中臺間人員交流與追訴時效制度之探討（Study of the Cross-Strait Flow of People and China’s Limitation Period for Prosecution）

中台人的交流に関する公訴時効制度（訴追時効制度）の考察

中國的追訴時效制度不單僅是追訴犯人的期限，還具有促進與新中國成立前後前往台灣或其他地方的人員交流之意涵。即透過對新中國成立前犯下罪行的人宣示“不追訴”以達到人員交流過程中消除內心疑慮的功能。爲此，中國於1988年和1989年分別發佈了“公告”。但是，早在發佈上述“公告”之前，實質上便已“不追訴”新中國成立前的犯罪。此外，爲什麽不用“赦免”，而是使用“追訴時效制度”這點也是此制度讓人產生疑義之處。本文將針對這些“公告”的相關疑義進行解讀性的考察。先行研究指出，中國的法律理論較不注重論理的過程，而本文的結論認為該“公告”所產生的疑義也同樣顯示沒有意識到論理上的整體性。

China’s system of limitations for criminal prosecutions is not simply alimit on the time within which crimes can be prosecuted. It also has anotherdimension of promoting the flow of people back to China who fled to Taiwanand other regions before and after the founding of the People’s Republic ofChina. In short, by declaring that it would not prosecute those peoplesuspected of committing crimes prior to the founding of the PRC through thepromulgation of two ‘official notices’ (gonggao) in 1988 and 1989, Chinaremoved a psychological barrier to the flow of people. But, regardless ofthese official notices, crimes committed before the founding of the PRC werealready non-prosecutable. This article considers why China opted for such asystem of limitation periods on prosecution instead of amnesties or othermeasures. Existing research suggests that legal thinking in China does notfocus on process, but is more result-oriented. Likewise, this article concludesthat the paradox of these ‘official notices’ reveals a disregard for logicalconsistency in legal thinking.