日本最高法院判決夫妻同姓不違憲

Married couples in Japan must keep using the same surname after the country’s supreme court ruled that a century-old law is constitutional.

日本最高法院裁定該國一項有百年曆史的法條符合憲法，日本的夫妻雙方必須繼續使用同一姓氏。

The decision is a blow to women’s rights campaigners who argue the requirement for married couples to use the same name violates their constitutional right to equality.

這項裁定對婦女權利活動人士是一個打擊。這些活動人士認爲，要求夫妻使用同一姓氏違反了憲法賦予她們的男女平等權利。

The ruling throws the fight over married names back to Japan’s parliament, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s enthusiasm for putting women in the work.orce is much greater than his appetite for human rights or social reform.

這項裁定將婚後姓氏之爭拋回了日本國會，而日本首相安倍晉三(Shinzo Abe)對推動女性加入勞動力大軍的熱情遠大於他對人權或社會改革的興趣。

It shows the continuing battle for gender equality in Japan, where traditional roles are still deeply rooted, and women often face discrimination at work. Mr Abe has set targets for women in management positions but passed few concrete reforms.

這項裁定表明，日本女性爭取男女平等的鬥爭仍將繼續。在日本，男性和女性仍然很難掙脫自己要扮演的傳統角色，而且女性在職場常常遭受歧視。雖然安倍設定了管理層中女性佔比的目標，但並未通過多少具體的改革措施。

Five plaintiffs sued the government in 2011 seeking compensation for their distress at being forced to change their names. After losing at lower levels, they appealed to the Supreme Court.

2011年，5名原告起訴日本政府，以苦於被迫改姓爲由向國家提出賠償要求。在較低級別的法院敗訴後，她們上訴至最高法院。

“One view is that by having to change their name, a person loses their identity, but it has become easier to keep using it as a popular name so this is not unconstitutional,” said Itsuro Terada, chief justice of the Supreme Court.

日本最高法院首席大法官寺田逸郎(Itsuro Terada)說：“一種觀點認爲，被迫改姓讓個人失去了自我認同，但繼續使用原姓作爲日常用姓已變得更爲容易，所以這並不違憲。”

Mr Terada said the law was not discriminatory because couples could choose the man’s or the woman’s surname. In practice, however, more than 90 per cent of women adopt their husband’s name and some companies require staff to work under their legal name.

寺田稱，該法條並不構成歧視，因爲夫妻雙方可選擇隨男方或隨女方的姓。然而，在現實中，超過90%的女性婚後隨夫姓，而且有些公司要求員工在工作中使用法定姓名。

Reports from the courtroom said five of the 15 judges had dissented, agreeing the law was unconstitutional, raising the prospect that the Supreme Court will revisit the law in the future. Opinion polls show the public is split roughly 50-50, although younger generations want to change the law.

來自法庭的報道稱，15名法官中有5名持有異議，認爲該法條違憲。這帶來了最高法院未來重新審議該法條的可能性。民調顯示，對這一問題持對立看法的公衆數量大致相當，儘管較年輕的人羣希望修改該法條。

Campaigners were victorious in a second case, however, with the Supreme Court striking down another 19th-century law requiring women, but not men, to wait for six months after a divorce before getting remarried.

然而，活動人士在另一起案子中勝訴：日本最高法院推翻了另一項源於19世紀的法條——該法條要求女性離婚後6個月內不得再婚，對男性則無此要求。

The law on remarriage is supposed to prevent disputes about who fathered children — of vital importance in the Meiji era when inheritances were at stake but less relevant with the advent of DNA paternity tests.

這項針對再婚的法條本意是爲了防止搞不清楚離婚後出生的子女的生父是誰而產生的糾紛——在遺產繼承利害攸關的明治時代，這一點至關重要，但隨着DNA親子鑑定技術的出現，其重要性已經降低。

“With the advance of technology, at this point any period in excess of 100 days is an excessive restriction,” said Mr Terada. Depending on how the government applies the law, the remaining 100-day restriction will probably apply only to pregnant women, leaving most able to remarry immediately.

寺田說：“隨着技術的進步，在這一點上，任何超過100天的期限都是過度的限制。”仍保留的100天限制很可能將僅適用於孕婦，而大多數離異女性都可立即再婚，具體怎樣將取決於日本政府如何實行該法條。

“In the 21st century, people are no longer getting married for their family but for themselves,” said Tomoshi Sakka, the lawyer who brought the case on behalf of a women in her 30s from Okayama prefecture. “From that perspective I think it’s a great decision.”

“在21世紀，人們不再爲自己的家族、而是爲自己結婚，”代表岡山縣一名30多歲的女性提起訴訟的律師作花知志(Tomoshi Sakka)說，“從這一角度看，我認爲這是一個偉大的決定。”

Yoshihide Suga, chief cabinet secretary, said the government would move quickly to revise the law so as to comply with the 100-day limit.

日本內閣官房長官菅義偉(Yoshihide Suga)表示，政府將盡快修訂該法條，以便符合100天的限制。