詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "陸軍軍法会議法"
4件中 1-4の結果を表示しています
  • 中野 佳
    北の丸 ―国立公文書館報―
    2021年 53 巻 81-106
    発行日: 2021年
    公開日: 2025/01/08
    研究報告書・技術報告書 フリー
    国立公文書館では、平成27年度から館へ移管が開始された、旧日本陸海軍の軍法会議に関する文書である「軍法会議関係文書」を保存し、利用に供している。同関係文書は、そのほとんどが判決内容を記載した「判決原本」であり、令和2年8月末現在において、館では1242冊保存している。本稿では、同関係文書に関する情報を整理し、利用者の利用のための参考とした。まず文書を作成した軍法会議の沿革を確認し、作成されていた文書の全体像を把握するために文書管理規程の変遷をたどり、その上で現在館が保存する資料群の特徴を整理した。最後に、同関係文書を利用する際のポイントをまとめた。
  • ―バ・モオ暗殺未遂事件の処理をめぐって―
    武島 良成
    国際政治
    2018年 2018 巻 192 号 192_50-192_64
    発行日: 2018/03/30
    公開日: 2018/12/19
    ジャーナル フリー

    In recent studies, attentions has been drawn to the fact that in Japanese occupied Burma, the Ba Maw government resisted Japan head-on, and the Japanese military made concessions. Japan at that time regarded ‘independent Burma’ as a trial newly ‘independent’ countries in the Great East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, and these studies are important to understand Japan’s later policy towards the Sphere. Meanwhile, however, Ba Maw and U Nu (Foreign Minister) left reminiscences that implied Japan did not make concessions and considerations in the legal action on the attempted assassination of Ba Maw. In these reminiscences it was written that Japan did not put the attackers (Japanese and Burmese) into prison, but also refused to have Burmese jurisdiction applied to the Burmese accomplice. In this research, the processes involved in the occurrence and outcomes of the incident were investigated in order to reveal what actually happened. By doing so, this research aimed to comprehensively illuminate the relations between Japan and the Ba Maw government.

    The Army Ministry of Japan at that time actually was eager to establish responsibility for supervising the incident. They switched from a court-martial system (軍法会議) to trials by military law (軍律会議). However, this meant that they did not intend to apply Japanese municipal laws to judge the incident. Also, despite the fact that they could have brought the Burmese accomplice to justice by the court-martial or military law conference, they tried to leave him under Burmese jurisdiction instead.

    The Japanese Burma Area Army then did not accept fully such requests from the Army Ministry. However, they were conscious of treating the incident as exceptionally important, and accepted part of what the Army Ministry requested. Then, they ruled to put the Japanese attackers into prison, and they were actually confined. The Burmese accomplice was not prosecuted, as he neither broke into the residence of Ba Maw, nor was he a central figure of the incident.

    Consequently, Japan was actually making considerations to the Ba Maw government to a certain degree. There simply was a discrepancy in the ideas of the degree of considerations and concessions between the Army Ministry and the Japanese Burma Area Army.

  • ―武力行使時の錯誤の評価を手掛かりとして―
    福富 俊幸
    国際安全保障
    2011年 39 巻 3 号 50-62
    発行日: 2011/12/31
    公開日: 2022/04/14
    ジャーナル フリー
  • ―軍事司法制度の現代的意義と変革の展望―
    山田 裕之
    国際安全保障
    2021年 49 巻 1 号 92-111
    発行日: 2021/06/30
    公開日: 2022/08/31
    ジャーナル フリー
feedback
Top