慰安婦像の存在がウィーン条約に違反するという考え方は、ほとんどの国では支持されなさそうな感じ*1。
アメリカ（ナチスドイツやファシストイタリア大使館前での抗議を抑制するための法令が1988年に無効化）
http://theconversation.com/statue-wars-reveal-contested-history-of-japans-comfort-women-72194State practice and domestic case law
Protest at embassies and consulates are not confined to this region. In 1976, the US Congress removed the provision banning picketing of diplomatic premises outside Washington DC due to fears it violated the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
And in 1988, the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a DC statute banning the display of insulting signs within 500 feet (152 metres) of foreign legations. This was the result of a lawsuit brought by activists seeking to protest before the Soviet and Nicaraguan embassies. The DC statute, which dated back to 1938, was enacted to curb protests before the embassies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
大使館や領事館での抗議は特に制限されていません。1976年に米国議会は憲法修正第1条で保証されている言論及び平和的な集会の自由に違反する恐れがあるとして、ワシントンDC以外にある外交施設に対するデモを禁止する条項を削除しました。その後1988年には、連邦最高裁判所が外国公使館から500フィート（152メートル）以内で侮辱的な表示を掲げることを禁止するDCの法令を違憲として無効としています。ちなみにソ連及びニカラグア大使館の前で抗議運動を進めてきた活動家らによって起こされた裁判の判決です。1938年にまで遡るこのDC法令は、ナチスドイツやファシストイタリアの大使館前での抗議を抑制するために制定されたものでした。
イギリス（罵倒や侮辱的言動、実際の暴力が生じた場合にのみ威厳が損なわれると判断）
In 1984, a British court held that the dignity of mission premises was impaired only if abusive or insulting behaviour or actual violence occurred. The UK government agreed, stating that “the essential requirements are that the work of the mission should not be disrupted, that mission staff are not put in fear, and that there is free access for both staff and visitors.”
http://theconversation.com/statue-wars-reveal-contested-history-of-japans-comfort-women-72194
1984年に英国裁判所は罵倒や侮辱行動や実際の暴力が起きた場合にのみ、外国公館の威厳が損なわれると判断しています。英国政府もそれに同意し「公館業務が妨害されず、公館職員が恐怖を感じず、職員も訪問者も自由にアクセスできることが、必須の要件である」と表明しています。
オーストラリア（サンタクルス虐殺に抗議する十字架を撤去したことがあるが、現在は事実上許容）
In 1992, an East Timorese group in Australia planted 124 white crosses outside the Indonesian embassy to protest an army massacre. But the Australian government removed them in accordance with a regulation purporting to implement its obligation under the Vienna Conventions.
http://theconversation.com/statue-wars-reveal-contested-history-of-japans-comfort-women-72194
The protesters challenged the regulation in court and won the case. But an appeals court reversed by a two-one vote.
The forceful dissent cited international precedents and reasoned that subjective criteria, such as “what the foreign country or its mission considers impairs its dignity” or “any personal desire of a Minister or government to please or placate the country concerned”, could not be decisive. Nor could the dissenting judge see why “fixed noiseless harmless objects bear on dignity” but people chanting or holding banners continue to be permitted.
1992年にオーストラリアの東チモール人グループが軍隊による虐殺（サンタクルス虐殺事件（ディリ事件））に抗議するため、124個の白い十字架をインドネシア大使館の周りに設置しています。これに対して、オーストラリア政府はウィーン条約を適用してこれらを撤去しています。
これに対して抗議者側は法廷で争いこの事件では勝訴しています。しかし、2対1の票決で訴えは破棄されています（この辺の制度がよくわからない）。有力な反対意見が確定されているわけでも、なぜ“固定され音も出さず無害なオブジェクトが威厳に影響するのか”についても反対意見が示されたわけではありませんが、現在は、唱和したり横断幕を掲げる市民は許容されているようです。
韓国（2000年に外国公館が脅迫を受けるような場合にのみ、その抗議を禁止すると判断。2003年に包括的なデモ禁止規定を無効化）
In 2003, the South Korean Constitutional Court has similarly struck down a blanket ban on demonstrations within 100 meters of diplomatic premises. In a 2000 decision, the court balanced the freedom of expression with the interests protected by the Vienna Conventions, namely the security and functioning of the foreign missions, by upholding protest bans only when such interests came under threat.
http://theconversation.com/statue-wars-reveal-contested-history-of-japans-comfort-women-72194
2003年、韓国憲法裁判所は法廷は同様に、外交公館の100メートル以内でのデモに対するに包括的な禁止を無効化しました。それに先立つ2000年に、裁判所は表現の自由とウィーン条約による保護法益、すなわち安全と業務機能、について比較し、その保護法益が脅迫を受けるような場合にのみ、その抗議活動を禁止するという判断を下しています。
韓国日報の記事
부산 일본 영사관 앞 소녀상은 국제법 위반인가（등록 : 2017.02.06 04:40、수정 : 2017.02.06 04:40）
この記事をレコードチャイナが引いて報じています*2。
日本が慰安婦像撤去の根拠として挙げている国際法は、1961年に採択された「ウィーン条約22条2項」の「いかなる侵入や損壊に対しても、公館地域を保護し、公館の安寧の妨害、威厳の侵害を防止するためにすべての適切な措置を執る特別の義務を有する」という条項。同条項は国家間の平和・友好関係に必須の外交・領事活動を保障し、大使館・領事館に対する暴力行為を防止する趣旨であり、1996年7月の駐日韓国大使館正門への車突進事件や2012年7月の駐韓日本大使館正門へのトラック突進事故などがウィーン条約に違反した代表的な例だ。
http://www.recordchina.co.jp/a162816.html
しかし、集会やデモ、暴力行使などによる妨害行為ではなく、造形物の設置が同条項違反に当たるかについては明確な国際法上の判例がない。峨山政策研究院のイ・キボム研究委員は「造形物の設置に関しては判例がないため現時点では明確な答えがない」とし、「国際司法裁判所に付託したとしても、国際法違反と結論付けられる可能性はほぼない」と指摘。慰安婦像が公館の安寧を妨害するとは言えず、仮に公館の威厳を侵害するとしても、すべての適切な措置を執らなかったことへの責任を問える根拠が明確でないという。“すべての適切な措置”は公館の威厳侵害レベルに応じてその程度が変わるが、日本の国旗などが燃やされることと比べると、慰安婦像の設置は義務の程度が小さいと説明している。
イ研究委員は「日本の政治家の“国際法違反”主張は国際法上の根拠が足りない政治・外交的な修辞に過ぎないため、韓国はむしろ、国際法と普遍的な人権の観点から積極的に対応するべきだ」と主張している。
アメリカ・イギリスの事例などを見る限り、峨山政策研究院のイ・キボム研究委員の主張の方が日本政府の主張よりも理があるように思えますね。
http://theconversation.com/statue-wars-reveal-contested-history-of-japans-comfort-women-72194Statue wars reveal contested history of Japan’s ‘comfort women’
February 7, 2017 6.29pm AEDT
On December 30 2016, a South Korean civic group placed a bronze statue of a girl in front of the Japanese consulate in the southern port city of Busan. It commemorates as many as 200,000 enslaved military prostitutes, known as “comfort women”, from Korea and other parts of East Asia under Japanese domination during the second world war. In response, Japan recalled its ambassador.The first such statue was unveiled by the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery outside the Japanese embassy in Seoul on December 14 2011. It marked the 1,000th rally held there weekly without interruption since 1992 to press Japan to make just reparations.
Since then, at least 37 more have sprung up in South Korea with additional statues erected abroad elsewhere by local activists. This action has taken place despite a Japanese anti-statue lobby, and unsuccessful legal challenges. Such statues now exist in the US, Canada, Australia, and China. And a museum dedicated to the Taiwanese victims opened in Taipei last year.
Japan claims the statues violate South Korea’s treaty obligations under the Vienna Conventions, which both countries have ratified. But a closer reading of international law suggests that the statues are protected by the freedom of expression.
What international law?
The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations lay out standard rules of diplomacy. They require host states to prevent “any disturbance of the peace of [the diplomatic mission/consular post] or impairment of its dignity”.
There’s undoubtedly a need to protect diplomatic and consular staff and their premises from any acts of violence or intimidation. And such outrages sadly do occur on the Korean peninsula and elsewhere.
In July 1996, for instance, a Japanese ultranationalist rammed the gate of the South Korean embassy in Tokyo with his car. About 16 years later, a South Korean truck driver returned the favour at the Japanese embassy in Seoul. The South Korean consulate in Kobe has also been smoke-bombed.
As the incidents above illustrate, the two neighbours have had fraught relations for some time. Many Koreans still resent Japan’s usurpation of their national sovereignty and harsh rule during the colonial period (1910-1945).
And prominent Japanese politicians, including Prime Minister Abe Shinzo have caused uproar in the region by denying or downplaying Japan’s past aggression or atrocities such as the “comfort women” or the 1937 Nanking massacre. Nor is the Japanese education system conducive to historical introspection, with regular outrage engendered by historical revisionism.
The recent row over the statues, then, is a part of this continuing struggle over history. But does an ostensibly innocuous display of a symbolic female figures disturb the peace or impair dignity in legal terms?
At issue is the freedom of expression and assembly, a fundamental human right enshrined in most national constitutions including those of Japan and South Korea. That freedom is also protected by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adhered to by 168 countries, including the two East Asian neighbours.State practice and domestic case law
Protest at embassies and consulates are not confined to this region. In 1976, the US Congress removed the provision banning picketing of diplomatic premises outside Washington DC due to fears it violated the freedom of speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment.
And in 1988, the US Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a DC statute banning the display of insulting signs within 500 feet (152 metres) of foreign legations. This was the result of a lawsuit brought by activists seeking to protest before the Soviet and Nicaraguan embassies. The DC statute, which dated back to 1938, was enacted to curb protests before the embassies of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
In 1984, a British court held that the dignity of mission premises was impaired only if abusive or insulting behaviour or actual violence occurred. The UK government agreed, stating that “the essential requirements are that the work of the mission should not be disrupted, that mission staff are not put in fear, and that there is free access for both staff and visitors.”
In 1992, an East Timorese group in Australia planted 124 white crosses outside the Indonesian embassy to protest an army massacre. But the Australian government removed them in accordance with a regulation purporting to implement its obligation under the Vienna Conventions.
The protesters challenged the regulation in court and won the case. But an appeals court reversed by a two-one vote.
The forceful dissent cited international precedents and reasoned that subjective criteria, such as “what the foreign country or its mission considers impairs its dignity” or “any personal desire of a Minister or government to please or placate the country concerned”, could not be decisive. Nor could the dissenting judge see why “fixed noiseless harmless objects bear on dignity” but people chanting or holding banners continue to be permitted.
In 2003, the South Korean Constitutional Court has similarly struck down a blanket ban on demonstrations within 100 meters of diplomatic premises. In a 2000 decision, the court balanced the freedom of expression with the interests protected by the Vienna Conventions, namely the security and functioning of the foreign missions, by upholding protest bans only when such interests came under threat.Other legal considerations
In 2015, Seoul acknowledged Japanese concerns about the statue outside the latter’s embassy in a joint “announcement” on the “comfort women” issued by the Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers on December 28.
It pledged to “strive to solve this issue in an appropriate manner through taking measures such as consulting with related organisations about possible ways of addressing this issue”. But the convoluted wording of the announcement appears to tacitly recognise that the government cannot simply remove the statues by fiat.
It is worth noting that Japan can sue South Korea for the alleged violations of the Vienna Conventions before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which can exercise jurisdiction only with the consent of both parties.
This is because both countries have given consent to ICJ jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of the Vienna Conventions by ratifying the 1961 and 1963 Optional Protocols to the Vienna Conventions.What recourse?
The dozens of “comfort girl” statues that have sprung up not only in South Korea but also in the US, Canada, Australia, China and Taiwan since 2011 may, in fact, be contributing to the nationalist reactions in the two nations.
For South Koreans, the issue comes down to anger at Japan for its brutal colonial rule (1910-1945), as much as human rights concerns for the victims. But the country’s failure to acknowledge atrocities committed by its own military during the Vietnam War leaves it open to charges of hypocrisy.
None of this, of course, absolves Japanese responsibility for a crime against humanity that has been condemned as the “largest human trafficking case of the past century”. And it might be wiser for Japan to take measures to shore up the 2015 accord with South Korea.
Instead of being recalled, the Japanese ambassador could have met and spoken with the survivors. Japan could also extend compensation to the Taiwanese and Filipino “comfort women” as they have been demanding.
Such actions may induce the voluntary relocation of the statues. And they would mean Japan would also be living up to its professed commitment to the shared fundamental values of freedom, democracy and human rights.
