摘要

         從過去威權統治轉型到民主政體的國家，最嚴重的正義問題，莫過於犯下大規模暴行的加害者的免責問題。本文主要反省自德國的轉型經驗以及艾希曼在耶路撒冷法庭的審判，並試圖從這些經驗當中，回應大規模暴行中有關懲罰制度與懲罰的證成問題。要預防大規模暴行的再度發生，務必從制度面的問題開始著手，而懲罰理論中以後果論為基礎的預防主義，就為預防犯罪的可能制度提出各種理由。預防主義在追求預防犯罪的理由同時，還必須兼顧不會因為功利計算的考量而犧牲無辜。而唯有以預防犯罪為目標的制度本身，內建一套人權教育的教養方式，才能讓制度內的行動者在追求功利考量的同時，認真看待懲罰無辜以及大規模人權犯罪為錯誤的行動，如此，行動者在面對制度、改革制度以及執行政策時，才會從保障人權的觀點採取行動。審判大規模暴行的加害者，意義在於同時譴責其行動的錯誤，也譴責其行動所依據的制度本身是侵犯人權的制度。透過這樣的人權審判，不但可以適當地追究這些暴行加害者的責任，同時可以指正制度性的錯誤，進行影響制度性的改革，以預防未來再發生制度性的大規模人權犯罪。

關鍵詞：鄂蘭、雅斯培、尼諾、人權、責任、轉型正義、懲罰、紐倫堡審判、納粹、艾希曼、預防主義、應報主義

Abstract

       The gravest problem of justice in the transitional state from autocracy to democracy is the problem concerning those perpetrators who committed massive crimes with impunity. The main reflection of this thesis is put on the German experience of transition and on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. Apart from these empirical materials, in this thesis, the issue of justification of punishment and related system in the context of massive atrocity is able to be dealt with from the learning of the said empirical materials. For preventing the recurrence of massive atrocity, the central undertaking must be started from the consideration of system. Thus, the preventionism, based on the consequentialism in theories of punishment, provided various reasons for several possible systems of preventing crime. While seeking the reason for the prevention of crime, the preventionism have to give consideration to calculate utilities without sacrificing the innocent. Only if there is a set of upbringing of human rights program be built into the system itself in the goal of preventing crime, the agent in the system can seriously treat the punishment of the innocent and the massive crime of human rights as wrongdoing. In this way, when the agent in the face of system, reforming the system, and implementing policies, he can take action in accordance with the perspective of holding human rights. The meaning of putting those perpetrators who committed massive crimes to trial is both denounce their action as wrongdoing and denounce the system, itself as foundation for their evil action, as the system of violation of human rights. Through such court of human rights, the perpetrators’ responsibility for atrocity not only can be properly investigated, but the wrong of system can be amended in the meantime. Further, it can promote the reformation of system and can prevent the institutional recurrence of massive crime of human rights in the future.

Key words：Arendt、Jaspers、Nino、Human Rights、Responsibility、 Transitional Justice、Punishment、Nuremberg Trials、Nazi、 Eichmann、Preventionism、Retributivism