I recently came across a Netflix series called “Tokyo Trial” in Japanese, 東京裁判. The Netflix original series is about the Tokyo Trial that took place in Japan after World War Two. Another movie that outlines the controversy of the Tokyo Trial is the movie, “The Fateful Moment.”

This series was a great way to dive back into my previous history lessons. I recall a lecture and discussion on war criminals and the trial that took place after the unconditional surrender of Japan. However, as I was watching the series, I was quickly sucked into the drama of conflicting discussions and opinions between the different judges selected to oversee the Tokyo tribunal.

These contrasting thoughts and opinions are a great insight into the process of carrying out international law,  and at the same time, the difficulty of conducting a fair and just process for the defendants under war crimes. In this case, the mini series shows the justices taking into consideration, Japanese cultural practices, understanding the historical background of Japan and asia and it’s influence the minds of those on trial, fairly interpreting previously written international law, and understanding the repercussions of their decision on the future of Japan and the world. This required deep research and study by the justices on the multiple topics of contemplation.

The most controversial opinion was held by Justice Pal, from India. He claimed the prosecution of the war criminals were one sided and that acts of aggressive war were not well established to show direct connection to the officials on trial. Another controversy is the exoneration of Japan’s imperial family. It is believed that the Japanese imperial family was not prosecuted to help with the rebuilding of Japan. Seven defendants were sentenced to death, Sixteen were sentenced to life in prison, and a few released for parole in the mid to late 1950s.

I recall in a lecture by Professor Kim, in a class on Japanese Modern History, he talked about how some of the pardoned war criminals were able to return to government services. This seemed rather strange, since their previous tenure in government led to WW2 and eventually their prosecution as war criminals.

Another interesting yet controversial topic related to prosecuting government officials with war crimes is on the other side of the pacific. If the attack on Pearl Harbor is to be considered for crimes against humanity, waging aggressive war, and crimes against peace, then what is to be said of the multiple scatter bombing on the different cities in Japan? Additionally, could the two nuclear bombs dropped on the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki be considered the same? I believe these difficult questions continue to be discussed and argued in classrooms to better understand the process of  justice.

I believe the events of the Tokyo Trial and the consideration of war criminals have set the stage in considering terrorist acts and therefore could equate war criminals with terrorists. There is a need to establish political neutrality in outlining or defining the terms of terrorism, just as there was in clearly defining a war criminal. Watching the Tokyo Trial mini series, I was reminded of Noam Chomsky’s political position on the presence of the United States in Israel and the middle east. Without a clear definition, justice will only be carried out as vengeance, which only perpetuates the cycle of conflict and aggression.

The historical mini series also brings up the discussion of colonialism and the idea of liberation through military practices. I am reminded of the scales of justice and lady justice when considering these topics. There is not just one side to understanding the truth and getting caught up in a political position only construes the ability to implement the ideas of lady justice and scales of justice.