Abstract
Cohen and Totani’s The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal:Law, History, and Jurisprudence is an in-depth and well-considered legal analysis of the oft-called “Tokyo Trials,” more formally known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE). The authors’ book contributes to the literature as the first systematic analysis of legal issues relevant to the IMTFE. It therefore separates itself from other works surrounding the IMTFE, which typically address ideological, political, and historical questions of the tribunal. By recounting and analyzing the tribunal from a legal perspective, the authors revisit the question of whether the IMTFE was an instance of “victor’s justice,” encouraging readers to hold a nuanced view of the tribunal and to examine it through different lenses. This perspective defines the book as a contributive work appropriate for scholars interested in international law, international relations, and the history of international tribunals.
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: Law, History, and Jurisprudence is well-suited for diverse audiences, but it is most appropriate for those with an academic or legal interest in the IMTFE. It does not assume much background knowledge on the IMTFE, which makes it accessible to readers with less experience on the subject. However, it goes into deep detail on the decision-making processes, arguments, and rulings relevant to the tribunal. This makes it a useful and more comprehensive tool for scholars with relevant interests. Overall, the book’s deep legal analysis and close attention to detail is best suited for graduate students and legal or historical scholars. These groups will find the book to be invaluable in understanding the IMFTE specifically, as well as its contributions to the development of international law more broadly.
In Part I of the book, the authors thoroughly analyze the tribunal’s background, setting, charges, and legal arguments. Here, they note that the manner in which the prosecution, defense, and judges handle issues during the tribunal becomes heavily influential for international law in the present day. After these examinations, Cohen and Totani assess judges’ opinions in Part II, arguing that the legal objectives of trial judges are different than the collective goals of the Japanese or Allied governments and should therefore be assessed separately. Contrary to many other analyses, the authors ultimately assess that both majority and dissenting judges in the Tokyo Trials lacked impartiality and independence in their rulings.
In Part II, the authors evaluate whether the judges make independent, impartial, and competent determinations of whether each accused is responsible for each charge brought against them beyond a reasonable doubt. In this respect, Cohen and Totani write that the majority judgment and Judge Pal, of the dissenting judges, “fail miserably” (p. 260). The majority, the authors find, rely heavily on the charge of conspiracy and the idea of collective activity within the Japanese government and military, despite that these are difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, given the context. Justice Pal, of the dissenting judges, displays a conscious disregard for evidence and the liability of each accused individual, so that he can condemn the proceedings as a whole. While the authors contend that Justices Webb and Roeling seem to have substantively analyzed the evidence to determine liability, the other judges do not spend much, if any, time justifying guilt in their opinions. This analysis encourages readers to think of the IMTFE not simply as a prima facie instance of “victor’s justice” but rather as a tribunal that both made noteworthy contributions to the practice and institution of international law and faced issues of bias and influence in its decisions.
The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: Law, History, and Jurisprudence offers a more empirical legal analysis of the IMTFE, making it a worthwhile read for those looking for a full history of the tribunal as well as a deeper understanding of its legal strengths, shortcomings, and implications. The book goes into great detail of both the history and legal arguments, making it a useful and approachable guide for those with varied levels of familiarity with the tribunal. Stylistically, its placement of sources on the same page as the relevant text increases readability. However, despite the level of detail and depth, there are no conclusive abridged texts recapturing the authors’ ideas at the ends of chapters or the book itself (the book’s conclusion instead begins a thought-provoking discussion of the legacies of the tribunal and notes areas for future research). Therefore, readers would be well advised to take notes on ideas they find most stimulating as they read along. Overall, Cohen and Totani offer an exceedingly thorough analysis of how and why the IMTFE was structured as it was, what fed into the arguments and decisions presented during the tribunal, and what implications the tribunal has had on the modern institution of international law.