International Military Tribunal for the Far East

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
President of the Tribunal, Sir William Webb, Justice of the High Court of Australia, presiding over the Tribunal in 1946.
President of the Tribunal, Sir William Webb, Justice of the High Court of Australia, presiding over the Tribunal in 1946.

This article deals with the trials of Japanese politicians and senior military officers in relation to incidents during World War II. For more general information see: Japanese war crimes.

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), also known as the Tokyo Trials, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal or simply as the Tribunal, was convened to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for three types of crimes: "Class A" (crimes against peace), "Class B" (war crimes), and "Class C" (crimes against humanity), committed during World War II. The first refers to their joint conspiracy to start and wage the war, and the latter two refer to atrocities including the Nanking Massacre. War crimes charges against more junior personnel were dealt with separately, in other cities throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The tribunal convened on May 3, 1946, and was adjourned on November 12, 1948.

Twenty-five Japanese military and political leaders were charged with Class A crimes, and more than 300,000 Japanese nationals were charged with Class B and C crimes, mostly over prisoner abuse. The crimes perpetrated by Japanese troops and authorities in the occupation of Korea and China, particularly Manchuria (Manchukuo), were not part of the proceeding. China held 13 tribunals of its own, resulting in 504 convictions and 149 executions.

The Japanese Emperor Hirohito and Prince Asaka were not prosecuted for any alleged involvement in any of the three categories of crimes. Kishi Nobusuke, who was held as a suspected Class A criminal but never tried, later became Prime Minister.

Contents

[edit] Creation of the court

The legal basis for the trial was established by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (CIMTFE) that was proclaimed on 19 January 1946. CIMTFE set down the laws and procedures by which the IMTFE trials were to be conducted, including the types of crimes. On 25 April 1946 in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of the CIMTFE the original Rules of Procedure of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East with amendments were promulgated. [1][2][3]

A panel of eleven judges presided over the IMTFE, one each from victorious Allied powers (United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Republic of China, the Netherlands, Provisional Government of the French Republic, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, British India, and the Philippines).

[edit] Prosecutors

Country Prosecutor
Chief Prosecutor (USA) Joseph Keenan
Australia Justice Alan Mansfield
Canada Brigadier Henry Nolan
Republic of China Hsiang Che-Chun
Provisional Government of the French Republic Robert L. Oneto
British India P. Govinda Menon, who later became a judge of the Madras High Court and later, in the Supreme Court of India.
Netherlands W.G. Frederick Borgerhoff-Mulder
New Zealand Brigadier Ronald Quilliam
Philippines Pedro Lopez
UK Arthur Comyns-Carr
USSR Minister S.A. Golunsky

[edit] Judges

Country Judge Remarks
Australia Sir William Webb Justice of the High Court of Australia; was the President of the Tribunal
Canada Edward Stuart McDougall Former Judge, King's Bench Appeal Side
Republic of China Major-General Mei Ju-ao Attorney and Member, Legislative Yuan
Provisional Government of the French Republic Henri Bernard Chief Prosecutor, First Military Tribunal in Paris
British India Radhabinod Pal Lecturer, University of Calcutta Law College; Provided dissenting opinion.
Netherlands Professor Bert Röling Professor of Law, Utrecht University
New Zealand Harvey Northcroft Judge Advocate General of New Zealand
Philippines Colonel Delfin Jaranilla Attorney General, Supreme Court Member
UK Hon Lord Patrick Judge (Scottish), Senator of the College of Justice
USA John P. Higgins Chief Justice, Massachusetts State Superior Court
Major-General Cramer Replaced Judge Higgins in July 1946
USSR Major-General I.M. Zarayanov Member, Military Collegium of the Supreme Court

[edit] Charges

Count Offense
1 As leaders, organisers, instigators, or accomplices in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to wage wars of aggression, and war or wars in violation of international law.
27 Waging unprovoked war against China.
29 Waging aggressive war against the United States.
31 Waging aggressive war against the British Commonwealth.
32 Waging aggressive war against the Netherlands.
33 Waging aggressive war against France (Indochina).
35,36 Waging aggressive war against the USSR.
54 Ordered, authorised, and permitted inhumane treatment of Prisoners of War (POWs) and others.
55 Deliberately and recklessly disregarded their duty to take adequate steps to prevent atrocities.

[edit] Sentences

Wide view of the Tribunal, depicting the bench of judges in the background, and prisoners on trial in the right foreground.
Wide view of the Tribunal, depicting the bench of judges in the background, and prisoners on trial in the right foreground.

There were 28 defendants tried, mostly military and political leaders. Two defendants (Matsuoka Yosuke and Nagano Osami) died of natural causes during the trial. Okawa Shumei had a nervous breakdown during the trial and was removed.

Seven others were sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. They were executed at Sugamo Prison in Ikebukuro on December 23, 1948:

Sixteen more were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three (Koiso, Shiratori, and Umezu) died in prison, while the other thirteen were paroled in 1955:

Two defendants received finite sentences. Foreign minister Togo Shigenori was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and died in prison in 1949. Foreign minister Shigemitsu Mamoru was sentenced to 7 years but was paroled in 1950 and went on to serve as foreign minister again in Prime Minister Ichirō Hatoyama's cabinet.

[edit] Subsidiary and related trials

The Khabarovsk War Crime Trials held by the Soviets tried and found guilty some members of Japan's bacteriological and chemical warfare unit (Unit 731). However those who surrendered to the Americans were never brought to trial as General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological weapons.

In 1981, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an article by John W. Powell detailing Unit 731 experiments and germ warfare open-air tests on civilian populations. It was printed with a statement by judge B. V. A. Röling, the last surviving member of the Tokyo Tribunal. Röling wrote that "As one of the judges in the International Military Tribunal, it is a bitter experience for me to be informed now that centrally ordered Japanese war criminality of the most disgusting kind was kept secret from the Court by the U.S. government." [4]

[edit] Criticism

The IMTFE shared many of the same criticisms as the Nuremberg Trials, including the ex post facto nature of the IMTFE. The critics are divided between those who argue that the trial was the victor's justice and those for whom the trial was essentially a legal procedure to exonarate the imperial family from criminal responsibility.

It is also argued by some, such as Solis Horowitz, that IMTFE had an American bias, because unlike the Nuremberg Trials, there was only a single prosecution team, which was led by Joseph B. Keenan, an American, although the members of the tribunal represented eleven different Allied countries. [5]

The IMTFE had less official support than the Nuremberg Trials. For example, Chief Prosecutor Joe Keenan, a former US assistant attorney general, had a much lower position than Nuremberg's Robert H. Jackson, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Victor's justice

Radhabinod Pal, the Indian justice at the IMTFE, argued in his dissenting opinion that Japan was innocent. He wrote, "If Japan is judged, the Allies should also be judged equally." However, his opinion was not shared by the majority of the justices at Tokyo.

On the other hand, it is worth to referring to the Potsdam Declaration which the major Allies gave consent to and had clear intention to shorten the war period. The Allies did not want more bloodshed after Germany was defeated. They agreed to the term "the unconditional surrender of Japanese Armed Force", not the surrender of the Government of Japan. In this sense Japan did not surrender unconditionally, and the Japanese nation did not suffer the debellation which the Third Reich did[6].

The restriction of trial and punishment by the IMTFE to personnel of Japan has led to accusations of victor's justice and that Allied war crimes could not be tried. However it is usual that the armed forces of a civilised country [7] issue their forces with detailed guidance on what is and is not permitted under their military code. These are drafted to include any international treaty obligations and the customary laws of war. If a member of the armed forces breaks their own military code they can expect to face a court martial. When members of the Allied armed forces broke their military codes they could be and were tried, for example the Biscari Massacre trials. The unconditional surrender of the Axis powers was unusual and led directly to the formation of the international tribunals. Usually international wars end conditionally and the treatment of suspected war criminals makes up part of the peace treaty. In most cases those who are not prisoners of war are tried under their own judicial system if they are suspected of committing war crimes – as happened at the end of the concurrent Continuation War and led to the war-responsibility trials in Finland. In restricting the international tribunal to trying suspected Axis war crimes, the Allies were acting within normal international law.

A procedure to exonerate the imperial family

Many historians criticize the work made by Douglas MacArthur and his staff to exonerate Emperor Showa and all members of the imperial family implicated in the war such as prince Chichibu, prince Takeda, prince Asaka, prince Higashikuni and prince Fushimi [8].

Before the war crimes trials actually convened, SCAP, the IPS and shôwa officials worked behind the scenes not only to prevent the imperial family being indicted, but also to slant the testimony of the defendants to ensure that no one implicated the Emperor. High officials in court circles and the shôwa government collaborated with allied GHQ in compiling lists of prospective war criminals, while the individuals arrested as Class A suspects and incarcerated in Sugamo prison solemnly vowed to protect their sovereign against any possible taint of war responsibility. [9]

According to Herbert Bix, "Mac Arthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war" and "months before the Tokyo tribunal commenced, Mac Arthur highest subordinates were working to attribute ultimate responsibility for Pearl Harbor to Hideki Tojo." [10] Bix also argue that Brigadier General Bonner Fellers "immediatly on landing in Japan went to work to protect Hirohito from the role he had played during and at the end of the war" and "allowed the major criminal suspects to coordinate their stories so that the Emperor would be spared from indictment." [11]

For John Dower, "This successful campaign to absolve the Emperor of war responsibility knew no bounds. Hirohito was not merely presented as being innocent of any formal acts that might make him culpable to indictment as a war criminal. He was turned into an almost saintly figure who did not even bear moral responsibility for the war. [12] and "Even Japanese activists who endorse the ideals of the Nuremberg and Tokyo charters, and who have labored to document and publicize the atrocities of the shôwa regime, cannot defend the American decision to exonerate the emperor of war responsibility and then, in the chill of the Cold war, release and soon afterwards openly embrace accused right-winged war criminals like the later prime minister Nobusuke Kishi. [13]

According to the written report of Shûichi Mizota, the interpreter of admiral Mitsumasa Yonai, Fellers met the two men at his office on March 6 1946 and told Yonai that : "it would be most convenient if the Japanese side could prove to us that the Emperor is completly blameless. I think the forthcoming trials offer the best opportunity to do that. Tôjô, in particular, should be made to bear all responsibility at this trial. [14]

Three judges wrote an obiter dictum about the criminal responsibility of Hirohito. Judge in chief Webb declared that "No ruler can commit the crime of launching aggressive war and then validly claim to be excused for doing so because his life would otherwise have been in danger...It will remain that the men who advised the commission of a crime, if it be one, are in no worse position than the man who directs the crime be committed." [15]

Judge Henri Bernard of France concluded that Japan's declaration of war "had a principal author who escaped all prosecution and of whom in any case the present Defendants could only be considered as accomplices."[16]

For judge B. V. A. Röling however, nothing objectable could be found in the Emperor's immunity and five defendants, Kido, Hata, Hirota, Shigemitsu and Tôgô should have been acquitted.

[edit] 60th anniversary

In a survey of 3,000 Japanese conducted in 2006 by Asahi News as the 60th anniversary approached, 70% of those questioned were unaware of the details of the trials, a figure that rose to 90% for those in the 20-29 age group. Some 76% of the people polled, however, recognized a certain degree of aggression on Japan's part during the war, while only 7% believed it was a war strictly for self-defense. [1]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East
  2. ^ Within documents relating to the IMTFE it is also referred to as the Charter
  3. ^ Rules of Procedure of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East 25 April 1946
  4. ^ Daniel Barenblatt, A plague upon humanity, Harper Collins, 2004, p.222.
  5. ^ Horowitz, Solis. (1950). "The Tokio Trial". International Conciliation 465 (Nov): 473-584. 
  6. ^ ICRC Commentaries on the Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 5 "The German capitulation was both political, involving the dissolution of the Government, and military, whereas the Japanese capitulation was only military".
  7. ^ Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity contained in the Avalon Project archive at Yale Law School. "but by 1939 these rules laid down in the [Hague] Convention [of 1907] were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war"
  8. ^ John Dower, Embracing defeat, 1999, Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2000
  9. ^ Dower, ibid. p.325
  10. ^ Bix, ibid. p585
  11. ^ Bix, ibid., p.583
  12. ^ Dower, ibid., p.326
  13. ^ Dower, ibid. p.562
  14. ^ Kumao Toyoda, Sensô saiban yoroku, Taiseisha Kabushiki Kaisha, 1986, p.170-172, Bix, ibid. p.584.
  15. ^ Röling and Ruter, The Tokyo judgement : The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 29 April 1946-12 November 1948, volume 1, p.478
  16. ^ ibid. p.496


International criminal law
Sources of law:
Charter of the IMT - Command responsibility - Crime against international law - Crime against humanity
Crime against peace - Crime of apartheid - Crime of genocide - Customary law - Laws of war - Nuremberg Principles
Peremptory norm - Rome Statute - Universal jurisdiction - War crime - War of aggression
Courts:
War responsibility trials in Finland - International Military Tribunal for Europe
International Military Tribunal for the Far East - Khabarovsk War Crime Trials
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - Tribunal for Rwanda - Court for Sierra Leone
International Criminal Court
History:
List of war crimes - List of war criminals
This box: view • talk • edit
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East_b0d0.html"