Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)hpmailerpublished in(发表于) 2013/12/1 20:49:07 Expert： Japan questioned the legal validity of the Cairo Declaration makes no sense
Xinhuanet, Beijing, December 1 (reporter Zhu Yonglei)-"Japan based on the Cairo Declaration, the Cairo Declaration does not have the force of law to challenge validity of international law, it is makes no sense. Because in a general textbook of international law, conventions, treaties, declarations, communiqués, and so belong to the General Treaty, its legal effect. "On November 29, at the dawn of the Cairo Declaration of the 70 anniversary of the Chinese Academy of social sciences, Japan, Professor Gao Hong, Deputy Director of the Institute, said in an interview.
On December 1, 1943, the victory came as the people of the world anti-fascist war, China, the United States and Britain in Egypt's capital jointly issued the Cairo Declaration, establishing Japan's crimes of aggression and the war against Japan. On July 26, 1945, the Summit of the three countries jointly issued the Potsdam Proclamation once again a clear declaration, under the terms of the Cairo Declaration must be implemented.
Among them, the provisions of the Cairo Declaration, Japan stole Chinese territories such as Northeast China, Taiwan and the Penghu Islands should be returned to China, including, of course, including Japan in the Sino-Japanese war to steal the Diaoyu Islands. The international community, the Cairo Declaration has also become postwar Japan-related issues, the establishment of a new international order of the norms of international law.
However, postwar Japan has been negative history, negative thoughts of the spirit of the Cairo Declaration. In recent years, their domestic right-wing forces are frequent, continuous public challenge to the legal status of the Cairo Declaration. Shinzo Abe's Government since he took office, also openly condone extreme nationalist forces, not only continue to deny history, still trying to pass constitutional amendments and other means to try to get rid of the shackles of the Cairo Declaration, breaking the postwar international order.
Therefore, the Cairo Declaration in Japan suffered a deliberate snub, even lie to the Cairo Declaration is nothing but a declaration of the leaders of the three countries, cannot be equated with international law. Japan repeated claims of right-wing scholars, Japan has not signed the Cairo Declaration, does not have the force of law. Gao Hong stressed that these positions are fundamentally unsound, because in international law, declaration or in the form of bulletins published declarations are treated as international treaties. In addition, the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation has been, as well as the Japan confirmed the surrender, so it does have international effects, Japan also, of course, have the force of law.
In addition to hard questions the legal status and significance of the Cairo Declaration, Japan is also trying to take advantage of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, and "returned to Okinawa agreement" to offset the dilution of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation after the legal effect and meaning in order to interpret this as its sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands.
The SFPT is, in the particular context of the cold war, United States and other countries and Japan signed a partial peace treaty, for significant contribution to the victory of the anti-fascist war of the world excluding countries such as China and sacrifice, and many elements of the SFPT is incompatible with the spirit of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation.
In this regard, institutes of contemporary international relations, Professor Liu jiangyong of Tsinghua University said, "because of various historical reasons, in the course of the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed, Chinese mainland and Taiwan are not represented. The San Francisco Peace Treaty is in the context of the cold war, no victors in this important participation of Japan signed. In 1950, Premier Zhou Enlai issued a statement, calling illegal the SFPT is invalid. Since then the Chinese Government has repeatedly conducted a solemn statement, said the San Francisco Peace Treaty on illegal and void. ”
Mentioned in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan gave up Taiwan and the Penghu Archipelago brought is entitled to all rights, Executive. Latitude 29 degrees south of the island (including Islands) managed by the United Nations, the only trustee for the United States. Liu jiangyong said the 29 degrees south latitude is a very vague concept, Japan wants to get its unilateral interests are constantly moving under the San Francisco Peace Treaty "baskets" inside, its explanation of lack of impartiality. In addition, the 1971 US-Japan "returned to Okinawa agreement", Okinawa and the Ryukyu Islands returned to Japan, put the Diaoyu Islands and other islands in "the return" by mainland China and Taiwan strongly oppose and protest. The United States and Japan created a still impact the behavior of Sino-Japanese relations, the Diaoyu Island issue affecting regional stability.
新华网北京12月1日电 (记者 朱永磊)“日本以《开罗宣言》不具备法律效力来质疑《开罗宣言》的国际法效力，是讲不通的。因为在一般的国际法教科书中，公约、条约、宣言、公报等都属于广义的条约，有其法律效力。”11月29日，在《开罗宣言》发表70周年来临之际，中国社科院日本研究所副所长、研究员高洪在接受采访时表示。
1943年12月1日，世界人民反法西斯战争走向胜利之际，中、美、英三国在埃及首都共同发表《开罗宣言》，确立了对日本的侵略罪行以及战后对日本的处理。1945年7月26日，三国首脑又共同发表《波茨坦公告》，再次明确宣告《开罗宣言》所规定的条款必须实施。
其中，《开罗宣言》规定，日本所窃取的中国领土如东北、台湾及澎湖群岛等应归还中国，其中当然也包括日本利用甲午中日战争之机窃取的钓鱼岛。在国际社会，《开罗宣言》也早已成为战后处理日本相关问题、建立国际新秩序的国际法准则。
然而，战后的日本一直存在否定历史、否定《开罗宣言》精神的思想。近年来，其国内右翼势力更是动作频频，不断公开挑战《开罗宣言》的法律地位。安倍晋三政府上台以来，也公然纵容极端民族主义势力抬头，不仅继续否定历史，还试图通过修宪等方式竭力摆脱《开罗宣言》的束缚，突破战后国际秩序。
因此，《开罗宣言》在日本各界遭受刻意冷落，甚至狡辩《开罗宣言》无非就是三个国家领导人的一个宣言，不能等同于国际法。还有日本右翼学者一再声称，日本并未在《开罗宣言》上签字，不具备法律效力。高洪强调，这些立场从根本上都站不住脚，因为在国际法当中，宣言或者以公报形式公布出来的宣言都被视为国际条约。此外，《开罗宣言》已经经过《波茨坦公告》以及《日本投降书》的确认，所以它确实有国际效力，对日本也当然具有法律效力。
除了拼命质疑《开罗宣言》的法律地位和历史意义，日本还试图利用《旧金山和约》和“归还冲绳协定”来抵消和淡化《开罗宣言》及其后《波茨坦公告》的法律效力和意义，以此作为其对钓鱼岛主权的解释。
《旧金山和约》是在冷战的特殊背景下，美国等国家与日本签订的片面媾和条约，把为世界反法西斯战争胜利作出重大贡献和牺牲的中国等国排除在外，且《旧金山和约》多处内容不符合《开罗宣言》和《波茨坦公告》的精神。
对此，清华大学当代国际关系研究院教授刘江永说：“由于各种历史原因，《旧金山和约》签署过程中，中国大陆和台湾都没能派代表与会。《旧金山和约》是在冷战的大背景下，没有中国这个重要的战胜国参与下与日本所签订的。1950年，周恩来总理就发表声明，称《旧金山和约》非法无效。此后中国政府多次对此进行严正声明，表示《旧金山和约》非法无效。”
《旧金山和约》中提到，日本放弃台湾及澎湖列岛的领有权、行政权等一切权利。将北纬29度线以南的岛屿(包括钓鱼岛)由联合国托管，唯一托管国为美国。刘江永表示，北纬29度以南是一个非常模糊的概念，日本就把它单方面想获取的利益不断往《旧金山和约》这个“筐”里装，其据此的解释就缺乏公正性。除此之外，1971年美日达成“归还冲绳协议”，将冲绳和琉球归还日本，把钓鱼岛等岛屿划入“归还区域”，遭到中国大陆及台湾强烈反对和抗议。美日的这一行为造成了迄今仍然冲击中日关系、影响地区稳定的钓鱼岛问题。
赞