國際人道法與台灣之連結－論違反人道罪於二二八事件之適用

Abstract

國際人道法自19世紀下半葉發展至今已超過一世紀，為現今國際法之重要議題之一，以往對於國際人道法之討論多侷限於外國案例，甚少以台灣為例，本文試圖以二二八事件為例進行分析，探究二二八事件之內容是否構成違反人道罪，以及該事件之參與者是否應負個人刑事責任。 本文第二章首先介紹國際人道法之發展與法源，國際人道法於19世紀下半葉紅十字國際委員會成立後，開始蓬勃發展，國際社會為避免、減緩戰爭帶來之嚴重傷亡，建立了針對武器使用之1907年海牙公約體系與針對戰爭中平民保護之1949年日內瓦公約體系。到了1990年代，國際特別刑事法庭成為運用國際人道法之重要場域，以制裁違反國際人道法之行為人，於此基礎上，常設之國際刑事法院於2003年運作迄今。國際人道法之法源包含條約、習慣國際法與一般法律原則等。 本文第三章係討論違反人道罪與責任認定。違反人道罪於第二次世界大戰後成文化，經過數十年之發展，從僅限於戰爭時期擴張至可適用於和平時期，亦即違反人道罪與武裝衝突脫鉤；構成違反人道罪必須有廣泛或系統的攻擊、以平民為攻擊客體且行為人明知該攻擊。違反國際人道法者，必須負個人刑事責任，該責任包含直接責任與上級責任，直接責任係針對犯罪之參與，上級責任則針對上級未盡其監督下屬之義務。 本文第四章介紹二二八事件於北部地區與高雄地區之發生經過與武力鎮壓，二二八事件之導火線為1947年2月27日之台北圓環查緝私菸傷人案，事件爆發後，民眾與政府之衝突擴大，陳儀政府決定進行武力鎮壓，並逮捕二二八事件處理委員會成員與地方士紳，造成數千名民眾傷亡。 最後，本文於第五章以二二八事件於北部地區與高雄地區之衝突為案例，來分析其是否構成違反人道罪、以及事件參與者之個人刑事責任。因違反人道罪不僅可適用於武裝衝突之情況，亦可適用於和平時期，故二二八事件之衝突不論是否已達武裝衝突之程度，亦可適用之。在不討論國際法相關條約與規範溯及適用等問題的情況下，倘若僅從違反人道罪的構成要件來分析，本文認為二二八事件在北部及高雄地區所造成之死傷，確實構成違反人道罪，直接參與及下令武力鎮壓者，應負直接責任，而相關之上級長官，因疏於對下屬之監督，導致違反人道罪之發生，亦應負上級責任。

International humanitarian law has developed since the 19th century and is now one of the important issues under international law. Most of the discussions of international humanitarian law were based on foreign cases. This thesis aims to analyze whether the conflicts of the February 28 Incident of 1947 constitute crimes against humanity and whether the participants of the incident should be liable for individual criminal responsibility. First, Chapter 2 will introduce the development and the legal sources of international humanitarian law. Since the establishment of International Committee of Red Cross, international humanitarian law has begun to develop. In response to the serious calamity causing by wars, a series of treaties and conventions were drafted and adopted including “the law of Hague” that seeks to regulate the conduct of hostilities and “the law of Geneva” that strives to protect war victims such as civilians and prisoners of war. In 1990s, a number of ad hoc international criminal tribunals were set up to punish those who violate international humanitarian law. All these led to the establishment of the International Criminal Court that has since 2003 been in operation. The legal sources of international humanitarian law include treaties, customary international law and general principles of law. Chapter 3 discusses crimes against humanity and individual criminal responsibility. Crimes against humanity were codified after the Second World War. After decades of developments, crimes against humanity are no longer linked with armed conflicts and are applicable both to times of war and times of peace. The elements of crimes against humanity include a widespread or systematic attack targeting any civilian populations and perpetrators with the knowledge of the attack. Violators of international humanitarian law should be held liable for direct responsibility for the involvement of the commission or superior responsibility for not fulfilling the obligation of supervision. Chapter 4 introduces the conflicts and the force suppression of February 28 Incident of 1947 in northern and Kaohsiung areas. The incident was precipitated by a confiscation case in Taipei on February 27, 1947. The anger of civilians was outbreak when a woman, who sold cigarettes without authorization, was beaten by mainlander officials. The conflicts between civilians and the government were becoming more and more serious. The government decided to suppress civilians by forces and arrested members of the February 28 Incident committee and local gentry. Thousands of lives were lost in the incident. Last, Chapter 5 analyzes whether the conflicts in northern and Kaohsiung areas during the February 28 Incident constitute crimes against humanity and the criminal responsibility of the participants. The thesis is of the view that if there were no challenge made to ex post application of international humanitarian law, the deaths and other casualties that had occurred in northern and Kaohsiung areas during the February 28 Incident would have constituted crimes against humanity. Those who participated and ordered the force suppression would have be liable for direct responsibility, and those who did not fulfill their duty as a superior would have also be liable for superior responsibility.