论文部分内容阅读
日本国最高法院于2007年4月27日分别对中国劳工诉日本西松建设公司损害赔偿案,中国国民(原“慰安妇”)郭喜翠、侯巧莲诉日本政府损害赔偿案作出终审判决,驳回了中国劳工及原“慰安妇”郭喜翠、侯巧莲要求加害者给予赔礼道歉及赔偿的诉讼请求。该法院在同日还以电话通知的形式驳回刘面换、李秀梅等4位原“慰安妇”诉日本政府损害赔偿案,中国劳工刘连仁诉日本政府损害赔偿案,张宝恒等15名中国劳工诉日本政府和三井矿山株式会社损害赔偿案的中国战争受害者一方当事人的上诉。日本最高法院在判决中以旧金山和约为基础,认定《中日联合声明》没有违背旧金山和约的框架,从而,中国政府放弃了因战争产生的包括个人在内的所有请求权。该判决驳回中国战争受害者诉讼请求的唯一理由,就是认为中国国民已因《中日联合声明》第5条的规定而丧失了请求权。该法院对放弃“请求权”解释为丧失了诉权。日本最高法院作出的这一带有司法解释性质的判决,明显违背国际法的基本原则。
On April 27, 2007, the Supreme Court of Japan made a final judgment on the damages of China Labor against Japan’s Nishimatsu Construction Co., Ltd., Guo Xicui and Hou Qiaolian of Chinese nationals (formerly “comfort women”) and the Japanese government, respectively, and rejected the Chinese workers and the original “comfort women ” Guo Xi Cui, Hou Qiaolian demanded that the perpetrator be given a courtesy apology and compensation claims. On the same day, the court also dismissed 15 cases of China Labor Tribunal, including Liu Bangxian, Li Xiumei and other 4 former “comfort women” suits against the Japanese government, Chinese workers Liu Lianren v. Japan’s government damages and Zhang Baoheng, Japanese government and Mitsui Mining Co., Ltd. in damages case of the victims of the Chinese war on one party’s appeal. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Japan decided on the basis of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that the “Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration” did not violate the framework of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Therefore, the Chinese government renounces all claims arising from the war, including individuals. The only reason why the verdict dismissed the claims of the victims of the war in China was to regard the Chinese nationals as having lost their claim because of the provisions of Article 5 of the Sino-Japanese Joint Declaration. The court interpreted the waiver of the right of action as giving up “the right to demand.” This judgmental interpretation, made by the Japanese Supreme Court, is obviously contrary to the basic principles of international law.