二次大战期间日本使用中国强制劳工人数初考

本参照纽伦堡国际军事法庭审判纳粹德国使用强制劳工罪时形成的相关法规．运用国内新发掘出的大量日本和伪政权的重要档案献以及国内外研究成果。对日本法西斯在二次大战期间在中国各沦陷区(主要是东北、华北沦陷区,也包括蒙疆、华中、华南沦陷区)强征输出和使用的中国强制劳工主要类别与人数。分别进行了简要考证和计算。并在此基础上加以综合。对战争期间日本强征使用中国强制劳工的总数进行了初步考证。     

A New Right to Property: Civil War Confiscation in the Reconstruction Supreme Court

During the Civil War, both the Union Congress and the Confederate Congress put in place sweeping confiscation programs designed to seize the private property of enemy citizens on a massive scale. Meeting in special session in August 1861, the U.S. Congress passed the First Confiscation Act, authorizing the federal government to seize the property of those participating directly in the rebellion. ¹ The Confederate Congress retaliated on August 30, 1861, passing the Sequestration Act. ² This law authorized the Confederate government to forever seize the real and personal property of "alien enemies," a term that included every U.S. citizen and all those living in the Confederacy who remained loyal to the Union.     

Cold War historiography at the crossroads

How is the Cold War understood in an expanding and diversifying historiographical field? Conceptual precision and specificity seem to be giving way to a looser understanding of the Cold War as an era that encompassed different although interconnected conflicts and transformations. Some scholars ask for specificity and consistency while current centrifugal trends point to multiple approaches and centres of interest. Diversity is galvanising the field, but historians need to (re)define their object of inquiry and strive for at least a minimum of conceptual clarity. In particular, we should aim at a broad cultural understanding of the Cold War, contextualise it in larger processes of historical change without confusing the two dimensions, and reassess relations between Europe and other Cold War contexts.     

Imperial Britain at War

An Imperial State at War: Britain from 1689 to 1815. Edited by Lawrence Stone (London: Routledge, 1994), 374 pp., £40.00 cloth.     

The Supreme Court in Times of Hot and Cold War: Learning from the Sounds of Silence for a War on Terrorism

Justice William J. Brennan once remarked that the Court has never fully developed a jurisprudence of national security. It is simply too episodic, he said. ¹ Our present Chief Justice would, it would seem, largely agree, though his own research shows some greater willingness for the Court to superintend—at least after the fact ² —the actions of the executive in times of war or similar crisis. My assignment in this essay was to ask the question slightly differently; namely, has the posture of the Court differed in times of hot or cold war, and if so, how has it differed? As will be evident momentarily, that question is less helpful to our present circumstance than it might seem. Why? Because, frankly, we are in neither a hot nor cold war, but something quite different ³ —something that has the potential to be not only hot, but blistering, and something which will likely never be fully appreciated as having gone truly cold.