|
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, the latter two refers to atrocities including 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 (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.
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. 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, France, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, and the Philippines). Prosecutors Judges Charges Sentences 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 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. 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. Criticism The IMTFE shared many of the same criticisms as the Nuremberg Trials, including the ex post facto nature of the IMTFE. Solis Horowitz argued 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. • 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 that Nuremberg's Robert H. Jackson, a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. 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. 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 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. 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. * See also Further reading Footnotes | ||||||||
|
--> | |||||||||
 |
|
| |