Research On The Jurisdiction On Crimes Against Peace Of The Tokyo Trial

In the final verdict issued by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East against Japanese Class-A war criminals,the court imposed corresponding penalties on the defendants.However,Judge Pal,from India,made a complete objection to the court’s jurisdiction through his “Dissenting Opinion”.The most central part of it is to deny the court’s jurisdiction over Crimes against Peace.The first chapter of this article first summarizes the legal basis of the Tokyo Trial.The first section explained the legal basis for the establishment of the Far East International Military Tribunal.The second section introduces the crimes applicable in the Tokyo Trial,the Crimes against Peace(aggression),the Conventional War Crimes,and the Crimes against Humanity.The third section analyzes Pal’s activities in the Tokyo Trial and his political position.The second chapter of this article introduces the views in the Pal’s Dissenting Opinion.Pal’s total negation of the court’s jurisdiction over Crimes against Peace was mainly carried out in the following aspects.The first section introduced Pal’s view on nullum crimen sine lege and the principle of non-retroactivity of law.He believes that at the time of the war,there was no international legal norm that criminalized the aggressive behavior as an offence,and because the provision of Crimes against Peace in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East is an "ex-post law",the court therefore cannot refer to this provision.The second section introduced Pal’s viewpoint on the nature of aggression.Here,he believes that there is no clear standard for the determination of aggression and that there is an ambiguity betweenaggression and self-defense.Therefore,the definition of Crimes against Peace itself is ambiguous.The third section introduced Pal’s views on the period of the war.He believed that as certain periods of war did not meet the requirements of time,the tribunal could not rule over the acts of war that occurred during this period.The forth section presents Pal’s view of whether the defendant can assume responsibility in international law as an individual.Pal concluded that the defendant should not assume responsibility for international law as an individual.The fifth section describes the interpretation of the Pal’s Dissenting Opinion by the Japanese right wing and the association between the Abe family and Pal.The third chapter of this article analyzes and refutes the views in Pal’s Dissenting Opinion.In the first section of the third chapter,regarding the view on nullum crimen sine lege and the principle of non-retroactivity of law,we cannot use a narrow angle of view to look at these principles.First of all,before the Second World War,there are rules of international law prohibiting war among nations.Japan must assume responsibility for violations of international law.Second,even for the Conventional War Crimes,there is no corresponding convictional or punitive provisions,and Pal’s logic is not uniform.In addition,the way of trial to punish and pursue responsibility has been a modest treatment to the criminals.Finally,according to a series of documents concluded between these countries,defendants should also accept trials and sanctions by the tribunal.In connection with the relevant contents of the Potsdam Proclamation and the Japanese Instrument of Surrender,the creation of the relevant crimes by the Charter and the corresponding sanctions are "appropriate measures" by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers to implement the surrender clause.In international law,countries may exclude the principle of non-retroactivity of the applicable law according to the agreement between countries.If rigidly applying these two principles,the defendant’s exemption from punishment,would violate the original intention of the principles.In the second section of the third chapter,regarding the point of view of the nature of "aggression",Pal’s view has obvious misidentification.First,Japan has obvious initiative in the use of force.Second,Japan does not have the subjective requirements for self-defense.Thirdly,Japan has foreseen the launch of the war.Moreover,Japan does not have the right to protect itself from self-defense.Finally,even if Japan’s behavior is deemed "self-defense",it exceeds the necessary limits.In the third section of the third chapter,on the point of view of the identification of war deadlines,we can perform the following analysis.First,for Pal’s so-called“ended war”,first of all,the “end” of the war does not mean that crimes related to this war does not need to be punished.Moreover,the aforementioned wars did not really "end";they were actually parts of Japan’s entire war of aggression.Second,for Pal’s determination of the start of the war,he did not properly examine the time when the war between China and Japan really began.In the fourth section of the third chapter,on whether individuals should bear the responsibility of international law,Pal’s conclusion process was very rushed and sloppy.He did not evaluate the Japanese war criminals’ specific performance in the battlefield.However,it should be noted that,first of all,in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender,it can be asserted that Japan is willing to make compromises so that Japanese war criminals can take responsibility.Moreover,in the view of the development of international criminal responsibility in modern international law,individual responsibility is the appearance,and the responsibility of the state is the essence.The fourth chapter of this article explores the impact of the Tokyo Trial on international law and international criminal law by demonstrating the jurisdiction of the Tokyo Trial over the Crimes against Peace.In the first section,it first analyzes the new developments of nullum crimen sine lege and the principle of non-retroactivity of law.The second section points out that the trial of war crimes through an international tribunal is the creation of international law.The third section analyzes the role played by the Tokyo Trial in convicting aggression.