跳至內容

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

用戶:Hamham/衝動消費

維基百科,自由的百科全書
保羅·瓦雷里
Paul Valéry
1925年前後的瓦雷里
出生Ambroise-Paul-Toussaint-Jules Valéry
1871年10月30日
Template:FRA1870賽特
逝世1945年7月20日(1945歲—07—20)(73歲)
Template:FRA1944巴黎
墓地 法國賽特
職業詩人小說家評論家
語言法語
國籍 法國
母校蒙彼利埃大學法學部
代表作《年輕的命運女神》
La jeune Parque

簽名

保羅·瓦雷里Template:Lang-fr-short, 1871年10月30日—1945年7月20日),法國詩人、小說家及評論家,法蘭西學術院院士。除了小說(詩歌、戲劇、對話),他還撰寫了大量關於藝術歷史文學音樂政治、時事的文章,其高產的創作使其成為當時法國代表性的知識分子。瓦雷里也是法國象徵主義後期詩人的主要代表。

生涯と作品

[編輯]

作家生平

[編輯]

1871年,瓦雷里誕生於地中海沿岸的法國港口城市賽特。其父為科西嘉島人,是一名稅務官吏。母親法妮出生於意大利的的里雅斯特,當時其父親作為意大利領事駐紮於賽特。瓦雷里在5歲時入讀當地的道明會創辦的學校。7歲入讀賽特的初等學校,11歲入高等科學習。他在少年時期就酷愛讀書。1884年,瓦雷里遷居至蒙彼利埃,並轉校至當地的高中。他原本希望從事與祖父一樣的水手工作,但遭到父親的反對,加之其數學成績不佳,最終未能如願。當時他也經常到母親的老家熱那亞度假,並開始逐漸對文學、繪畫和建築等等產生興趣,嘗試着自己寫詩。1887年3月,瓦雷里的父親去世。

1888年,他考入蒙彼利埃大學法學部,並熱衷於閱讀愛倫坡波德萊爾的詩。當時他了解到不少象徵主義和高踏派的詩人。在1889年左右,他被若利斯·卡爾·於斯曼的《逆流》所吸引,對其中所引用的保爾·魏爾倫阿蒂爾·蘭波斯特凡·馬拉梅等人的作品非常喜愛。18歲的瓦雷里寫了一首詩《夢》(Rève),並被哥哥送至馬賽的刊物《Revue maritime》發表,此後另一篇詩《月出》(Elévation de la lune)也被發表。同年,他作為志願兵在蒙彼利埃步兵第122連隊服役一年。

1890年5月,在蒙彼利埃大學創辦600周年紀念儀式上,瓦雷里結識了從巴黎來的詩人皮埃爾·路易斯,兩人自此成為摯友。1890年9月,路易斯在給瓦雷里的書信中引用了馬拉梅的詩文,讓後者感動不已。12月,路易斯又介紹瓦雷里認識了安德烈·紀德,後者也成為瓦雷里終其一生的好友。1891年起,瓦雷里的創作逐漸活躍起來,在路易斯和紀德等人創辦的同人刊物的創刊號上也刊登了《納爾西斯說》(Narcisse parle)。這篇作品被日報《辯論》高度評價,瓦雷里也被評為與路易斯和紀德同一水準的傑出青年作家[1]。大學畢業後,瓦雷里決心投身文學創作事業,來到巴黎,並在每周二參加馬拉梅的文學聚會活動。

暫別文學界

[編輯]

1892年9月至11月,瓦雷里在熱那亞的母親一方的親戚家小住。期間他開始懷疑自己的詩歌創作能力,也逐漸厭惡文學寫作。他決心捨棄情愛等世俗的誘惑,並以對知性的崇拜為目標。當時熱那亞正好遇上了一場史無前例的暴風,於是被他稱為「熱那亞之夜」。從1894年起,他開始記錄以《卡伊》為題的私人筆記,並不考慮公開發表。長期的積累下,這一筆記達到了2萬6千多頁的驚人篇幅。1895年,他發表了評論《萊昂納多·達文西之方法序說》,次年又發表了小說《與特斯特的夜會》。此後,他在長達20年的時間裏埋頭於《卡伊》的記錄,進入了漫長的文學沉默期。

1896年,他在倫敦經馬拉梅介紹,結識了詩人威廉·歐內斯特·亨利。後者希望瓦雷里用法語對其主辦的雜誌《The New Review》上一篇有關德意志產業對英國的壓力寫一段哲學性的結論。瓦雷里當時對「方法論」(méthode)比較關注,於是在1897年發表了一篇題為《德意志的稱霸》(La Conquête allemande)的論述。這篇文章在1915年被法國雜誌再次刊載,並在1924年改名為《方法的稱霸》(Une Conquête méthodique)後再次出版。在這篇論文中,作者提到了德意志、意大利、日本等後來居上的國家的繁榮過程,因此也被評論為對於後來的軸心國的形成有一定影響[2]

《魂與舞》(1921年)

1897年到1900年期間,瓦雷里供職於陸軍省炮兵隊。1898年,馬拉梅去世,瓦雷里痛心不已。1900年,瓦雷里與女畫家貝魯特・莫莉佐的侄女結婚。此後他被聘為哈瓦斯通訊社的社長私人秘書,生計大為改善。

1913年,安德烈·紀德邀請他將其舊時的詩作匯編成冊,1917年4月在《新法蘭西評論》上發表了《年輕的命運女神》,一舉成名天下知。另外,在1920年由同一雜誌刊載的《海濱墓園》(Le Cimetière marin)中,他棄用當時主流的十二音節詩行,而選用十音節以及每節6行的詩歌形式,再次大獲好評。1921年,雜誌《知識》(Connaissances)將其評選為現代七大詩人之一。

文筆活動

[編輯]

1919年にロンドンの週刊誌『アシニーアム』誌に「第一の手紙(The spiritual crisis)」及び「第二の手紙(The intellectual crisis)」と題する、ヨーロッパの精神史について英文で発表。このフランス語原文が『NRF』誌巻頭に掲載された際に「精神の危機(La Cries de l』Esprit)」の表題が付けられた。1922年11月15日にチューリッヒ大學で行われた「精神の危機」と題された講演は有名となり、1924年に「精神の危機」が評論集『ヴァリエテ Ⅰ』に収録された際に、講演の抜粋が「付記(あるいはヨーロッパ人)(Note(ou L』EUROPEEN))」として組み込まれた。このチューリッヒでヴァレリーはリルケと會うことを期待していたが、リルケの金策の都合でかなわず、ヴァレリーに果物籠を差し入れをした。[2]

詩作『ユウパリノス』(1921年)『魅惑』(1922年)で名聲は外國にまで広がり、また1922年に雇い主のルベーが死去し、文人としての生活に入った。1923年にイギリス、ベルギー、スペイン、イタリアに招かれて講演を行う。その後もヨーロッパ各地の講演に招かれ、多くの発表した文集が刊行、翻訳された。1924年にアナトール・フランスの死去により後任としてフランス・ペンクラブの會長となり、翌年にはアカデミー・フランセーズ會員に選出される。

fr:Paule Gobillard畫「ポール・ヴァレリー夫人と息子クロード(1910年)

1928年、ジュネーブでの國際連盟知的協力會議の議長を務める。中國の作家盛成が1928年にパリで「我が母」原稿を書いた時には、ヴァレリーが序文(のち「東洋と西洋」)を書いて出版社を紹介した[2]。1930年、パリで開催されたギリシャ獨立100年祭でギリシャから勳章を贈られる。1931年、パリで開催された國際ペンクラブ大會議長を務め、またオペラ座にてアルテュール・オネゲル作曲の「アンフィオン(Amphion)」がルビンシュタイン・バレエ団により上演された。1933年、地中海中央研究所所長就任、知的協力委員會にてヨーロッパ研究連盟設立の常任議長に選ばれる。1934年、ドラマ「セミラミス(Sémiramis)」がオペラ座で上演。

1936年コレージュ・ド・フランス教授に選出され、翌年から詩學講座を擔當する。數多くの執筆依頼や講演をこなし、フランスの代表的知性と謳われ、第三共和政の詩人としてその名を確固たるものしていく。第二次世界大戦開戦で南仏に逃れたが、1940年秋からドイツ軍佔領後のヴィシー政権下のパリに戻り、最後の著作『わがファウスト』の執筆、コレージュ・ド・フランスでの講義を続けるが、政権には批判的であり、地中海中央研究所所長を解任される。1942年には『邪念その他』の用紙配給をドイツ軍に一時差し止められた。1943年には文學者愛國戦線に參加、また自身の水彩畫展を開く。パリ解放後の1945年に地中海中央研究所所長再任。

1945年5月に潰瘍で病床に就き7月20日死去。葬儀はサントノレ・ティエリー教會にて行われ、翌日ドゴールの要請でトロカデロ広場にて、戦後フランス第一號の國葬式典が行われた。遺骨は故郷セットの墓地に葬られ、墓石には「海辺の墓地」の一節が刻まれている[3]

神々の靜寂の上に 長く視線を投げて
おお 思索の後の心地よいこの返禮

ジッドの盡力により、1930年から逝去した1945年にかけて、斷続的にほぼ毎年ノーベル文學賞候補としてノミネートされたが[4]、受賞はかなわなかった。戱曲『わがファウスト』は全4幕のうち3幕までで未完、同じく戱曲『孤獨者』も3分の2までで未完となっている。

モンペリエ大學の法學部出身であり、現在のモンペリエ第3大學(文學部)には彼の名前が冠せられている。8歳年上の兄ジュールは同大學法學部教授であり、後に総長となっている。ルノワールドガらとの親交もあった。

在日本的影響力

[編輯]

在日本,瓦雷里作為早起就理解並接受了愛因斯坦相對論的詩人而出名。二戰前,瓦雷里的作品被佐藤正彰河盛好蔵吉田健一等人引入日本,當時剛成立不久的築摩書房就開始出版瓦雷里的全集,但由於戰事以及出版社自身原因,始終未能完成全集。

到了1960年代,《瓦雷里全集》日文版終於由佐藤正彰和鈴木信太郎等人編輯出版。進入21世紀後,由清水徹和恆川邦夫等人重新翻譯出版了新版全集。

堀辰雄的中篇小說《起風了》(《日語:風立ちぬ》)篇首就引用了堀翻譯的瓦雷里《海濱墓園》裏的詩句「縱有疾風起,人生不言棄」(日語:風立ちぬ、いざ生きめやも,法語:Le vent se lève, il faut tenter de vivre.)。

著作

[編輯]
保羅·瓦雷里

詩集

[編輯]
「アンフィオン」公演(1941年)

瓦雷里在1891-93年期間的作品收錄於《舊詩帖》,此後的長篇詩《年輕的命運女神》以及1917-22年期間的作品集《魅惑》等一併結集作為《保羅·瓦雷里詩集》,出版於1929年。[3]

詩人としてはマラルメに傾倒し、ボードレール、ジョゼ・マリア・ド・エレディア、ヴェルレーヌ、ランボーに多くを學び、音楽性に才能を示したが、古典的伝統的形式により詩作を行い[5]象徴主義の詩人とはみなされておらず、「(象徴派の)複雑さからヴァレリイは綺麗に洗はれている」「ヴァレリイの世界は象徴派のそれのように平易ではない」(石川淳[6])とも評される。詩論においてはマラルメの実験の理論化を試み、近代詩學を創設するものとも言われる[5]

  • 『若きパルク』La Jeune Parque 1917年
  • 『海辺の墓地』Le Cimetière marin 1920年
  • 『舊(舊)詩帖』Album des vers anciens 1920年
  • 『魅惑』Charmes 1922年

小說及其他作品

[編輯]
『カイエ』『文學』などのアフォリズム集、『ヴァリエテ』は、各種時評・講演筆記 他の小文で編集され5冊刊行。
  • 『カイエ B』Cahier B 1910年
  • 『テスト氏との一夜』La Soirée avec monsieur Teste 1919年
  • 『ダ・ヴィンチ論』Introduction à la méthode de Léonard de Vinci 1919年
  • 『魂とダンス』L』Âme et la danse 1923年
  • 『ヴァリエテ』Variété 1924年
  • 『ロンブ』Rhumbs 1925年
  • 『ルイス宛の十五の書簡』1925年
  • 『文學』La Littérature 1929年
  • 『ヴァリエテ Ⅱ』Variété II 1929年
  • 『モラリテ』Moralités 1931年
  • 『現代世界の考察』Regards sur le monde actuel 1931年、文明批評
  • 『固定観念』L』Idée fixe 1932年
  • 『ヴァリエテ Ⅲ』Variété III 1936年
  • 『ドガ・ダンス・デッサン』Degas, danse, dessin 1936年
  • 『象徴主義の存在』Existance du Symbolisme 1938年
  • 『ヴァリエテ Ⅳ』Variété IV 1938年
  • 『メランジュ』Mélange 1939年
  • 『テル・ケル』Tel quel 1941年
  • 『邪念その他』Mauvaises pensées et autres 1942年
  • 『ヴァリエテ Ⅴ』Variété V 1944年
  • 『わがファウスト』Mon Faust 1946年、最晩年の戱曲作品

全集・作品集

[編輯]
  • 《現代世界文學全集25 瓦雷里》鈴木信太郎等譯、新潮社、1955年
  • 《瓦雷里全集》(增補版 全12巻・補巻2)築摩書房、1977年 - 1979年
  • 《瓦雷里全集 卡伊篇》(全9巻)築摩書房、1980年 - 1983年
  • 《紀德=瓦雷里往來書簡》第1巻 1890年 - 1896年/第2巻 1897年 - 1942年、二宮正之編譯、築摩書房、1986年
  • 《瓦雷里集成》(全6巻)築摩書房、2011年2月 - 2012年7月 - 以主題為類別的新譯。
    Ⅰ 與特斯特的「故事」 (恆川邦夫 編譯)
    Ⅱ 「夢」的幾何學 (塚本昌則 編譯)
    Ⅲ 「詩學」之探究 (田上龍也・森本淳生 編譯)
    Ⅳ 精神的「哲學」 (山田広昭 編譯)
    Ⅴ 「藝術」的肖像 (今井勉・中村俊直 編譯)
    Ⅵ 與「友愛」對話 (恆川邦夫・松田浩則 編譯)
  • 《三聲書簡 1888-1890》松田浩則等譯、水聲社、2016年 - 內含189封與友人的往來信函

腳註

[編輯]
  1. ^ 『現代世界文學全集25』(佐藤正彰「解説」)
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 恆川邦夫「改題・訳注」(『精神の危機 他十五篇』岩波文庫、2010年)
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 鈴木信太郎訳『ヴァレリー詩集』岩波文庫 1968年
  4. ^ Nomination Database The Nomination Database for the Nobel Prize in Literature, 1901-1950
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 『ヴァレリー詩集』岩波文庫 1968年(佐藤正彰「ヴァレリー」)
  6. ^ 石川淳『文學大概』中公文庫 1976年(「ヴァレリイ」)

參考文獻

[編輯]
  • ドニ・ベルトレ 『ポール・ヴァレリー 1871-1945』 松田浩則訳
法政大學出版局<叢書ウニベルシタス>、2008年、新裝版2015年
  • 清水徹 『ヴァレリーの肖像』 築摩書房、2004年
  • 清水徹 『ヴァレリー 知性と感性の相剋』 岩波新書、2010年
  • 山田直 『ヴァレリー 人と思想』 清水書院、1991年、新裝版2016年
  • ロビンソン・ヴァレリー編 『科學者たちのポール・ヴァレリー』 紀伊國屋書店、1996年
    菅野昭正恆川邦夫・松田浩則・塚本昌則訳-13名の科學者による論文集。第32回日本翻訳出版文化賞受賞
  • 三浦信孝塚本昌則編 『ヴァレリーにおける詩と芸術』 水聲社、2018年
  • 恆川邦夫・塚本昌則 訳・解説 『ポール・ヴァレリー[アガート]訳・註解・論考』 築摩書房、1994年、遺稿の論考
  • 恆川邦夫 訳・解説 『純粋および応用アナーキー原理』 築摩叢書、1986年、※1936年-1938年の遺稿集
  • 田上竜也・森本淳生編訳 『未完のヴァレリー 草稿と解説』 平凡社、2004年、文學的沈黙期の遺稿集
  • 世界の名著66 アラン ヴァレリー』 中央公論社・中公バックス、1980年。解説擔當は河盛好蔵

関連項目

[編輯]

外部リンク

[編輯]

Template:アカデミー・フランセーズ


流行文化中的引用

[編輯]

奧斯卡獎得主、日本導演宮崎駿2013年的動畫電影作品《起風了》的法文片名即取自瓦雷里的詩歌《海濱墓園》(Le Cimetière marin)中的句子:縱有疾風起,人生不言棄Le vent se lève, il faut tenter de vivre)。[1]

參考條目

[編輯]

註釋

[編輯]
  1. ^ The Wind Rises: a flight into Hayao Miyazaki's magic and poetry. [2014-09-23]. (原始內容存檔於2020-08-20). 

外部連結

[編輯]


警告:默認排序鍵「Valéry, Paul」覆蓋了之前的默認排序鍵「うあれり ほおる」。

————————————————————————————————————————

Rasul v. Bush
辯論:2004April 20
判決:2004June 28
案件全名Shafiq Rasul, et al., Petitioners v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.; Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.
引註案號542 U.S. 466
124 S. Ct. 2686; 159 L. Ed. 2d 548; 2004 U.S. LEXIS 4760; 72 U.S.L.W. 4596; 2004 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 457
既往案件Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003); cert. granted, 540英語List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 540 U.S. 1003 (2003).
法庭判決
The degree of control exercised by the United States over the Guantanamo Bay base is sufficient to trigger the application of habeas corpus rights. The right to habeas corpus can be exercised in all dominions under the sovereign's control.
法庭意見
多數意見Stevens
聯名:O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
協同意見Kennedy (in judgment)
不同意見Scalia
聯名:Rehnquist, Thomas

拉素爾訴布什案, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), 是2004年美國聯邦最高法院作出的一起具有里程碑意義的重要判例。最高法院在本案判決中確認了被關押在關塔那摩灣拘押中心的外國人向聯邦法院申請人身保護令的權利,以審查其受到的刑罰是否合法[1]。2004年6月28日,該法院大法庭以6-3的結果推翻了聯邦法院華盛頓特區巡迴上訴法院的判決,原判決認為美國的聯邦司法機關無權審理被關押在關塔那摩的外國人的申請案件。

本案中的第一申請人為英國公民沙菲克·拉素爾,他也是同時被關押的提普頓三公民之一。本案判決作出之前,三人已在2004年3月被引渡到英國,次日即被英國政府釋放。

案件背景

[編輯]

軍事命令

[編輯]

2001年9月14日,在911事件後不久,美國國會通過了《關於使用軍事力量應對恐怖主義的授權》,授權美國總統發動針對恐怖主義的全球戰爭[2]。對此,國務卿科林·鮑威爾及國家法務顧問威廉·霍華德·塔夫脫五世對總統建議需要遵守日內瓦公約[3]勞倫斯·莫里斯也建議採用紐倫堡審判中的公開聽證程序[4]。 當時擔任托馬斯·羅米格少將 the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army, recommended any new military tribunals be modeled on existing courts-martial.[3]

However, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee, relying on the unitary executive theory developed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, advised the President in a series of memos that he could hold enemy combatants abroad, indefinitely, without Congressional oversight, and free from judicial review.[3] On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a military order titled the Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, which sought to detain and try enemy combatants by military commissions under Presidential authority alone.[3]

Capture and detainment

[編輯]

The various plaintiffs were taken to Guantanamo Bay for different reasons, but were generally captured or arrested during the United States invasion of Afghanistan.

The US Military transferred Rasul and Asif Iqbal, both British citizens, and David Hicks, an Australian citizen, to Guantanamo Bay in December 2001. Each denied voluntarily joining any terrorist forces. As noted by the District Court, they did not deny having fought for the Taliban, but claimed that if they did take up arms, it was only when being attacked and in self-defense.[來源請求] Rasul and Iqbal say they were with the Taliban because they were taken captive. Hicks is silent on the matter in court filings, but his father, in filing the brief, said that he believed that his son had joined the Taliban forces.

The twelve Kuwaitis, combined in Al Odah v. United States, claimed that they were in Pakistan and Afghanistan giving humanitarian aid. They were seized by villagers seeking bounties and "sold" to the United States (US) forces. The US transferred them to Guantanamo Bay starting in January 2002.

Mamdouh Habib, the plaintiff in Habib v. Bush, was arrested by Pakistani authorities on October 5, 2001, two days before the fighting began.

Procedural history

[編輯]

Court petitions

[編輯]

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) was the first organization to file two petitions, Rasul v. Bush and Habib v. Bush, challenging the U.S. government's practice of holding foreign nationals in detention indefinitely who were captured in Afghanistan during the war against the Taliban regime and al-Qaida. The government had designated the detainees as enemy combatants and did not allow them access to counsel, the right to a trial, or knowledge of the charges against them.

On February 19, 2002, Guantanamo detainee Shafiq Rasul, a British citizen, petitioned in federal court for a writ of habeas corpus to review the legality of his detention. Guantanamo detainee Mamdouh Habib, an Australian citizen, also filed a petition.[5]

These cases were each filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the court decided them together, consolidating them under Rasul v. Bush. Each of the filings alleged that the government had not allowed the detainee to speak at all to friends, family or lawyers, and had not given him any hearing whatsoever on the question of whether he was an enemy combatant in the war.

U.S. District Court

[編輯]

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly denied the detainees' petitions on July 30, 2002, finding that aliens in Cuba had no access to U.S. courts.[6]

Citing Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339英語List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 339 U.S. 763 (1950), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over German war criminals held in a U.S.-administered German prison,[7] the District Court ruled that U.S. courts have jurisdiction only in a territory where the U.S. has sovereignty. Because the lease with Cuba regarding Guantanamo Bay stated that Cuba technically has "ultimate sovereignty", the court held Guantanamo Bay could not be considered a sovereign territory of the United States and therefore foreign nationals could not be given a trial in the U.S. The plaintiffs pointed out that the U.S. has all effective powers in the area.

U.S. Court of Appeals

[編輯]

In Al Odah v. United States a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit including Judge A. Raymond Randolph, Judge Merrick Garland, and Judge Stephen F. Williams affirmed on March 11, 2003.[8]

Supreme Court

[編輯]

The Supreme Court of the United States, over the Government's objections, agreed in November 2003 to hear the cases of the Guantánamo detainees, namely Rasul v. Bush, which was consolidated with al Odah v. Bush (the latter represented twelve Kuwaiti men).

Release of Rasul and Iqbal

[編輯]

On March 9, 2004, two years after they were first detained, the U.S. released Rasul and Iqbal to the United Kingdom with no charges filed, along with three other British citizen detainees. The British government had been pressing the United States for the return of its citizens and legal residents. The next day, the UK government released all five men without charge.

Oral arguments

[編輯]

One-hour of oral arguments were heard on April 20, where former-Circuit Chief Judge John Joseph Gibbons appeared for the detainees and Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, personally appeared for the Government.[9]

During the oral arguments the following points came up:

  • Many of the Justices' questions indicated a belief that Johnson v. Eisentrager was immaterial to the jurisdictional question at hand, while the government argued that it was material. Justice Stevens noted that the Ahrens v. Clark decision, the basis of the Eisentrager decision, had since been largely reversed in Braden (1973), and thus relevant parts of Eisentrager may no longer apply.
  • Justice Souter noted that the ability of a U.S. citizen to get a trial may necessarily imply that the court has jurisdiction in that geographic area, since jurisdiction is largely a geographic and sovereignty matter. Since the government had said it would not challenge 'habeas corpus' by a U.S. citizen in Guantanamo Bay, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), this could establish jurisdiction at the base.
  • The court had concern that there is a gray area where certain types of cases would fall through the cracks, because only the U.S. military appeared to have jurisdiction. On the other hand, Justice Scalia noted, it may be possible, and better, for Congress to remedy that situation, as they have deliberative powers the court does not.

Quotes

[編輯]

Justice Scalia regarding the purpose of jurisdiction:

The Constitution requires jurisdiction—the Constitution requires that an American citizen who has the protection of the Constitution have some manner of vindicating his rights under the Constitution.

Justice Breyer on whether to deny jurisdiction to citizens outside the U.S.

So what I'm thinking now, assuming that it's very hard to interpret Eisentrager, is that if we go with you, it has a virtue of clarity. There is a clear rule. Not a citizen outside the United States; you don't get your foot in the door. But against you is that same fact. It seems rather contrary to an idea of a constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.

Justice Scalia on whether the courts or Congress are better suited to rewrite laws:

Can we hold hearings to determine the problems that are bothering you? I mean, we have to take your word for what the problems are. We can't call witnesses and see what the real problems are, can we, in creating this new, substantive rule that we're going to let the courts create? Congress could do all that, though, couldn't it? ...

If it wanted to change the habeas statute, it could make all sorts of refined modifications about issues that we know nothing whatever about because we have only lawyers before us, we have no witnesses, we have no cross-examination, we have no investigative staff. And we should be the ones, Justice Breyer suggests, to draw up this reticulated system to preserve our military from intervention by the courts.

Opinion of the Court

[編輯]

On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court of the United States decided against the Government.[10] Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, held that the detainees had a statutory right to petition federal courts for habeas review.[11]

That same day, the Supreme Court ruled against the Government in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.[12] Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the four justice plurality opinion finding that an American citizen detained in Guantanamo had a constitutional right to petition federal courts for habeas review under the Due Process Clause.[11]

Quoting Lord Mansfield and William Blackstone, Justice Stevens reasoned that common law courts exercise habeas jurisdiction over all dominions under the sovereign's control.[13]

Justice Kennedy's concurrence in judgment

[編輯]

Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment. While refusing to join the majority's opinion's view of "automatic statutory authority", Justice Kennedy felt federal-court jurisdiction is permitted, "in light of the status of Guantanamo Bay and the indefinite pretrial detention of detainees".[14]

Justice Scalia's dissent

[編輯]

Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice Clarence Thomas, filed a dissenting opinion. Attacking the majority's statutory interpretation Justice Scalia wrote, "for this Court to create such a monstrous scheme in time of war, and in frustration of our military commanders' reliance upon clearly stated prior law, is judicial adventurism of the worst sort."[15]

Subsequent developments

[編輯]

The United States Government announced that it planned to charge Hicks and Habib before a military commission. Habib was released in January 2005, after the Washington Post reported his extraordinary rendition from Pakistan to Egypt by the CIA soon after his arrest.[16] He was held and interrogated under torture in Egypt for five months before being returned to Pakistan, and then transferred to military custody and Guantanamo Bay.[17]

Justice Rutledge's influence

[編輯]

Directly after law school, John Paul Stevens worked as a law clerk to Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge.[18] In Ahrens v. Clark (1948), the Court held that no federal court had been given territorial jurisdiction over Ellis Island, provoking Justice Rutledge to file a dissent Stevens helped draft.[18]

In 1956, Stevens wrote a book chapter where he quoted Justice Rutledge's dissent from In re Tomoyuki Yamashita (1946): "It is not too early, it is never too early, for the nation to steadfastly follow its great constitutional traditions, none older or more universally protective against unbridled power than due process of law in the trial and punishment of men, this is, of all men, whether citizens, aliens, alien enemies or enemy belligerents. It can become too late."[3]

Justice Stevens quoted the Ahrens dissent approvingly in Rasul, fifty-six years after he had drafted it as a clerk.[18]

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

[編輯]

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz responded by creating "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" to determine if detainees were unlawful combatants.[19] Detainee's habeas petitions to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia were consolidated into two cases.[20] In one, Judge Richard J. Leon rejected the detainees petition because they "have no cognizable Constitutional rights" on January 19, 2005.[21] In the other, Judge Joyce Hens Green granted the detainees petition, finding the CSRTs were insufficient to protect the detainees rights under the Geneva Convention and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution on January 31, 2005.[22]

On July 15, 2005, a panel of the D.C. Circuit made of Judge A. Raymond Randolph then-Circuit Judge John Roberts and Judge Stephen F. Williams vacated the lower rulings and threw out the detainees' petitions.[23] On November 7, 2005, the Supreme Court agreed to review that judgment. On December 30, 2005, Congress responded by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which changed the statute to explicitly strip detainees of any right to petition courts for habeas review.[3]

On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court decided against the Government in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.[24] Justice Stevens, writing for a five justice majority, found that courts had jurisdiction to hear those detainees' petitions which had been filed before Congress enacted the DTA and that the CSRTs violated the Geneva Conventions standards enacted in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.[25]

Boumediene v. Bush (2008)

[編輯]

Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which gave statutory authorization to the CSRTs and was explicit in retroactively stripping detainees of any right to petition courts for habeas review.[26] On February 20, 2007, D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, joined by Judge David B. Sentelle upheld the Act and dismissed the detainees' petitions, over the dissent of Judge Judith W. Rogers.[27]

On June 12, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court decided against the Government in Boumediene v. Bush.[28] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for a five justice majority, held that the detainees had a right to petition federal courts for writs of habeas corpus under the United States Constitution.[2] Justice Antonin Scalia strongly dissented, writing that the Court's decision, "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed".[2]

See also

[編輯]

References

[編輯]
  1. ^ Rasul v. Bush, 542英語List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 542 U.S. 466 (2004).  本條目結合了美國政府文件中的公共領域資料
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Ronald Dworkin. Why It Was a Great Victory. The New York Review of Books. 2008-8-14 [23 February 2017]. 
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Neal Katyal, The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Comment: Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: The Legal Academy Goes to Practice, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 65 (2006).
  4. ^ Raymond Bonner. Forever Guantánamo. The New York Review of Books. 2008-4-17 [25 February 2017]. 
  5. ^ The Center for Constitutional Rights
  6. ^ Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D.D.C. 2002).
  7. ^ Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339英語List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 339 U.S. 763 (1950).
  8. ^ Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
  9. ^ Rasul v. Bush. Oyez Project. [23 February 2017]. 
  10. ^ Linda Greenhouse. THE SUPREME COURT: DETAINEES; ACCESS TO COURTS. The New York Times. 29 June 2004: A1 [25 February 2017]. 
  11. ^ 11.0 11.1 Ronald Dworkin. What the Court Really Said. The New York Review of Books. 12 August 2004 [23 February 2017]. 
  12. ^ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Oyez Project. [23 February 2017]. 
  13. ^ Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. at 482, citing e.g., King v Schiever, 2 Burr. 765, 97 Eng. Rep. 551 (K. B. 1759) (reviewing the habeas petition of a neutral alien deemed a prisoner of war because he was captured aboard an enemy French privateer during a war between England and France); Somerset v Stewart, 20 How. St. Tr. 1, 79-82 (K. B. 1772) (releasing on habeas an African slave purchased in Virginia and detained on a ship docked in England and bound for Jamaica); Case of the Hottentot Venus, 13 East 195, 104 Eng. Rep. 344 (K. B. 1810) (reviewing the habeas petition of a "native of South Africa" allegedly held in private custody).
  14. ^ Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. at 488 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment).
  15. ^ Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. at 506 (Scalia, J., dissenting).
  16. ^ Dana Priest, Dan Eggen. Terror Suspect Alleges Torture: Detainee Says U.S. Sent Him to Egypt Before Guantanamo. Washington Post. 6 January 2005 [1 September 2007]. 
  17. ^ "Australians saw Habib tortured, says officer", Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 2011, accessed 25 January 2011. Quote: "DAMNING evidence from an Egyptian intelligence officer that names an Australian official who witnessed the torture of Sydney man Mamdouh Habib in [Egypt] has been revealed as the trigger for a hushed-up government payout to Mr Habib and a high-level investigation."
  18. ^ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Joseph P. Thai, The Law Clerk Who Wrote Rasul v. Bush: John Paul Stevens’s Influence from World War II to the War on Terror, 92 Va. L. Rev. 501 (2006).
  19. ^ Daniel Meltzer & Richard Fallon, Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction, Substantive Rights, and the War on Terror, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 2029 (2007).
  20. ^ Note, Daniel Freeman, One Case, Two Decisions: Khalid v. Bush, In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, and the Neutral Decisionmaker, 24 Yale Law & Policy Review 241 (2006).
  21. ^ Khalid v. Bush, 355 F. Supp. 2d 311 (D.D.C. 2005).
  22. ^ In re Guantanamo Detainee Cases, 355 F. Supp. 2d 443 (D.D.C. 2005).
  23. ^ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 415 F.3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
  24. ^ Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Oyez Project. [23 February 2017]. 
  25. ^ David D. Cole. Why the Court Said No. The New York Review of Books. 10 August 2006 [23 February 2017]. 
  26. ^ The Supreme Court, 2007 Term — Leading Cases, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 395 (2008).
  27. ^ Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
  28. ^ Boumediene v. Bush. Oyez Project. [23 February 2017]. 

Further reading

[編輯]
[編輯]