20170406 美上訴高院 針對林2案 判決翻譯文
20170406美上訴高院 針對林2案 翻譯文
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Risenhoover Dr. Paul Maas:
林2案大大地勝利﹗
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment claim against both the United States and Taiwan on the basis of redressability.
美國上訴巡迴華府高等法院裁決並解釋本院認同地方法院無法給予原告群體所需之有效司法救濟﹐因此判決無有關司法解釋訴求之可進行裁決之美國憲法所稱司法爭執。
We agree with the district court that plaintiffs' alleged loss of Japanese citizenship and resulting statelessness is an injury in fact. Id. at 250-51.
本院同意地方法院所認為原告，所主張ALLEGED喪失其原有日本公民國籍，與所因此而產生之無國籍狀態，確實屬事實傷害及損失。
But the plaintiffs did not establish that it is ‥likely, as opposed to
merely speculative," that a declaratory judgment holding the 1946 decrees illegal would redress their injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (internal quotation omitted).
可是原告無法證明本院司法裁決能夠恢復他們原有而因1946年訓令所喪失之損失及傷害之有效救濟。
Plaintiffs' injury can only be redressed by foreign nations not before
the court. See id. at 562.
唯有不參與本案之其他外國政府(意味著日本)才能給予原告群體其所需及訴求之救濟﹐本院無法有效救濟。
General Chiang Kai-shek and his government fled to Taiwan and established the Republic of China in exile
蔣委員長逃脫到台灣島並設立了中華民國於流亡中
but it maintains unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan and ‥strategic ambiguity with respect to sovereignty over Taiwan." Id. (internal quotation omitted). See also Amended Complaint ? 75.
美國維持與台灣島島民之非官方關係乃不表態針對台灣島之主權表示之策略模糊立場
the United Nations cannot confer citizenship or force a member-state to
confer citizenship.
聯合國無法給予國籍﹐乃無法逼迫成員國(日本)給予國籍或歸化
Sovereign nations control their own citizenship.
主權國家(日本)負責自己國籍之呼籲事項
The United Nations' conventions to prevent statelessness do not require signatory nations to confer citizenship on the residents of Taiwan.
聯合國公約有關無國籍人士救濟並未規定簽署國(日本)必須給予台灣島居民其國籍(甦醒)。
See generally Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 360 U.N.T.S. 117 (Sep. 28, 1954); Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness,989 U.N.T.S. 175 (Aug. 30, 1961). The unusual status of residents of Taiwan is not new, and no nation has acted to redress it.
台灣島島民特別不尋常身份地位並非屬新事項﹐乃目前並無任何國家採取措施給予有效救濟。
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that a court ruling invalidating the 1946 decrees would likely cause these foreign nations to provide relief.
原告群體並未證明本院司法解釋1946訓令確實無效無誤而因此能夠救濟而逼迫其他外國國家(日本)會因此而比較有可能給予有效救濟。
See
Cardenas v. Smith, 733 F.2d 909, 914 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Greater Tampa Chamber
of Commerce v. Goldschmidt, 627 F.2d 258, 263 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Taiwan concedes, and we agree, that their injury is ‥fairly traceable" to the 1946 decrees. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 (internal quotation and alteration omitted).
台灣(自稱中華民國)已於本案進行中正式承認﹐乃本院認同及同意﹐該損失傷害情形係確實基於該1946年之訓令無誤。
We will not resolve the question.
針對法定管轄權﹐本院不表示我們市府有針對本案之管轄權﹐因憲法規定必須能夠給予有效救濟才能管轄﹐就算確實有管轄權無誤。
Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), prevents
the court from assuming Article III jurisdiction, but we may address a case's merits in order to ‥avoid a doubtful issue of statutory jurisdiction." Chalabi v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, 543 F.3d 725, 728 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation omitted).
雖然本院依據憲法規定不得管轄無法給予有效救濟之案件﹐但還是可依據司法職權解釋本案之實質司法權問題及內容﹐以便避免法定管轄權之疑慮事項。
We affirm the district court's dismissal of the claim for damages on the alternative ground that the case is untimely.
我們本院也基於另外一個理由而認同地方法院之裁決﹐因我們認為提出本案之時間太晚﹐雖然依法可管轄該實質損害之賠償訴求無誤。
See United States ex rel. Heath v. AT&T, Inc., 791 F.3d 112, 123 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The statute of limitations for a common-law tort is three years, D.C. Code ” 2-301(8).
華府法定訴求時間限制於三年內
The Republic of China issued the challenged decrees in 1946.
中華民國於1946年發佈了該被訴求救濟之損害訓令
Plaintiffs' 2015 complaint is more than sixty years too late.
因此原告於2015年之狀子屬六十多年晚了
Plaintiffs do not claim that they only became aware of their loss of Japanese citizenship and statelessness within the last three years.
原告並未表示而主張其日本國籍之喪失及無國籍狀態結果屬乃係前三年內所發生及知曉之
Therefore, even if they could prove a continuing tort, they could only recover
for acts within the last three years. And plaintiffs have not alleged any injurious acts in that period.
就算原告可證明該損失屬持續性﹐只能得到前三年之損失之賠償。並且原告狀子未提出任何在此三年內之損害事項。
