상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
145127.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

뢸링 판사는 동경재판을 부정했는가

- 소수의견 제출에서 말년의 회고까지 -

  • 64

In meting out justice for Crimes against Peace, the Tokyo Trial cited the Nuremberg judgment which invoked the Kellogg-Briand Pact and other interwar pronouncements renouncing war. Unpersuaded, Justice B. V. A. Röling offered an alternative way of interpreting the Charter of the Trial which, in his view, was more consistent with international law: victors in a bellum justum were entitled to neutralize threats to the newly established order and hence could incarcerate the enemy leaders posing those threats. In the end, he managed to reconcile his dissent on legal issues with his belief in restoring peace through judicial measures. He also endorsed the punishment for crimes of omission while disagreeing on their ambit. In doing so, Röling rejected outright Imperial Japan’s wartime slogans of “Asia for Asians” as a sheer hypocrisy, too. As the Cold War unfolded, however, he became dismayed at the former victor nations’ failure to honor the lofty ideals of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. All the same, he kept his faith in the validity of the two trials and in the contributions they made on the course of the evolution of international criminal law. To be sure, Röling did have serious misgivings about the Tokyo Trial and could at times seem disenchanted with it. And there happen to be tendentious elements in Japan who take advantage of his unvarnished statements which, if quoted in fragments (and they have), could misrepresent his views. When all is said and done, this essay finds, Röling’s words and writings stand as a tortuous and yet sobering voice in affirmation of the enduring legacy of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.

1. 서론

2. 뢸링 의견서의 문제의식

3. ‘반대의견’으로서의 경계

4. 동경재판 이후의 전범재판 인식

5. 결론

로딩중