日本自衛權行使界限之探討

機構典藏 > College of International Affairs > Graduate Institute of Japanese Studies > Thesis > Item 987654321/30650

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://tkuir.lib.tku.edu.tw/dspace/handle/987654321/30650

Title:	日本自衛權行使界限之探討
Other Titles:	The Japanese right of self-defense exercises discussion the boundary 日本国自衛権の行使の限界について探究する
Authors:	林彥宏;Lin, Yen-hung
Contributors:	淡江大學日本研究所碩士班許慶雄;Hsu, Ching-hsiung
Keywords:	日本憲法第九條;自衛權;Japanese constitution;Self-defense
Date:	2006
Issue Date:	2010-01-10 23:51:06 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	現今國際社會是由主權獨立的國家所構成，而國與國之間具有對等的關係，但是各個國家在彼此的權利或是利益的主張上有所不同時，便有發生爭端的可能。在對等的國際社會中，當紛爭發生時，雖可比照國內社會一般，由當事國的一方面向國際仲裁機構提起訴訟，但當事國的另一方確認為沒有應訴的義務，而未使其遵守應訴的義務，必須在事前使該當事國承認其受國際仲裁機構的管轄是必要的。然如何規範雙方當事國的權利和義務關係，並有效地解決紛爭，則是本論文的研究動機。然而，聯合國成立以前，國家得以自助、自救之方式，維護自身及其國民生命、財產之安全，這也是習慣國際法所允許的。但自國際社會法制化與組織化以後，國家間的武力行使乃受到限制；惟各主權國家均保留以自衛目的行使戰爭的權利。此外，自聯合國憲章揭櫫永久和平之崇高理想以來，確立了使用武力與武力威脅的普遍性禁止原則；換言之，在國際紛爭中無論武力行使時，是否使用戰爭之名稱都受禁止，而該項法理也成為當今國際法之基本規範。在十九世紀實證法主義所要求證明權利之際，國家所採取相對應之行為，是必須要有國際條約與習慣國際法之依據，以及行為本身的合理性。其次，日本國憲法中，雖然明言規定放棄戰爭，但並未放棄自衛權，日本擁有國際法上主權國家之自衛權的權利，而自衛隊的成立，屬於自衛權的行使。然而，司法判決更援引日本國憲法有關和平生存權之保障說來支持自衛隊合憲，眾所皆知，此後即引起一連串的憲法爭議。到底這種自衛權的本質是如何呢？現代國際法上的自衛權又是如何呢？自衛權之於日本國憲法又有何解釋？日本國憲法下之自衛權問題如何產生？為何不斷的有憲法第九條的修憲論調提出？ However, the international society consists of autonomous countries;their share of fairness is equivalent. Nevertheless, when the rights and benefits of these countries clash with one another, the conflict is likely to take place. When differences occur in the international society, despite the fact that the plaintiff could appeal to the international court similar to the procedure within his own country; unfortunately, the defendant might not believe that he is obligated to appear in court. The plaintiff must agree to the power of the international court in advance, in order to enforce compliance of appearing in court on the defendant. Yet, defining the relationship of rights and obligations of these countries and effectively work out the differences is the motive of the study. Prior to the establishment of the United Nation, the common law granted every country the right of defending and protecting the life and wealth of the people. After the legislation and organization are instituted by the international community or society, the act of military force among countries is restricted; however, the sovereign countries still reserve the right of war as a purpose of self-defense. Besides, the threat and act of military force are prohibited in general, since United Nation declared in the constitution that its ultimate goal is to retain peace continuously. In another word, whether giving the cause of war or not, the execution of armed force between the rival countries is forbidden. In addition, this principle is seen as a standard guideline in the international society. During the 19th century, positivism demanded the right to prove, the exercise of equality among countries certainly must be in accordance with the international regulation and common law. Also, such behavior has to seem sensible. Furthermore, though the Japanese Constitution plainly claims to forsake the act of war; the right of the self-defense is not renounced. Japan holds the right of self-defense as a sovereign state according to the international law. Therefore, the establishment of Self-Defense Force is the implementation of its right to self-defense. On the other hand, the ruling further justifies the founding of Self-Defense Force by quoting the right to exist in peace from the Japanese Constitution. As known internationally, it caused controversy one after another in the aspect of constitution. What is the fundamental of the right to self-defense? What are the rights of self-defense in the international law? How does Japanese Constitution define self-defense? Why is there constant request of the ninth amendment?
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Japanese Studies] Thesis

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
	0Kb	Unknown	263	View/Open

Loading...