On The Crime Against Peace In The Tokyo Trial

Tokyo Trial is an International Military Tribunal for the Far-east the Alliesestablished after second World War in order to bring Japanese Criminals to justice.Although more than sixty years have gone since1945, the sense of "Victors’ justice"is still deeply rooted in Japanese people and also reflected in the post-World Warforeign policies of the Japanese government. This paper seeks to point out the basiclaw problem of the Tokyo Trial that whether the crime against peace in the Charter ofthe International Military Tribunal for the Far-east which the Supreme Commanderpublished was an international crime or not at the time when the JapaneseGovernment accepted the <Potsdam Declaration> and signed in the Instrument ofSurrender. Most people who discuss the Tokyo Trial from the perspective alwaysattach great importance to then international law to justify the trial. This paper takesthe position that, aggressive war was not a crime at the time when the JapaneseGovernment accepted the <Potsdam Declaration> and signed in the Instrument ofSurrender, but null was not a principle which the states must observe at the theninternational law. Therefore,"aggressive war is a crime"stipulated in the crime againstpeace in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far-east was ex postfacto. Furthermore, this ex post facto was accepted by the Japanese Governmentthrough the signing of Instrument of Surrender in advance, and also accepted throughthe Article11of the <San Francisco Peace Treaty>.The paper consists of three Sections. Section One makes a brief introduction to the issues concerning the crime againstpeace in the Tokyo trial. The first is the introduction to the crime against peace. Thesecond is that because the judgment of the Tokyo Trial was not unanimously adoptedby the judges especially on the issue of aggressive war and ex post facto, this papertakes the position that there is a need to make an introduction to the dissentingopinions concerning the crime against peace the judges had made. The last is theintroduction to the sense of "victors’ justice".Section Two analyses the international law regulations concerning theaggressive war before the second World War. Through the two Hague PeaceConferences in1899and1907, the international community began to imposerestrictions on the right of war. However, these initial endeavors did not prevent theoutbreak of the first World War. After the first world war, the Allies published the <thePeace Treaty of Versailles> which made great contributions to the development ofinternational law in both criminal trials and war reparations. Meanwhile, theCommission on the Responsibility of the war in the Paris Peace Conference alsosuggested that "in the future, international law should impose penal sanctions on theone who launched an aggressive war which is an offense against the international law.However, as this paper has pointed out that many international agreements includingthe <Pact of Paris> did not expressly stipulates that the aggressive war is aninternational crime. The second is concerned with the ex post facto. This paper takesthe position that international law had no regulations concerning the ex post facto atthe time when the Japanese Government accepted the <Potsdam Declaration> andsigned in the Instrument of Surrender, states could make law to regulate the past deed.Therefore,"aggressive war is a crime"stipulated in the Charter of the InternationalMilitary Tribunal for the Far-east was ex post facto.Section Three introduces and analyses the acceptance of jurisdiction of the crimeagainst peace. The first is the acceptance of the jurisdiction. The crime against peacestipulated in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far-east was expost facto. This ex post facto was accepted by the Japanese Government through thesigning of Instrument of Surrender in advance. The second is concerned with the interpretation on the Article11of the <San Francisco Peace Treaty>. Because theJapanese Government has accepted the jurisdiction of the Tokyo Trial through thesigning of Instrument of Surrender in advance, and also accepted the judgment of theTokyo Trial in the Article11of the <San Francisco Peace Treaty>, the JapaneseGovernment should not have some dissenting opinions on the Tokyo Trials.