勝利者的正義？反思東京審判、政體改造及其相關爭議

東京審判只不過是「勝利者的正義」嗎？我們該從何種角度去反思東京審判，以及美國對日本的政體改造？本文針對邁尼爾(Richard H. Minear)與華瑟(Michael Walzer)的相關論說進行探討，藉此開展出有別於既存觀點的另一些思考方向。本文認為，東京審判並非孤立的法律事件，而必須理解為美國戰後東亞戰略之一環；在這一意義上，要徹底釐清東京審判的正當性問題，便必須從根本重新檢討美國對日政體改造行動是否正當。本文指出，促使戰敗國日本歸正，使其承擔起戰爭責任，使其不再發動侵略，無疑是正當的、起碼的國際正義要求；但「政體改造」（亦即「通過戰爭，以軍事佔領為手段，對戰敗國施行強制性的政治體制改造」）既未必是促使日本歸正的必要或唯一方式，亦未必是其最佳或較佳方式。美國的政體改造行動係以扶植親美反共政權與獲得穩固軍事基地，而非以「促使日本歸正」作為其主要動機；就其實際效果而言，也並未有效地趨近「促使日本歸正」之目標。由此觀之，美國對日本的政體改造，連同美國所主導的東京審判，的確是一種多方面受制於美國特殊利益、但正當性嚴重短缺的「勝利者的正義」。

關鍵字

日本；美國；東京審判；政體改造；邁尼爾；華瑟；正義

並列摘要

Richard Minear criticizes the Tokyo Trial as mere 'victors' justice', while Michael Walzer questions the legitimacy of the US policy of 'regime change' that had been imposed upon Japan. Through a critique of Minear's and Walzer's arguments, this paper aims to shed some new light on these controversial issues. Drawing on Walzer, this paper suggests that the Tokyo Trial be conceived as part and parcel of the US strategy of regime change. To indict the former as 'victors' justice', thus, is to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the latter. What, then, was wrong with regime change in the case of Japan? This paper rejects Walzer's contention that Japan and Germany should in principle be treated differently. It is argued, instead, that the US policy of regime change was morally deficient not only because it involved political motivations other than justice, but because it therefore failed to take seriously the task of facilitating the transformation of Japan into a responsible stakeholder. To the very extent that today's Japan remains 'unreconstructed' with respect to its war history and responsibility, the claim that regime change was just and successful in Japan must be turned on its head.