二二八事件中的叛亂與懲罰：兼論戰後初期國民政府的政治、軍事與法律關係

Rebellion and Retribution in 228 Incident: Politics, Law, and Military System under Nationalist Government

二二八事件發生後，國民政府以該事件構成「全島性叛亂」為由，採取軍事為主、司法為輔的究責行動。本文重新檢視此一過程，並由此觀察當時國民政府的軍事、政治與法律之關係。研究結果顯示，所謂「二二八叛亂事件」，乃是在臺灣省行政長官公署長期失政下，由偶發性暴動演變而成的政治改革運動，但是在國共內戰以及中國民族主義的考量下，被臺灣軍警情治機關與長官公署渲染成全島性叛亂。最後南京中央根據當地政府機關的各種報告，認可了這樣的看法，並同意長官公署所請求，展開以軍事鎮壓及軍事審判為主、普通司法為輔的究責行動。儘管根據事後的調查發現全島叛亂說只是誇大渲染之詞，但南京中央並未因此停止軍事究責行動，而是依照原定計畫完成軍事行動（綏靖、清鄉）後，才於1947年5月中宣告解嚴，並將事件審理－－除少數重大事件外，回歸普通司法。回歸司法後，當局雖發現軍事審判有違法之處，但並未因此推翻原有判決，反而是基於統治威信承認其效力。不惟如此，在普通司法的審判過程中，亦可看到政治力的介入與影響。其結果，透過國民政府在二二八事件中的究責行動，不僅可以看到國共內戰與中國民族主義的影響，且亦可看出該政權軍事＞政治＞法律的權力構造。

Shortly after the 228 Incident, which the Nationalist Government perceived as an island-wide rebellion, the authorities launched military repression supplemented with judicial persecution. This article explores how the 228 Incident became a ＂rebellion＂, and probes into the complex relationships between politics, law, and military system under the Nationalist Government. As this study points out, the conveniently defined ＂228 Rebellion＂ was initially a spontaneous protest against the incompetent Governor-General Office, and eventually developed into a movement for political reform. Nevertheless, with the looming Chinese Civil War and influenced by the nationalist sentiment, the military/police, the intelligence bureaus, and the Governor-General Office all exaggerated the severity of the Incident and categorized it as a rebellious movement. Taking such view of the Taiwan authorities, the Nanjing Government dispatched troops to the island and launched a crackdown on the protesters. Although the Nanjing Government later discovered the exaggeration behind the reports from the authorities, it did not cease the military repression or persecution. Instead, it was only after the accomplishment of military repressions'(so-called pacifying and cleaning the countryside (綏靖與清鄉) did the government lifted the martial law in May, 1947, and the 228 Incident finally came under the ordinary court. Injustice of former military trials was unveiled but the central government did not rectify previous verdicts for the sake of maintaining its ruling power and reputation. Worse still, political interference cast its shadow over the legal system. Examining the retributions after the Incident revealed not only the significant roles of both the Chinese Civil War and the nationalist sentiment, but also the power hierarchy of the Nationalist Government, in which the military authorities enjoyed supremacy over both politics and law.