The Far East And Japanese War Criminals Punishment Committee

After the second world war, the allies paid great attention to the punishment of theJapanese war criminals. To punish the Japanese war criminals is a way to seek justicefor those countries which had suffered immensely from the scourge of war andaggression, meanwhile, it involved the development of the international law, thus itwas of great significances to the peace of the world in the future. The Far EasternCommission was an international organization in which the allies against Japancooperated in formulating the policies of Japanese war criminals. With no doubt, itdid something important as far as the affair of the Japanese war criminals concerned.Facing the fait accompli caused by the General Headquarters, the Far EasternCommission immediately devoted itself to the formulating of policy toward Japanesewar criminals, after its establishment. It aimed to achieve a policy decision with thecooperation of its members and got itself into the activities of the supremecommander of the allied powers in the respect of war criminals in the Far East.The committee No.5was in charge of the affairs about war criminals. It made greatefforts in the matters with Japanese war criminals.This paper was divided into seven chapters. The first chapter reviewed briefly aboutthe history of the trials of war criminals before the second world war, the discussionamong the heads of the allied powers on war criminals, the establishment ofinternational organizations dealing with war criminals, and the trial of war criminalsby Japanese government.The second chapter made clear that how America formed its policy towardsJapanese war criminals gradually with the development of the world situation. It alsodescribed the activities taken by American government in order to carry its policytoward war criminals, including the sole occupation of Japan, the appointment ofMacArthur as the supreme commander of the allied powers, the apprehension of warcriminals, the establishment of the international prosecution section with Keenan asits chief prosecutor. These steps made sure that America dominated in the affairs ofwar criminalsThe third chapter discussed the process of formulating policy towards Japanese war criminals by the Far Eastern Commission, including the different opinions of therepresentatives of the Far Eastern Commission member governments, the divergenceof policy towards war criminals between American government and the Far EasternCommission.The fourth chapter described the trial of Japanese war criminals by the internationalmilitary tribunal for the Far East and the trials by the national military tribunals, andthe relationship between the Far Eastern Commission and the trials both by theinternational and national tribunals.The fifth chapter discussed the different positions among the members of the FarEastern Commission on the property of Japanese war criminals, and the arguments ofthe definition of property and the use of property.The sixth chapter discussed the release of Japanese war criminals under paragraph1(a) of the policy decision passed by the Far Eastern Commission on3rdApril in1946,and the response of the Far Eastern Commission, as well as the decisions of theSupreme Court of America on the petitions of convicted Japanese war criminals andthe actions taken by the Far Eastern Commission in consequence.The seventh chapter elaborated all kinds of difficulties before the Far EasternCommission in the respect of achieving a policy decision of ending the investigationand trials of Japanese war criminals. Because of the different understandings of thejurisdiction of the Far Eastern Commission and the different progress made by thenational tribunals, it was hard to achieve an agreement on the ending of trials ofJapanese war criminals under paragraph1(b) and (c) of the policy decision passed bythe Far Eastern Commission on3rdApril in1946. It approved a decision on31stMarchin1949, which included a recommendation to the member governments of the FarEastern Commission.At the end of the paper, the main activities and divergences of the Far EasternCommission on the punishment of Japanese war criminals were concluded, and anobjective evaluation of the effects and the limits of the commission were made.