25 I The Tokyo Tribunal and Its Transcultural Legacies
6. April 2018
16:30–18:00
Seminarraum 4
Lisette Schouten (Heidelberg)
The Netherlands and its representation at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1945–1948
Ann-Sophie Schoepfel (Heidelberg)
Defending French National Interests in the shadow of decolonization: the Dispute between the Quai d’Orsay and its delegates in Tokyo
Milinda Banerjee (München)
Rethinking the Tokyo Trial through the Lens of Global Intellectual History: Legal Philosophy and the Paradoxical Dissent of Radhabinod Pal
>< Panel in englischer Sprache
The 70th anniversary of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East at Tokyo (IMTFE, May 1946 to November 1948) has prompted fresh research on the political contexts in which new norms and practices of international criminal law emerged after 1945 in Asia. This panel enquires how the Tokyo Tribunal operated under the impact of external political and legal pressures, even as it evolved new legal standards that left a global impact far beyond Japan, by using a biographical lens towards the actors of the eleven national teams involved. Apart from practical difficulties, the different national legal traditions and political-cultural perceptions of the task and goals ahead constituted significant challenges. Judges and lawyers in Tokyo were constrained by their respective national policies, but they also often displayed powerful individual voices of legal ethics. The legacy of the trial is still contested and its repercussions continue to reverberate today, whether in the politics of East Asia (in disputes between Japan, China, and Korea) or in global debates about international criminal justice. The different participants in the panel will thus seek to link these contemporary issues as well as to their historically-situated investigations.
Chair: Kerstin von Lingen (Wien/Heidelberg)
Lisette Schouten (Heidelberg): The Netherlands and its representation at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1945–1948
Preoccupied with a de-facto colonial war in the Netherlands East Indies and facing an enormous loss of economic and political power, the adjudication of Japanese war criminals was not a priority for the Dutch authorities after the end of the Pacific war. Eventually, adherence to the long standing Dutch tradition of the promotion of an international legal system and the newly required responsibilities as a Western ally prevailed, but all in all the decision to send Dutch representation to Tokyo was more a political than a moral one. In this paper focus is placed on the small Dutch prosecution section headed by Mr. W.G.F. Borgerhoff-Mulder. By doing so, the paper aims to evaluate the Dutch legal contribution to the IMTFE and to shed light on the importance of the ‘transcultural encounter’ and ‘human element’ on the IMTFE’s proceedings and outcome beyond the personality of Judge Bert Roeling.
Ann-Sophie Schoepfel (Heidelberg): Defending French National Interests in the shadow of decolonization: the Dispute between the Quai d’Orsay and its delegates in Tokyo
From 1945 to 1948, prominent members of Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire were prosecuted at the Nuremberg and the Tokyo International Military Tribunals. In Japan, the United States had invited France to participate in the Tokyo trial. This trial offered an unexpected opportunity to build prestige in the Far East while decolonization was a serious threat to national interests; during World War II, France had lost its richest colony, Indochina, and hoped to regain it by pursuing “justice”. The guidelines of the Quai d’Orsay were however not followed to the letter. On the contrary, the French delegates raised questions of legal procedure and fairness. Based on unpublished sources, this presentation sheds new light on the French involvement at the Tokyo trial.
Milinda Banerjee (München): Rethinking the Tokyo Trial through the Lens of Global Intellectual History: Legal Philosophy and the Paradoxical Dissent of Radhabinod Pal
In contemporary debates about international criminal justice, especially on issues of (neo-)colonialism, the figure of Radhabinod Pal, the dissenting Indian judge at the Tokyo Trial, occupies an ambiguous position. He is alternatively hailed as a pioneer non-European critic of the imperial underpinnings of international (criminal) law, or castigated as an enemy of modern principles of international criminal and humanitarian law. Bearing in mind recent debates about the philosophical underpinnings of international criminal law (especially on the issue of sovereignty), this paper provides a historicized reading of Pal’s legal philosophy, its relation to European and Asian politics in the age of decolonization and Cold War, and in relation to transnationally-entangled debates about the relation of justice to sovereignty and political theology. The paper ultimately uses global intellectual history perspectives to complicate our readings of the multi-sited origins of modern juristic thinking and practice.