战争法|学校工作助手

“战争法”一词是指指导武装冲突实际行为的规则。事实上存在着统治战争的规则，这是一个很难理解的概念。简单的战争行为本身似乎违反了禁止一个人杀害另一个人的几乎普遍的法律。但在战争时期，对敌人的谋杀是被允许的，这就引出了一个问题，“如果谋杀是被允许的，那么还有什么“战争法”存在呢?”

该问题的答案可以在纽伦堡和东京国际军事法庭的宪章中找到：危害人类罪：即谋杀，灭绝，奴役，驱逐出境和其他不人道行为，以前或期间致力于任何平民人口致力于在执行或与法庭管辖范围内的任何犯罪行为的政治，种族或宗教理由的战争或迫害，无论是否违反犯罪的国家的国内法。参与制定或执行共同计划或承诺任何上述罪行的领导者，组织者，煽动者和共同承诺负责任何人执行此类计划的所有行为.1上述摘录来自宪章法庭第6条第C部分，这使得一般来说，“战争法则”是在战争前后保护无辜的平民。在武装冲突中拥有这样的规则似乎是一个公平的想法，以保护这种冲突的一般位置的平民。但是，当冲突结束时，如果战争犯罪犯罪，那么犯罪的犯罪分子会带来司法？这第二次世界大战后于1945年11月20日在纽伦堡和1946年5月3日在东京举行的国际军事法庭是如何处理这类战争罪行的极好例子。(Roberts和Guelff 153-54)但是，与其详细说明纽伦堡和东京法庭的具体细节，还不如处理一个更重要的问题。当被指控的战争罪犯无法被逮捕和公正审判时，会发生什么?

他们是否忘记了，或者他们被追捧，如其他罪犯是为了服务正义？如果发现这些涉嫌的违法者居住在追求追求者诉诸司法的地方，会发生什么？如何在法律上获得一个这样疑似的保管？这些问题的一些答案可以在分析中发现，以色列如何获取纳粹战争犯罪所犯有犯罪的个人的监护权。不仅有人找到了以前说明的问题的一些答案，而且还有一个人会对国际法的一方面和它的工作方式有所了解。这里将处理两种情况。首先，引渡阿根廷阿根廷阿道夫·曼恩，第二，从美利坚合众国引渡了约翰德曼济会。这些案件展示了以色列在获得这些所谓的罪犯的监护权的两种非常不同的方式。案件还暴露了引渡事项的国际法的复杂性。但是，在我们开始审查这些案件中，我们必须首先建立以色列涉嫌纳粹战争罪犯的司法处理权。 To understand the complications involved in Israel placing suspected Nazi war criminals on trial, lets review the history of Israel’s situation. During World War II the Nazis were persecuting Jews in their concentration camps. At this time the state of Israel did not exist. The ending of the war meant the ending of the persecution, and when the other countries discovered what the Nazis had done Military Tribunals quickly followed. Some of the accused war criminals were tried and sentenced, but others managed to escape judgement and thus became fugitives running from international law. Israel became a state, and thus, some of the Jews that survived the concentration camps moved to the state largely populated by people of Jewish ancestry. Israel felt a moral commitment because of its large Jewish population and set about searching for the fugitive Nazi war criminals. The situation just described is only a basic overview of what happened. The state of Israel views itself as the nation with the greatest moral jurisdiction for the trial of Nazi war criminals, and other states around the Globe agree with Israel’s claim. (Lubet and Reed 1) Former Israeli Attorney General Gideon Hausner was interested in confirming Israel as the place for bringing to justice all those suspected of genocide of Jews. Hausner sought to confirm Israel’s status by proposing to the United States that they extradite Bishop Valerian Trifa to Israel for trial as a war criminal. Israel was reluctant to support Hausner’s proposal, which resulted in delaying the extradition process and thus gave Trifa the time needed to find a country willing to give him residency. Portugal granted Trifa residency and thus Hausner’s proposal was in vain. Israel, sometime after losing their opportunity of obtaining Trifa, decided that Hausner’s idea of establishing Israel as the place to bring Nazi war criminals to trial was a good one, which lead them to seek the extradition of John Demjanjuk from the United States. The Wall Street Journal reported: Israel’s request for the extradition of a suspected Nazi war criminal living in the U.S. . . appears to be a test case that could determine whether Israel pursues other suspects . . . The decision to seek the extradition of Mr. Demjanjuk follows months of negotiations between U.S. and Israel officials about specific cases and the broader question of whether Israel wanted to go through with extraditions requests . . . Gideon Hausner, who prosecuted Eichmann, said Israel’s decision to ask the U.S. to extradite Nazis for trial [in Jerusalem] is an important step. “This creates the opportunity for at least tacit admission of Israel’s special position with regard to crimes against Jews anywhere in the world,” he says.2 After much negotiations the United States arrested Demjanjuk in November of 1983. On April 15, 1985 United States District Judge Frank Battisti ruled in favor of Demjanjuk’s extradition. After the Sixth Court of Appeals affirmed Battisti’s ruling and the Supreme Court denied Demjanjuk’s petition for certiorari, Demjanjuk arrived in Israel on February 27, 1986. (Lubet and Reed 3) It would appear, from what has been presented, that the extradition process is simple. But this conclusion is not correct because there are a few issues that make extradition problematic. One such issue that complicates the process of extradition is that of identification and proof. Leading Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann and Klaus Barbie offer no real dispute in the matter of identification, but war criminals that were not so prominent leave room to question whether they truly are who they are accused of being.

大多数人熟悉的刑事案件的类型是那些试图证明被告是否致力于特定行为或行为的人。引渡案件涉及两个不同的问题：1）起诉必须证明被告实际上是请求国寻求的人。2）法院必须发现可能的原因相信被告在Demjanjuk引渡案中犯下了罪行的罪行，Battisti得出结论认为识别“只需要一个阈值表明可能的原因。”4可以通过援助来实现这一门槛如何实现这一门槛与被告，指纹或目击者的照片比较。在可能的事业事业中，上诉法院使用“任何证据保证的任何证据，即有合理的理由认为被控罪”。此外，已表示引渡过程纳入这些规则：支持引渡的可能原因可以完全依据听说，被告不能呈现出审判的证据，前卫法官必须衡量或平衡.6必须考虑到引渡过程并没有试图证明被告的无罪或内疚，但是相反，个人是否被指控为谁。识别的准确性是在实际试验过程中解决的问题，而不是在引渡过程中得到解决。简单地识别Demjanjuk不会让他引渡，必须达到犯罪要求。关于犯罪的要求，斯坦福法律杂志表示：双重罪犯的规则通常规定，引渡可能只针对条约可引渡并审议所要求和请求司法管辖区的罪行......由于主权很少限制使用相同的罪行 phrases and since treaty terms may be ambiguous or out of date, a substantial jurisprudence has developed interpreting and applying the requirement of criminality.7 In the case of Demjanjuk Israel was charging him with “the crimes of murdering Jews, [which are] offenses under sections 1 to 4 of the Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law.”8 The precise phrase, “murdering Jews,” is not mentioned in the United States-Israel Extradition Treaty, also the previously mentioned phrase does not exist in current American penal statute. But, according to the American rule of dual criminality a way away around this small detail can be found: The law does not require that the name by which the crime is described in the two countries shall be the same; nor that the scope of the liability shall be coextensive, or, in other respects, the same in the two countries. It is enough if the particular act charged is criminal in both jurisdictions.9 It is clear to see that the previously mentioned American rule on dual criminality gives the United States the option of recognizing “murdering Jews” as simply to mean “murder.” Therefore, the requirement of dual criminality in the case of John Demjanjuk is satisfied. The issues of identification and probable cause, along with the requirement of criminality help to demonstrate the complexities involved in the extradition process. Two more brief issues to consider regarding Demjanjuk’s extradition are the questions of extraterritoriality and extratemporality. Extraterritoriality in relation to the case of Demjanjuk would have only been an issue had another country along with Israel requested the extradition of John Demjanjuk. In the case where two countries are requesting the same individual the Secretary of State would have to weigh the various forums’ contacts in order to determine which request to honor. Israel has unofficially been recognized as the desirable nation for bringing Nazi war criminals to trial. Germany, Poland, and the U.S.S.R., for example, all waived their potential requests for the extradition of Eichmann in favor of trial by Israel. (Lubet and Reed 44-45) In the matter of extratemporality, the trial judge presiding over the Demjanjuk case ruled that murder was not barred by lapse of time because the United States recognizes no statue of limitations for that offense. (Lubet and Reed 58) Even if murder were to be barred by lapse of time Demjanjuk could still have been extradited because of his misrepresentation of his wartime activities during his immigration process.

读：

Jane Goodall和Gombe的黑猩猩

德米扬鲁克可能会被认为是在逃避司法审判，因此不会对他施加诉讼时效。德米扬鲁克的引渡程序，因为它只涉及两个国家，似乎很容易完成。即使在各国如美国和以色列就引渡问题进行合作的情况下，显然，诸如身份和可能的原因、犯罪的要求、治外法权和超越时间等问题表明引渡过程是多么复杂。当然，以色列本可以避免引渡所涉及的复杂性和时间长度，用他们逮捕艾希曼的方式逮捕德米扬鲁克，但这种方法虽然有效，却在国际社会中引起了一点骚动。德意志安全总部的阿道夫·艾希曼是所谓的“犹太人问题的最终解决方案”背后的战略家。大约有600万起谋杀案与他有关，所以很容易理解为什么集中营的幸存者花了15年时间寻找他。当艾希曼被发现在阿根廷用假名生活时，他的毅力得到了回报。一群志愿者，其中一些是以色列公民，他们没有得到以色列政府的支持或指导，将艾希曼从阿根廷带走，带到以色列，把他交给政府，以便进行审判。由此可见，这种引渡方法比德米扬鲁克引渡方法更快，也更简单。不需要鉴定或可能的原因，双重犯罪的要求，治外法权，或超越时间。 The process is as simple as it sounds; Eichmann was found and Eichmann was removed. Although the method for extradition of Eichmann was quick it did result in leaving Argentina very upset. Argentina felt that Israel’s exercise of authority upon Argentine territory was an infringement on its sovereignty. Israel defended itself by claiming that Eichmann left Argentina voluntarily, and the Israeli Government claimed that the group that removed Eichmann was working under its own direction and not that of the Israeli Government. Israel even went so far as to issue a letter expressing their regrets for the actions taken by the free acting group: If the volunteer group violated Argentine law or interfered with matters within the sovereignty of Argentina, the Government of Israel wishes to express its regrets.11 Argentina’s rejoined that even if Eichmann left Argentina on his own free will that Israel should be responsible for the actions of the private persons who were Israeli citizens. One simple point to be made here in reply to Argentina’s argument is that only some of the persons involved with the Eichmann removal were Israeli citizens. There is a small possibility that the persons who were Israeli citizens were only mere accessories to the act, guilty of only marginal involvement. Furthermore, the responsibility of states in connection with the acts of private persons is predicated upon territorial jurisdiction and not the bond of nationality. (Svarlien 136) Israel has no jurisdiction within阿根廷，因此没有对阿根廷边界在其公民的行为上没有权力。本质的唯一权力在阿根廷的手中奠定了据称，因为索明曼自愿留下了虚假或明确否认，似乎没有违反真正的阿根廷法。阿根廷进一步争辩说，以色列在Eichmann删除问题上表达他们遗憾的遗憾可以被视为道歉，这构成了令人内疚。以色列发送的遗憾的措辞尤为植物嵌入有条件的条件，这使得难以从中获取内疚感。在票据的情况下，以色列的赞美或批准志愿者团体行动，以色列也不试图证明所做的事情。如果任何事情都可以清楚地衍生出来，那就是以色列实际上确实会对志愿者集团的行为后悔，并且甚至可能谴责他们的行为。但是，阿根廷声称票据是录取内疚，几乎没有一个值得追求的论据。阿根廷对绑架Eichmann的最强烈的论证是，以色列在捕获后选择拘留Eichmann。阿根廷声称，即使私人公民绑架的绑架是私人公民犯下的行为，以色列政府决定拘留和尝试Eichmann为他们提供了配件。This point is Argentina’s strongest argument because it is known that the jurisdiction of the court reaches only as far as the borders of the state of which it is in. If the court had no jurisdiction in the nation of the original seizure, then by what right does that court have to detain and try the accused? The only problem with Argentina’s final argument on the Eichmann abduction is that proof of forcible seizure or arrest must be presented. Since the abductors were acting of their own free will it is doubtful that they arrested Eichmann in the name of Israel. It is, however, quite possible that the abductors used some force in the removal of Eichmann, but again, use of force must be proved to give validity to Argentina’s final argument.

读：

《汉谟拉比国王:传记与法律》

阿根廷根据第33条向联合国安理会提出申诉，声称以色列违反了国际法，造成了一种不安全和不信任的气氛，危害了国际和平的维护。(Silving 312)在向安全理事会提出论点和辩论之后，发表了下列声明:侵犯一个会员国的主权是不符合《联合国宪章》的;重复引起这种局势的这种行为将会破坏作为国际秩序基础的各项原则，造成一种不安全和不信任的气氛，不利于维护和平。决议的“裁决”部分。1.宣布诸如此类影响会员国主权因而引起国际摩擦的正在审议中的行为，如一再发生，可能危及国际和平与安全;2.请求以色列根据《联合国宪章》和国际法规则作出适当的赔偿联合国达成的决议的重要部分是“如果重复”。这就好像是联合国在说:“这次我们不会追究侵权行为，但下次我们会采取行动。” Considering the unique character of the crimes attributed to Eichmann, and since such crimes are, for the most part, universally condemned, Israel’s breach of international law seems to have been tolerated. It is quite possible that had the person who was removed been someone other than Eichmann the result of the United Nations Security Council would have been much different. The two cases of extradition expose the complexities of international law. In the case of Demjanjuk, Israel went about the extradition process in the correct manner, which resulted in the issues of identification and probable cause, requirement of criminality, extraterritoriality, and extratemporality. When Israel went about obtaining Adolf Eichmann the issues dealt with were ones resulting from the method of Eichmann’s apprehension. Eichmann’s removal from Argentina brought to light the issue of violation of a country’s sovereignty. In both cases because the accused were being charged with Nazi war crimes, specifically genocide, there cases seem to get a little leeway and are not dealt with as extremely as other cases might be. Nevertheless, their cases demonstrate how one goes about bringing to justice those charged with violating the laws of war.

脚注

1 Roberts，Adam和Richard Guelff，Ed。战争定律的文件。（牛津：Clarendon Press，1982年。）155. 2 Lubert，Steven和Jan Stern Reed。“将纳粹从美国引渡到以色列：跨国刑法问题调查。”斯坦福国际法杂志。23（1986年）：3. 3 Lubert，Steven和Jan Stern Reed。“将纳粹从美国引渡到以色列：跨国刑法问题调查。”斯坦福国际法杂志。23（1986年）：15。4卢伯特，史蒂文和扬斯特恩里德。“将纳粹从美国引渡到以色列：跨国刑法问题调查。” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 15. 5 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 18. 6 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 18. 7 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 20. 8 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 23. 9 Lubert, Steven, and Jan Stern Reed. “Extradition of Nazis from the United States to Israel: A Survey of Issues in Transnational Criminal Law.” Stanford Journal of International Law. 23 (1986): 23. 10 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality” The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):311. 11 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality” The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):318. 12 Silving, Helen. “In Re Eichmann: A Dilemma of Law and Morality” The American Journal of International Law 55 (1961):313.

引用本文：威廉安德森（Schoolworkhelper编辑组），“战争法”SchoolWorkHelper，2019年，//www.chadjarvis.com/laws-of-war/。

帮助我们用旧的散文修复他的笑容，需要几秒钟！