相対主義の権威志向性－戦時期の尾高朝雄・木村亀二・常盤敏太の一側面、その史料的考察－

type:Bulletin

Orientation toward Authority behind Relativismus ─ Statements by Asao Odaka, Kameji Kimura, and Toshita Tokiwa, one historical consideration　This paper tries to clarify what papers the jurists in Japan authored and how they accommodated themselves to national power during the Second World War. So far, I have been describing, and criticizing, the papers and ideas of the jurists that accepted such national power as “the jurisprudence that committed war crimes.” This is the standing point for learning lessons from the past for the future (in Chinese, “past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future”).　Gustav Radbruch (1878-1949), a philosopher of law in Germany, is known for his great contributions to the trend of jurisprudence in Japan prior to and during the war with his democratic ideas on jurisprudence based on relativism (Relativismus). Since then, however, researchers have revealed that this so-called “relativism” might contain an orientation toward authority from the beginning.　The three jurists discussed in this paper are among the researchers that studied the quintessence of the thought of law by Radbruch. When the second Sino-Japanese War began, which was followed by the start of the Pacific War, they accepted the orientation to authority contained in relativism as “the absolutism of positive law” (zum Absolutismus des positivien Rechts). They were then self-confident in “the legal certainty” (Rechtssicherheit) and “the validity of law” (Rechtsgeltung) that were backed up by this orientation to authority, and they elaborated their own theories to support the war. History shows us that their unique papers, which contributed to arousing a nationalistic legal system in the imperialistic environment of the spiritual climate in Japan, were constantly carried in university bulletins, academic journals, and other mediums and, thus, were widely spread throughout the country. We can easily presume that they provided a certain level of criteria to decision making, not only in terms of academia but also in the interpretation and application of “the Maintenance of the Public Order Act.” This was called a political criminal law, and this, as well as the laws for governing the colonies outside of Japan, were used in the course of running the national government, or in other words, the judiciary, legislature, and administration.　First, Asao Odaka (1899-1956), a philosopher of law, authored, as a professor at the imperial university in colonial Korea, his thesis “Moralistic Korea and Draft System” (1942) while also contributing to the implementation of the draft system in Japanʼs colonies. He was energetic in encouraging young people in Korea to sign up as subjects of theEmpire of Japan, effectively sending a large number of young Koreans to war. Second, Kameji Kimura (1897-1972), a scholar of criminal law, used the basis of the work of Karl Larenz, a philosopher of law who served the Nazis, when he wrote a large number of theses in admiration of totalitarianism. In his thesis “Criminal Law and National Morality” (1943), he asserted that Japan was “the land of God.” Based on the Prince Shotokuʼs (574-622) constitution, he emphasized his theory of national morality, saying that all crimes indicated disloyalty to the emperor and thus were tantamount to treason. He, therefore, advocated that criminals who contradicted national morality should be severely punished. Lastly, Toshita Tokiwa (1899-1978), a scholar of economic law, lived in Germany for about eight years and studied directly under Radbruch. He wrote “Radbruch and Others — the Final Day and the Final People of the Jurisprudence in Germany” (1934), the thesis of anti-Nazism, and sent it to academia in Japan. He, however, could not defy trends at the time when he returned to Japan during the war; thus, he altered his standpoint and authored a large number of theses including the thesis “The Principle of Leaders” (1941) based on the thoughts by Otto Koellreuter, a jurist of the Nazis, and others and the thesis “Uniformism” (1942). At the same time, he founded the Japan Association of Economic Law which had a fundamentally totalitarianism ideology, and which contributed to the theorization and practicality of “the laws of controlled economy.” Moreover, Tokiwa asserted the theory of “good faith in the law,” which can be understood to have contained an aspect of encouraging “the subjects of the empire” to fulfill their obligations of “loyalty” to the nation. After the war, the three scholars mentioned above neither referred to their works again, nor authored anything to criticize themselves.　Immediately after Nazi Germany was founded, Radbruch criticized it and published a thesis (1934) asserting “the relativism that is universal tolerance — we, however, cannot be tolerant even to non-tolerance.”Furthermore, in the course of World War 2, Radbruch took up his pen and authored “Cicero deutsch” (1941), a thesis simulating a history book that deals with the theme of the democratization of Greece and Julius Caesar, in which he clarifies that “tyrants and uncontrollable dogs — he who kills them will be praised.” Radbruch, in this thesis, reasserted theoriginal identity of relativism or, in other words, relativism in conflict; that is, hatred of the orientation toward authority that resides in relativism, criticism of an inclination toward non-tolerant absolutism, and determined confrontation with non-tolerance.　　　　　Suzuki Keifu

本文试图探明二战期间日本法学家写了哪些作品来迎合当时的国家权力。我历来把接受那种国家权力的法学家的论著和思想称之为“犯下了战争罪的法学”，并加以批判。这是一种“从过去看未来” 的立场（在中文里面，就叫“前世不忘，后世之师”）。　德国法学家古斯塔夫•拉德布鲁赫（G. Radbruch, 1878-1949）以其立基于相对主义（Relativismus）的民主法学思想，对整个战前战后的日本法学思潮产生了巨大的影响。从那以后，在“相对主义” 那里，是否其中原本就含有“威权主义指向”，对于这个问题，就一直是言人人殊。　本文所探讨的三位法学家对于拉德布鲁赫的法学思想均有深入研习。但是，当中日战争爆发，尤其是其后转入太平洋战争阶段，他们把相对主义内在所包含的威权指向转化为所谓的“法律至上主义”（zum Absolutismus des positivien Rechts），进而宣扬为此种威权指向所支撑的“法的安定性” 和“法的效力”，展开了他们各种附和战争的主张。在崇尚皇国主义精神风尚的环境下，他们那些鼓吹国家主义法制的特殊文章经常刊发在当时的大学学报和其他学术杂志上，从而在国内广为传布。这些都是历史事实。学术界历来认为，对于国家政权，即在司法、立法和行政运作之际，不论是对外的殖民地统治法，还是对内被称为“政治刑法” 的《治安维持法》等法律，在它们的解释和适用上，这些法学思想都提供了某些判断标准。这些也都是不难想象的。　首先是法哲学家尾高朝雄（Odaka Asao, 1899-1956）。作为在朝鲜殖民地的帝国大学教授，他撰写了《道义朝鲜与征兵制度》（1942）一文，为殖民地征兵制度的实施做出了贡献。他主张作为皇国臣民，应当对朝鲜的年轻人进行征兵。在他的大力推动下，大量朝鲜青年被送往战场。其次是刑法学家木村龟二（Kimura Kameji）。他依据服务纳粹的法哲学家卡尔•拉伦兹（K. Larenz）的思想，写了大量带有整体主义倾向的论文。在《刑法与国家道义》（1943）的论文中，他断言日本乃是“神国”，进而竭力主张所谓“国家道义论”，即依据圣德太子宪法，一切犯罪都是对天皇的不忠和谋反。因此，他主张严惩违反国家道义的政治犯。最后一位是经济法学家常盘敏太（Tokiwa Toshita, 1899-1978）。他在德国师从拉德布鲁赫大约有8年之久，写有《德意志法学最后之日和最后之人─ 以拉德布鲁赫为中心的考察》这样一篇反纳粹的论文，呈递给了日本法学会。但是，在二战当中回国的长盘，一改以往不可逆时势潮流而动的立场，竟然以纳粹法学家科勒鲁特（O. Koellreuter）等人的思想为基础，写下了《指导者原理》（1941）、《全一主义》（1942）等多篇论文，并创设了基于整体主义意识形态的“日本经济法学会”，积极致力于“管制经济法” 的理论和实践。此外，长盘提倡的“法律上的信义诚实论”，在战争时代显然就包含着推行“皇国臣民” 效忠国家的“忠实” 义务。战后，上述三位学者对自己的研究业绩再未提及，更没有自我批判的任何文字。　拉德布鲁赫在纳粹国家刚刚出现的时候就对其进行批判，在论文（1934）中提出了“相对主义是普遍的宽容，但是对于不宽容，却不能宽容” 的著名论断。当纳粹发展至全盛时期，拉德布鲁赫勇敢地拿起手中的笔，以希腊的民主化与凯撒（Caesar）为主题，在历史的外衣下，写下了名为《被德意志化的西塞罗》（Cicero deutsch, 1941）的文章，痛陈“暴君和横冲直撞的恶犬，对将其置之死地的行为加以褒奖”。拉德布鲁赫在这篇论文中表达了对带有威权指向的相对主义的嫌恶，对其不宽容的绝对主义性质进行了批判，毅然提出了对不宽容的挑战，这可以称之为“斗争的相对主义”，从而再一次还原了相对主义的本来面目。　　　　　原湖南大学法学院兼職教授　鈴木敬夫　作者接受了西北政法大学法学院宋海彬教授関於中文摘要的指導。

論説

Article