[国际新闻] 美国对待国际法：反对 除非能为己所用

日月光

美国《时代》周刊认为，美国总统布什对待国际法的政策是反国际法的，除非它能为己所用。那么，是什么使 布什政府在伊战问题上突然开始“尊重”国际法了呢？提交华盛顿联邦上诉法院的一个案件，让人们看到司法部律师的奇特观点。他们声称，从法律上说，这场战争不由美国控制，而是属于联合国的管辖范围。该刊最近刊发文章对当局这一彻头彻尾的伪善之举作了剖析，文章题为《方便的法律》，要点如下： ' i4 N& f1 T2 f& Z' j
5 Y1 |2 \! Z* |$ v
    多数情况下布什都反对国际法。致力于减少温室气体的《京都议定书》——绝不可能！国际刑事法庭——忘了它吧！联合国《禁止酷刑公约》，对于致力于维护美国主权的白宫，只有背景噪音。 # L: i4 [) q, ?  L

# h  ?, V' ]9 p/ j4 w: s' A    那么，是什么使布什政府在伊战问题上突然开始尊重国际法了呢？我们谈论的是一个最初声称推翻萨达姆政权无需联合国授权的政府。但再仔细看看：与其说这个案件表现的是布什对国际法“照单点菜”的一贯作风，不如说布什政府巧妙地利用全球要求遵守国际法的压力加强总统权力。
" t+ i, p! J' l" Q
0 P# A6 x, P. qrs238848.rs.hosteurope.de    这个案件于2月9日宣判，涉及到45岁的约旦人奥马尔。奥马尔1979年通过学生签证来到美国，1986年获得公民身份。1995年，他带着美国妻子和五个孩子移居约旦。2003年萨达姆倒台后不久，奥马尔出现在伊拉克，他说他在寻找工作。2004年，美军在巴格达奥马尔的家中将他逮捕，美国政府的律师称，奥马尔协助策划恐怖袭击。
; R% m! K0 y0 P. A1 |7 J0 [
. R9 u2 x2 p& T4 ^- J) @% c    美国士兵在没有指控的情况下，将奥马尔关押了一年多，还计划把他移交给伊拉克法院。于是奥马尔的妻子提交了人身保护权申请，要求由一位法官判定囚禁奥马尔是否合法。但司法部的律师却给了一个令人吃惊的答复：法官无权插手奥马尔的案件，原因是关押奥马尔的士兵不是依据美国的法律行事。作为驻伊多国部队的成员，这些士兵是根据联合国安理会的决议执行任务的；而美国最高法院的判例禁止美国法院干预国际权威机构的裁决。 8 U0 t$ A. Q& y5 t6 C% R/ R

7 I7 z+ L3 O5 b  T6 R) n. s    由三名法官组成的小组不认可美国政府的说法。法官小组判定，奥马尔是美国公民，且无论给这些士兵贴什么标签，他们都是为美国国防部工作。此外，奥马尔从未被起诉或定罪，因此不存在什么非美国权威机构的裁决，美国法院可以审理此案。
* D2 i  c7 k0 w4 S  c7 j
3 Z, ]" `7 J3 X7 j. yrs238848.rs.hosteurope.de    布什政府提出的法律论点并不草率，但它们是否伪善？尽管这些论点的确聪明，答案是肯定的。这显示了布什政府利用联合国对伊战的支持来增强总统权力。布什政府声称遵循国际法，现在差不多可以随心所欲地对待伊拉克的恐怖嫌犯。
7 [3 M+ @, ~, b8 `3 ?! Z7 v- C0 W
# L1 w- e1 b, P0 D: j8 @. y) k* I    这一手段与政府针对其他“敌对作战人员”的政策是一致的。无论对关押在本土的美国公民还是囚禁在关塔那摩的外国人，白宫都坚称这不属于美国的司法范围，因为总统有发动战争和不给“作战人员”普通公民权的特权。虽然最高法院驳回了这一论调，但华盛顿上诉法院维持了一项取消关塔那摩外籍囚犯申请人身保护权的法律。人在德国 社区) k% t1 E& N- ~; F

3 k) }) P3 ~% k: x
% r! ~' L4 O# O# j3 B9 q& k) h; s! y. c* j8 ^" s2 O* v4 U
  a! l# H8 w* S+ y1 N9 p( D
A Law of Convenience' s" q7 R# V2 P. j
5 s! {9 m5 R* O2 E, x
You could say President Bush's policy on international law is that he's against it--except when he's for it. Mostly, he's been against it. The Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gases? Not a chance. The International Criminal Court? Forget about it. The U.N. Convention Against Torture? Mere background noise for a White House committed to asserting the sovereignty of the U.S.2 N2 O8 s  O. P5 G1 R: i

2 ]& t. [. V* ?- }. u: ]- _What, then, to make of the Administration's sudden respect for international law as applied to the war in Iraq? Two cases before a federal appeals court in Washington present the odd spectacle of Justice Department lawyers claiming that, legally speaking, the war is out of U.S. hands and in the U.N.'s lap.
; P% v. ~; W4 Q0 s  @2 Ars238848.rs.hosteurope.de
$ z0 g& ?5 X7 o# qAt a glance, this maneuver seems downright hypocritical. We're talking about an Administration that initially claimed it didn't need further U.N. authorization to overthrow Saddam Hussein. But look more closely: what the two cases show is less Bush's à la carte approach to international law than an Administration shrewdly exploiting global pressure to follow international law while advancing presidential power and, at the same time, trying to lend legitimacy to a failing Iraqi court system.5 K0 _$ l9 O- b5 n$ ^
/ y5 a8 O- T, Y+ {
The first case, decided Feb. 9, involves Shawqi Ahmad Omar, 45, a Jordanian who became a U.S. citizen in 1986. Omar came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1979. He married his American wife in 1983, then served in the Minnesota National Guard for about 11 months. In 1995 he moved to Jordan with his wife and their five children.rs238848.rs.hosteurope.de$ z& E& Z# J7 F
) R5 X+ U4 |/ ]
Shortly after Saddam's ouster in 2003, Omar showed up in Iraq. He says he was looking for reconstruction work. Government lawyers say he was helping plan terrorist attacks. In 2004, American troops arrested Omar at his Baghdad home, allegedly finding guns and bomb parts.人在德国 社区( k/ t. q8 |$ B; D
# \: \; Z' t6 J2 M' {# v+ h5 ?
U.S. soldiers held Omar for more than a year without charges or, he says, legal counsel, and they planned to transfer him to Iraqi courts. So Omar's wife and son filed for habeas corpus, a demand that a judge determine whether Omar's imprisonment was legal. But Justice Department lawyers came back with a startling response: the judge had no power over Omar's case. Why? Because the soldiers holding Omar weren't acting under U.S. law. As members of the Multi-National Force--Iraq, they operated under U.N. Security Council resolutions. And Supreme Court precedent bars U.S. courts from messing with rulings of an international authority.$ m5 X0 D# c" X- n

. U5 Y; g; y0 ~2 n$ C$ UThe judge didn't buy this argument, and neither did the three-judge panel to which the government appealed. Omar was a U.S. citizen, the panel decided, and no matter their label, the soldiers holding him worked for the Pentagon. Besides, Omar had never been charged or convicted, so there were no rulings of a non-American authority to trip over. The U.S. courts could hear the case.
2 K$ o7 k3 |$ i" L: [# x. o. Z人在德国 社区
; H, c, ?4 b2 ]/ t4 T; l- y: b( u8 rIn the second suit, though, a trial judge reached the opposite conclusion. He ruled that U.S. soldiers were working for the multinational force when they captured American citizen and alleged kidnapper Mohammad Munaf in Iraq, so U.S. courts couldn't hear Munaf's habeas petition.
7 V5 Q/ g6 U* b+ N4 _0 w1 v人在德国 社区
8 D1 c" d3 }; ZThe Administration's legal arguments are hardly frivolous, but are they hypocritical? Sure, although they're also clever. They show the Bush Administration strengthening the President's power by exploiting U.N. backing for the war. Claiming to follow international law, the Administration now treats suspected terrorists in Iraq pretty much however it wants.
( {; B4 x9 j- v
% `; A* w) t+ f: G7 R) E" rThis approach squares with Administration policy on other "enemy combatants." Whether they are American citizens held in the U.S. or foreigners held at Guantánamo Bay, the White House has insisted that they fall beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts because the President has exclusive power to wage war and deny "combatants" the rights of ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court rejected that argument, although last Tuesday the Washington court of appeals upheld a law eliminating the right of foreign detainees at Guantánamo Bay to file for habeas corpus.2 v# }9 Q9 i7 H, N2 [( o) ]8 a: Z% q
2 k* i& |" f9 m# d
So how might the Justices react to claims that the courts get aced out because the Iraq war is an international enterprise? With Omar's and Munaf's cases probably headed for the high court, you can bet we'll find out soon. Keep in mind too that the Administration has more at stake here than its power. By steering these types of cases to Iraqi courts, it can help those courts gain legitimacy. The stronger its judiciary, the better Iraq's chances of surviving as a nation and the sooner the U.S.--to mix slogans from two unpopular wars--can stand down with honor.