論「差別國籍」與原台籍日本軍人及軍屬之補償問題

Native Taiwanese Soldiers & Civilian Employees in World WarⅡ Japan: Discriminatory Compensation for Time Served?

一九七二年中日斷交後，為取得日本政府合麗的補償，洪坤圳等原台籍日本軍人及軍屬直接向日本法院提出訴求，但日本法院以原告等非屬「特殊犧牲」而否定適用日本憲法地二十九條三項之規定，並且以非日本國籍而拒絕適傭其援護法及恩給法。其後，日本當局對原台籍日本軍人及軍屬僅支付二百萬日圓之慰問金〈弔慰金〉，而未依據其本國所實施之「恩給法及援護法」來支付，以致於在支付金額上有十倍以上之差距。本文以世界各先進國在第二次世界大戰後之戰後處理上，對原軍人與軍屬的年金給付方式，探討日本以國籍之不同而在待遇上有所差別的作法，是否違反公民權及政治權國際公約中所禁止之「差別國籍之原則」，並舉出「塞內爾加爾人對法國」的案例。此案經公民全及政治權國際公約委員會判斷認為，法國在年金支付上，將塞那加爾人與法國人加以區別，違反了第二十六條之規定。而做為該公約之締約國的日本，當然有遵守該公約之義務。

This article seeks to uncover whether or not the Japanese government violated the Accord of International Convenants on Civil and Political Rights when it chose to legislate compensation to native Taiwanese who had served as soldiers or civilian employees during World WarⅡ. By applying such legislation, the Japanese government would only be required to pay out less than one-tenth of the compensation it would pay under Japan's won existing pension system. Although the Japanese courts have rejected earlier appeals regarding compensation, this author argues that Japan has an obligation to observe its own domestic regulations in treating even foreign employees. This argument is made based on such historical evidence as a similar case that occurred between the Senegalese and the French governments, where France was judged by a UN committee to have violated the afore-mentioned International Covenant.