「2000年審判日本軍隊性奴隸制的國際女性戰爭罪行法庭」（以下簡稱「2000年女性法庭」）在日本東京舉辦迄今已有二十年。這是一個史無前例的法庭，由來自亞洲及世界各地十餘個國家的公民非政府組織、倖存者及法律專業人士發起籌辦。這場非凡的法庭審判之所以得以實現，主要歸功於勇敢的受害倖存者與女性在暴行發生半個多世紀後的努力。在該判決中，日本軍隊性奴隸制度（JMSS）首次被認定為一種強暴與性奴隸的體系，連同其他侵犯人權的行為，既構成亦導致了危害人類罪，並認定當時日本的最高層官員及國家必須對此負責。儘管該審判獲得這些成果，仍有觀點指出，其對殖民主義與殖民性在犯罪模式與侵害中的角色著墨不足，彷彿這只是韓國與臺灣的特殊狀況。由於日本殖民統治下的韓國人被視為受害者中最大的族群，在釐清日本軍隊性奴隸制的體系時，亞洲的殖民性或殖民主義面向無疑地至關重要，更遑論在解釋韓國與臺灣受害者處境上的重要性。本文即試圖從殖民主義的觀點來審視「2000年女性法庭」以及日本軍隊性奴隸制。

為此，本文分析了晚近戰時性暴力的相關案例，例如盧安達國際刑事法庭（ICTR）審理的Akeyasu案，以及前南斯拉夫國際刑事法庭（ICTY）審理的Frundžija案和Kunarac案，因為「2000年女性法庭」正是在此法律脈絡下所召開的。本文亦檢視了特別報告員提交給聯合國的系統性強暴與性奴隸報告。基於上述論述，本文進一步探究針對韓國受害者所為的性暴力及其他侵犯人權行為之事實，並提出一種新的法律論證架構。從強制徵用、運送至異國領土，到被安置（或流離失所）於遍布日本軍隊作戰地區的眾多日軍基地，我們可以發現殖民統治體系在各方面的普遍運作。為因應這些特性，我們需要開展「正因殖民主義」而非「儘管有殖民主義」的法律論證，而後者正是東京「2000年女性法庭」所採用的邏輯；殖民法治（警察、軍隊及行政力量等）如何建構出龐大的「強制情境」體系。此外，韓國女性與日本軍人之間的關係既非敵對，亦非盟友，這與女性主義戰時性暴力研究中通常的假設不同。二者間的「殖民關係性」長期未被探討的事實，正凸顯了後殖民女性主義法學研究領域的知識現狀。總地來說，本文主張在戰爭性暴力法學中引入「基於殖民性的戰時性暴力」與「基於殖民性的性別暴力」這兩個概念。這些概念不僅對闡明亞洲的日本軍隊性暴力（JMSS）至關重要，其意義更遠不只如此，還可以廣泛地適用於全球各地在殖民統治與戰爭中遭受人權侵害的人們。

Twenty years have passed since‘the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal in 2000 on Japanese Military Sexual Slavery’(hereinafter,‘2000 Women’s Tribunal’) was held in Tokyo, Japan. It was an unprecedented tribunal, initiated and organized by citizens’NGOs, survivors, and legal professionals from more than 10 countries in Asia and beyond. This incredible tribunal was possible mostly owing to the courageous victim-survivors’and women’s efforts after more than half a century since the atrocities took place. For the first time, the judgment clearly sentenced that Japanese Military Sexual Slavery (JMSS), as a system of rape and sexual slavery, including other human rights violations, had both constituted and led to crimes against humanity, for which Japanese highest officials at that time and the State were accountable.

Despite these achievements, it has been pointed out that colonialism (殖民主義) or coloniality (殖民地性) in the patterns of the crimes and damages was addressed only insufficiently, as if it were the special condition of Korea and Taiwan. Since Koreans who were under Japanese colonial rule have been counted as the largest ethnic group of the victims, the aspect of colonialism or coloniality in Asia was crucial in clarifying the system of JMSS, let alone explaining the situations of Korean and Taiwanese victims. This article is an attempt to view the‘2000 women’s tribunal’as well as JMSS from the perspective of colonialism.<br>For this purpose, this study analyses wartime sexual violence more recent cases, such as those of Akeyasu held by ICTR and Frundžija and Kunarac held by ICTY, since‘2000 Women’s Tribunal’was held in a very close legal context. It also examines the Special Rapporteur’s Reports on Systematic Rape and Sexual Slavery submitted to the UN. Based on the reasons offered, I move to investigate historical facts of sexual violence and other human rights violations committed against the Korean victims, and propose a new construction of legal reasoning. From forcible mobilization, transportation to foreign soil, being (dis)placed at the numerous Japanese military stations virtually all over the place where the Japanese Military fought, we can find how pervasively colonial ruling system had been operated. To accommodate these specificities, we need to develop the legal reasoning of‘because of colonialism’rather than‘despite colonialism,’the latter was the logic employed in the‘2000 Women’s Tribunal’in Tokyo; and how the colonial rule of law (administrative forces, police, and military, etc.) has built the multiple systems of“coercive circumstances”that much beyond the“force against one’s own will.”Furthermore, the relationality of Koran women and Japanese soldiers was neither in the relation of enemy nor that of ally, as in the usual binary code of wartime sexual violence reasoning. The fact that“colonial relationality”between the two subjects has been notoriously unexplored signals the state of knowledge in the postcolonial feminist legal studies. In conclusion, this article proposes the concepts of‘wartime sexual violence based on colonialism’and‘gender violence based on colonialism,’and in the lexicon of wartime sexual violence jurisprudence. Those notions are crucial not only for illuminating the JMSS in Asia, but also for much more. They will be broadly applicable to the people all over the world who have gone through human rights violations in the midst of colonial rule and war.