Scribd
Upload
175 views2 pages

Justice Pal's Dissent at Tokyo Trials

Radhabinod Pal was the only judge at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trials) to find all defendants not guilty, questioning the legitimacy of the trial. His dissenting judgment meticulously documented disagreements with charges but was initially censored and unpublished. General Douglas MacArthur, who oversaw the trials, later denied their conclusions and said Japan's purpose in war was self-defense. While some thanked Pal for his "sympathetic" view of Japan, he said he only sought to do what was right and just according to law.

Uploaded by

ss
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
175 views2 pages

Justice Pal's Dissent at Tokyo Trials

Radhabinod Pal was the only judge at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trials) to find all defendants not guilty, questioning the legitimacy of the trial. His dissenting judgment meticulously documented disagreements with charges but was initially censored and unpublished. General Douglas MacArthur, who oversaw the trials, later denied their conclusions and said Japan's purpose in war was self-defense. While some thanked Pal for his "sympathetic" view of Japan, he said he only sought to do what was right and just according to law.

Uploaded by

ss
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

International Military Tribunal for the Far East

Dissentient Judgment of Justice Pal

Radhabinod Pal

― Summary ―

Radhabinod Pal was one of the judges at the International Military Tribunal for the
Far East (the “Tokyo Trials”) held in Japan in 1946 to judge those Japanese officials and
officers charged by the Allies as Class-A War Criminals. Pal, unlike his colleagues on
the bench, was a specialist in international law — and his views on the accused, the
charges, the prosecution, and the trial itself, were marked by his unique specialization.
Unlike his colleagues, Pal questioned the very legitimacy of the trial itself, and
found himself forced to conclude, “I would hold that each and everyone of the
accused must be found not guilty of each and every one of the charges in the
indictment and should be acquitted of all those charges.”
Pal wrote his own dissentient verdict wherein he explained his position,
meticulously documenting each and every point of disagreement and providing a
detailed history of the entire “Asian conflict” War beginning with Japan’s involvement
in China in the 1920s. After the trial, for his pains and efforts, his views were censored
by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (Gen. Douglas MacArthur), his
verdict lay unpublished, and his arguments went unheard.
However, only two and half years after the conclusion of the Tokyo Trial, Gen.
Douglas MacArthur, the man who had been entrusted by the leaders of the Allied
Powers with establishing the Tokyo Trials and had had the Charter for the Trials drawn
up, virtually denied its conclusion. On May 3, 1951, at a meeting of the joint Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations and Military Affairs ― that is, in a public forum ―
he completely dismissed the alleged evidence of the Tokyo Trials. Of the Japanese, he
said: “Their purpose, therefore, in going to war was largely dictated by security.”
In other words, the Japanese war was a war of self-defense, not a war of aggression.. Pal’s judgment
was vindicated.
At a reception to welcome Dr. Pal’s first visit to Japan since the Tokyo Trials, some
Japanese expressed their deep thanks for his “sympathetic” judgment. At this he said:
“It is a misunderstanding to think that I wrote my verdict as a sympathizer with Japan. I
did not write it out of sympathy for Japan nor out of hatred of the West. I just wrote
what I believed to be right and just, neither more nor less.”
At the end of his verdict he wrote, quoting from Jefferson Davis:
“When time shall have softened passion and prejudice, when Reason shall
have stripped the mask from misrepresentation, then justice, holding evenly her
scales, will require much of past censure and praise to change places.”
It seems that Reason has not yet fully stripped the mask from misrepresentation.
Pal’s judgment deserves our full attention and should be read again.

You might also like