British

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 9

declaration could not be much of an assurance.  At best it might be considered an expression of British political policy which that government might be expected to further as far as it was possible, but which could not be binding on other nations. 
In the light of the British recognition of Ethiopia on the grounds of political expediency, it might even seem that the British fulfillment of the assurance was as precarious as was the British control of Cyrenaica.  英國向 Senussis 保證「陛下的政府決定，在戰爭結束時，在任何情況下Cyrenaica 的 Senussis 都不會再次落入義大利統治下」，此保證應被視為在戰爭結束時，英國關於和平條約的政策的聲明。該聲明是於 1942 年 1 月 9 日在英國軍隊佔領Cyrenaica期間在國會發表的，佔領期間從 1941 年 12 月 25 日開始，並於 1942 年 1 月 29 日終止，即國會的保證後僅 20 天佔領結束。

1941 年 2 月 7 日Benghazi 投降後，英國開始佔領，英國軍隊於 1941 年 4 月 7 日撤出。第三次和目前的佔領於 1942 年 11 月 11 日開始。鑑於英國對Cyrenaica立場的不穩定，加上作為戰爭一環而仍在進行這一事實，很明顯的，英國的宣言並不能提供多大的保證。充其量，它可能被認為是英國政治政策的一種表達，政府可能會被期望盡可能地進一步發展，但不能對其他國傢俱有約束力。

鑑於英國出於政治上的權宜之計承認衣索比亞，英國對保證的履行，甚至可能與英國對Cyrenaica的控制一樣不穩定。

18.             The Chief Political Officer in the Middle East proposed that the sovereignty of Italy over Cyrenaica be regarded as dead.  Such a proposal is contrary to international law.  Needless to say it cannot be justified as "military necessity".  The Hague Rules transfer to the occupant the authority.  The sovereignty is or power to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty not transferred, a major reason being the precariousness of rulership as long as the war continues.  It is believed that sufficient elasticity can be found in international law to give the Chief Political officer a legal basis for his program without resorting to the obviously illegal measure of considering the sovereignty of Italy dead.  中東首席政治官員提議：義大利對Cyrenaica的主權被視為結束。此提議違反國際法。更別說它不能被稱為「軍事必要性」。〈海牙陸戰規則〉將統治權力移交給佔領當局。主權是權力，或行使某些未被移轉的主權權利之權力，一個主要原因是，只要戰爭繼續，統治就不穩定。相信在國際法中可以找到足夠的彈性，使首席政治官員的方案有法律依據，而不至於採取認為義大利主權已亡的這種明顯非法措施。

19.             This removes the basis of his assumption that the Arabs of Cyrenaica are no longer to be regarded as assimilated subjects of the King of Italy and that they cease to owe any allegiance to him.  The Hague Rules provide "It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied territory to swear allegiance to the hostile power."  Apparently the Arabs do not in fact fulfill duties of allegiance imposed by law, and thus there apparently is no practical or legal issue at stake here.  這消除了他的假設基礎，即Cyrenaica的阿拉伯人不再被視為義大利國王的同化臣民，而不再效忠於國王。〈海牙陸戰規則〉規定「禁止強迫佔領地的住民去宣誓效忠敵對國」。顯然，阿拉伯人事實上並沒有履行法律規定的效忠義務，因此，這裡顯然不存在實務上或法律上的問題。

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 10

20.             The Chief Political Officer proposes to progressively replace Italian laws and courts with those more suited to an Arab system, and to encourage the development of native institutions.  It is stated that the Arabs "abhor the influence and institutions of the alien European race against which they struggled for 20 years," and "resent and dislike the Italian Legislative and Administrative systems."  It is asserted that an Administration which adheres to the old principles "can only be an object of suspicion and dissatisfaction to the Arabs", and that this was "emphatically the case" during the first and second occupations.  The Hague Rules were "inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war."  Many of the changes in laws and institutions in order to lessen the opposition, suspicion and dissatisfaction of the Arabs are compatible with the right and duty to maintain and promote law and order under Article 42 of the Hague Rules, and other changes would be permissible as "military necessity".  In regard to the latter FM 27-10 states: "The principal object of the occupant is to provide for the security of the invading army and to contribute to its support and efficiency and the success of its operations.  In restoring public order and safety he will continue in force the ordinary civil and criminal laws of the occupied territory which do not conflict with this object."  Therefore it may be contended that a progressive and liberal interpretation of international law to restore native institutions is not contrary to the intent of the Hague Rules, is justified in part by "military necessity" through serving to lessen opposition and dissatisfaction of the Arabs, and accords with the increasing modern tend toward self rule of peoples and the principle of trusteeship in governing native peoples.  The precariousness of the occupation, however, does militate

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 11

against a great change in laws and institutions, since reversals in the fortunes of war would subject the population to corresponding unsettling changes and upheavals.  Possibly the final judgment might be made objectively in the light of what changes should or should not be made to enable the people to carry on their lives in the most satisfactory manner that the war situation will permit.  首席政治官建議：用更適合阿拉伯制度的法律和法院，逐步取代義大利法律和法院，並鼓勵發展本地機構。據稱，阿拉伯人「憎恨其奮鬥了20年外來歐洲種族的影響和制度」，以及「反感和厭惡義大利的立法和行政制度」。據稱，堅持舊原則的政府「只能成為阿拉伯人懷疑和不滿的對象」，在第一次和第二次佔領期間，情況「明顯如此」。〈海牙陸戰規則〉是「為減少戰爭罪惡的願望」，以減少阿拉伯人的反對、懷疑和不滿，許多法律和制度的變化，與具有維護和促進〈海牙陸戰規則〉第 42 條規定的法律和秩序的權利和義務是相容的，其他變更將被允許為「軍事必要性」。關於後者 FM 27-10 規定：「佔領當局的主要目標是為入侵軍隊提供安全保障，並為其提供支援和效率及其任務的成功。在恢復公共秩序和安全方面，佔領當局將繼續執行與此目標不衝突的被佔領地的普通民法和刑法。」與〈海牙陸戰規則〉的意圖相反，以減少阿拉伯人的反對和不滿，部分地以「軍事必要性」為理由，並符合現代日益增長的人民自治趨勢和管理土著人民的託管原則。然而，佔領的不穩定確實不利於法律和製度的巨大變化，因為戰爭命運的逆轉將使人民遭受相應的令人不安的變化和動盪。或許最終的判斷可能是，根據應該或不應該做出哪些改變，以使人民能夠以戰局允許的最令人滿意的方式繼續他們的生活，從而客觀地做出最終判斷。

21.             The Chief Political Officer requests the directions of his government regarding the treatment of the Italian colonists in Cyrenaica and offers a choice of three possible courses, as follows:  首席政治官請求政府就Cyrenaica的義大利殖民者的待遇作出指示，並提供以下三種可能的途徑選擇：

(1) Forcible ejection as soon as their territory is occupied.  一旦他們的領土被佔領，就可能被強行驅逐

(2) Announcement of intention to remove them as soon as possible with subsequent arrangements to repatriate those that do not move voluntarily.  盡快宣佈撤退意向，並隨後安排遣返不自願搬遷的人員

(3) A promise to the Arabs that the Colonists will be removed at the termination of hostilities.  向阿拉伯人承諾：在敵對行動結束時將驅逐殖民者。

Professor Jessup has cited three situations in which populations may be moved from occupied territory by the occupant:  Jessup 教授列舉了三種情況，在這些情況下，佔領當局可能從佔領區遷離人群
(1) For reasons of military security.  出於軍事安全原因
(4) For such peoples' own protection.  為了這些人的自身保護
(3) Where they cannot be supported conveniently.  當無法方便支援人民

It is claimed the colonists are a liability from a military point of view, that in previous operations they harbored escaping soldiers and fifth columnists and are a potential source of trouble on security grounds.  By virtue of military necessity, such Italians as actually endanger military security might be removed, but indiscriminate mass deportation is frowned upon by international law.  However, there is no evidence that they are troublesome in this occupation, only that

 

Naval School of Military Government and Administration--p. 12

they are a potential source of trouble.  Therefore it would be questionable to remove them without evidence they are an actual menace to security.  There is only an implication that they should be removed for their own protection, the statement that the Arabs attack and pillage farms unless considerable numbers of troops or police are made available to protect them.  This is a question of fact for which not sufficient evidence is presented to make a judgment.  It is substantively stated that economically the advantage lies in maintaining the colonists in full production.  從軍事角度來看，殖民者可能是一種負擔，在之前的行動中，他們庇護了逃跑的士兵和第五縱隊，並且是安全方面的潛在麻煩來源。基於軍事必要性，此等義大利人若實際上危及軍事安全時應被遷離，但無差別地大規模驅逐出境，是國際法所反對的。但是，沒有證據表明他們在軍事佔領中會惹事，只是表明他們是潛在的麻煩來源。因此，在沒有證據表明它們對安全構成實際威脅的情況下，便將它們遷離是有疑義的。只是暗示他們應該被遷離以保護他們自己，即阿拉伯人攻擊和掠奪農場，除非有相當數量的軍隊或員警來保護他們。這是一個事實問題，沒有提供足夠的證據來作出判斷。從本質上講，經濟上的優勢在於維持殖民者的全面生產。
This gives no excuse for removing the Italians on the basis of inconvenience of subsisting them.  沒有理由以給養不便為由，而遷離義大利人。

It is therefore believed that justification for removal of the Italian colonists by military necessity or for any other reason of international law remains to be proved.  The second alternative of announcing intention to remove them is a political gesture and not a question of legality.  Any voluntary repatriation that might be arranged would not be contrary to law.  At the conclusion of hostilities presumably state cession would occur and any action then would depend upon treaty arrangements or be a matter of domestic and not international Concern.  因此，認為出於軍事必要性或國際法的任何其他原因，而遷離義大利殖民者的理由仍有待證明。宣佈刪除它們的意圖的第二種選擇是一種政治姿態，而不是合法性問題。任何可能安排的自願遣返都不會違反法律。在敵對行動結束時，大概會發生國家割讓，然後任何行動都將取決於條約安排，或成為國內而非國際關注的問題。