[CML 049077] 平和的抗議デモはウィーン条約違反ではない。少女像は侮辱に当たらない。

りょうこ baffydct at gmail.com
2017年 6月 29日 (木) 11:53:47 JST


 <https://twitter.com/han_org> *金明秀 KIM, Myungsoo*‏ @*han_org*
<https://twitter.com/han_org> Jan 9
<https://twitter.com/han_org/status/818505334071275520>

例えばオーストラリアの官僚が作成したとおぼしき「平和的抗議の権利と外交官・公館の保護」というファイル。
外国公館の前でデモをすることがウィーン条約に抵触するかどうか検討したものだ。 https://www.humanrights.gov.
au/sites/default/files/hrc_assembly_harrison.doc … <https://t.co/o8CJNrDPFD>
(ワードのファイル直リン)

*Is peaceful protest lawful?*

The first question to be resolved is therefore whether Articles 22 and 29
constitute an effective prohibition on any and all demonstrations, peaceful
or otherwise, against diplo-

matic missions and personnel. The answer in my view is that they do not,
for the following reasons:

First, it is clear from general international practice that most states
recognise that people have the right to demon-

strate outside diplomatic missions and against diplomatic personnel. Those
states which do not recognise that right tend to be those states which
allow their citizens no right of demon­stration whatsoever.

Second, the International Court of Justice has implicitly accepted that
there is a right to demonstrate against diplomatic missions. In the *US
Diplomatic and Consular Staff **in* or the purpose of this paper I intend
to focus on the protections afforded to diplomatic premises and staff under
the Diplomatic Convention. In general, consular premises and staff enjoy
similar protection, although with greater restrictions on the inviolability
of premises and consular staff.(5) I would emphasise that these protections
extend only to diplomatic and consular missions and certain staff of them,
and not to other bodies which may be official representatives of a
government but enjoy no special status. Thus, for example, the Aeroflot
office in New York     a frequent target for demonstrations - has no
entitlement to special protection. (One form of peaceful protest in
Australia has been the establishment of so-called embassies, representing a
cause or nation. These "embassies" not only have no protection - they are
in effect Made unlawful by the Diplomatic and Consular Mission's Act 1978.)

*Tehran *Case(10), more commonly known as the *Hostages Case,* the US
sought a declaration from the court that,. inter alia, Iran had infringed
both the Diplomatic and Consular Convention by allowing militant students
to occupy the US Embassy and Consulates and hold staff hostage. The Court
did not in its judgment address directly the restrictions arising under.
Article 22 of 29 on the conduct of peaceful demonstrations. But it did not
argue that such demonstrations were per se unlawful. The thrust of its
judgment was to hold Iran liable for its failure to take appropriate steps
to protect the missions and personnel in accordance_ with its special duty
under Article 22 and 29. It did not argue that Iran was liable merely
because it had allowed the demonstrations to take place.

Third, Parliaments are reluctant to prohibit demon-

strations outside missions. This issue was canvassed thoroughly in the
Report of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on the Abuse of
Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges,(11) set up to examine the application
of the Vienna Convention in the UK after the shooting of a policewoman in
front of the Libyan People's Bureau in April 1984. It was suggested to
the Committee
by Professor Draper (12) that the "peace" of a diplo­matic mission was
different from the Queen's peace (i.e. the peace of the general community).
He argued that allowing "demonstrators to form up behind barriers placed
for the purpose in the immediate frontage of the Libyan mission
premises"(13) was incompatible with Article 22.

This view was not shared by the FC0's principal representative at the
hearing, Sir Antony Acland,(14) nor the Committee itself, which concluded:

... the receiving state's duty to protect the peace of the

mission cannot be given so wide an interpretation as to require the mission
to be insulated from expressions of public opinion within the receiving
state. (15)

Finally, and parochially, Australian practice is to regard peaceful
demonstrations against diplomatic missions and diplomatic personnel as
lawful. This practice has the support of the judiciary. In *Wright v
McOualter(16),* Kerr J commented on a demonstration outside the US Embassy
as follows:

As a political body it (the Embassy) must presumably accommodate itself to
the existence of strong disagreement with some of the policies of its
government and to the direct and forceful verbal expression of such
disapproval. (17)

The duty of states under Articles 22 and 29 should therefore not be
construed as extending to a requirement to prohibit all demonstrations.



1 reply 66 retweets 32 likes
*金明秀 KIM, Myungsoo*‏ @*han_org* <https://twitter.com/han_org>

結論からいえば、公館前で平和的デモをやろうとウィーン条約に抵触しないということなのだけど、その理由が3つ列挙されている(pp.306-
308)。おそらく重要なのはその2番目のもので、国際司法裁判所が公館前でデモを行う権利を暗に承認してきたということ。
https://twitter.com/han_org/status/818507271130869760
*金明秀 KIM, Myungsoo*‏ @*han_org* <https://twitter.com/han_org> Jan 9
<https://twitter.com/han_org/status/818510672602349568>
Replying to @*han_org* <https://twitter.com/han_org>

また、こちらの文書は欧州評議会の国際公法法律顧問委員会の文書なのだけど、パラグラフ81~82を見るとやはり平和的デモが外国公館前で行われようともウィーン条約に違反しないと主張されている。
http://www.coe.int/t/dlapil/cahdi
/Source/Docs%202007/CAHDI%20_2007_%20Inf%2015%20E%20only%20-%20UK%20Practice%20State%20Immunities.pdf
 … <https://t.co/N1Q90qXVEY>
2 replies 67 retweets 32 likes
-

-
*金明秀 KIM, Myungsoo*‏ @*han_org* <https://twitter.com/han_org> Jan 9
<https://twitter.com/han_org/status/818513118561116160>

一方で、いくつかの記述で(批判的に)言及されているところ、典拠は不明ながら「侮辱」すればダメだと厳しく解釈するスタンスもあるらしい。おそらく日本政府の解釈はそれに近いのだろう。でも、あの少女像を「侮辱」だと解釈すること自体に問題があると、ぼくには思えるけどね。
3 replies 82 retweets 40 likes
-

-
*金明秀 KIM, Myungsoo*‏ @*han_org* <https://twitter.com/han_org> Jan 9
<https://twitter.com/han_org/status/818615668715048960>

「侮辱」の件、もう少し調べてみたところ、大使個人の人格を侮辱するようなものについては「威厳の侵害」と判断される危険性がある(が、逆にいえば大使の送り出し国の政策を批判するようなものはウィーン条約に反すると言えない)ということなのかな。件の少女像が前者に当たらないのは自明だ。


CML メーリングリストの案内