日本國際和平協力法之研究

在一九九一年伊拉克入侵科威特的背景下，波斯灣戰爭就此爆發。當時日本在波斯灣戰爭的背景下，在國內外皆遭受莫大壓力及責難。在外部主要面臨了來自美國及聯合國之壓力、世界輿論之壓力。日本礙於本身和平憲法及國內民眾及法學學者的反對下，一直以曖昧的態度迴避，遲遲無法派兵支援，此舉造成國際輿論強烈責難，屢次要求日本必須採取行動，並不斷向日本政府施加壓力，要求其必須擔負國際社會一員及聯合國會員之義務。面對外界國際輿論之猛烈批評，日本終於在一九九一年六月十五日，在國內反對聲浪下，以牛步戰術在國會強行通過日本國際和平協力法案。此法案以國際和平貢獻為名，企圖讓自衛隊參與聯合國和平維持活動之海外派兵合法化。國際和平協力法中，存在著許多問題點引發議論及質疑。引發關於國際和平協力法議論之問題點主要有五點，分為為自衛隊之違憲性、海外派兵之違憲性、集團自衛權之違憲性、行動規範問題－武器使用判斷及事務中斷撤收、以及議會民主統制之欠缺。而基於此五種主要理由及原因，大部分之學者皆偏向於國際和平協力法違憲之說，否定此法存在之合理性及正當性。儘管如此，此種說法仍屬狹隘，因當今國際法學界主流在討論國際法與國內法相互關係時，傾向於國際法優位說。亦即，儘管日本國際和平協力法被視為違憲之國內法，但日本身為聯合國會員國，理當盡其會員國之義務，遵從聯合國之規定及決議行動。日本身為當今世界強國，國際社會重要份子及聯合國之重要成員，甚至有意成為其安全理事會成員的日本，更應該遵從聯合國之決議，服從聯合國秘書長之指揮，執行維和任務，因為國家不能引用國內法或以國內法不完備為理由，對抗國際法，亦不能以此作為不履行或不遵守國際法之正當有效的依據。日本國際和平協力法顧名思義應該是為了守國際法而訂定之國內法，倘若用「違反國內法」之理由而不遵從聯合國之指揮，無法遵守國際法，實為不當。故日本在執行任務方面，理當以聯合國之決議、規定及指揮為基準方針，倘若有違反憲法備受批評之處，也應為憲法修改之問題。

關鍵字

聯合國和平維持活動；違憲；國際和平協力法；自衛隊；集體自衛權

並列摘要

In the background of Gulf War, Japan was requested by the UN and US to dispatch SDF to Iraq for executing the no.678 resolution of UN Security Council. However, due to the yoke of its constitution article 9, as well as the domestic tide of opposition from the majority of Japanese citizens and jurists, Japan had been taking an ambiguous attitude to avoid direct response. Public opinions and voices came internationally reprimanded and claimed that Japan, as a member of the UN, should have taken more constructive actions to fulfill its responsibility and obligation. Therefore, on June 15th 1991, against the domestic strong voices of adverseness, Japanese government still forcibly passed the International Peace Cooperation Law with stalling tactics. This law is aimed at legalizing the participation of Japan’s SDF troops in the UN’s peace-keeping operations, in the name of “Contribution to the World Peace”. Nevertheless, there are numerous controversial disputes about International Peace Cooperation Law. These problems can be catalogued into five, which are the unconstitutionality of Jieitai, the unconstitutionality of dispatching troops overseas, the unconstitutionality of collective self-defense right, the unconstitutionality of weapon use and evacuation, and the unconstitutionality of the non-democracy of Diet. Due to these five disputes and debates concerning its unconstitutionality, most jurists have a tendency to deny the rationality of the existence of this law. However, this kind of theory is still too constricted and narrow-minded. Nowadays, when it comes to the topics about the relation between International Law and municipal law, the main stream doctrines acknowledge the supremacy of International Law over municipal law. In other words, according to International Law, despite the fact that International Peace Cooperation Law is considered a municipal law which is against constitution, Japan, as a member state of the UN, is obligated to take the responsibility of abiding by the UN’s regulations as well as operations of resolutions. Japan, as one of the strongest and developed nations in the world, should not use the excuses of the faultiness of its municipal law to defy the International Law. Therefore, while participating in the UN’s operations, Japan should take the UN’s commands and regulations as its guiding policy. Even if this will be criticized because of its unconstitutionality, it should be considered the problem of the amendment of its constitution instead of the International Peace Cooperation Law itself.