Abstract
Since their establishment in the aftermath of World War II (WWII), international criminal tribunals remain an important topic to explore in order to understand the role these institutions play in the postwar reconstruction. Even though the Tokyo Tribunal (International Military Tribunal for the Far East [IMTFE]) was set up almost simultaneously with its European counterpart, the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, it has been a comparatively rare object of scholarly inquiry. Even more rare is an attempt to contextualize the activities of this Tribunal in a broader political, historical, and institutional context of the time, telling the story of how the Tribunal was constrained and enabled by the forces far beyond its control. It is from this perspective that the research by a scholar from Osaka University (Japan), Aleksandra Babovic, is of particular interest and importance.
The book consists of two parts (six and five chapters, respectively) and starts with the evaluation of the historical, political, and legal background of the time. It then proceeds with an overview of the Tribunal’s establishment and its activities, both during the trials and in the posttrial phase. Using extensive archival material from the U.S. National Archives, the author attempts to show the interdependent nature of law, politics, and justice in the post-WWII world and delves deeply into the conditions surrounding the establishment of the IMTFE, as well as the postinstitutional phase of the Tribunal. She provides a comprehensive account of how the posttrial period, namely, the execution of sentences and the controversies over pardon and early release, should be regarded as an indispensable part of the Tribunal’s history. She brilliantly shows how the question of prisoners (especially the so-called Class-A war criminals) became a trump card in the negotiations between the Western countries and Japan, in the conditions of the cold war that was gaining speed.
The author also describes the Tribunal’s limitations, the most notable being the failure to address the crimes committed by the Japanese army against civilians in the territories under Japanese occupation (neither did it address the crimes committed by the Allied forces against Japan), which she calls “strategic forgetting” (p. 59). Not only logistical difficulties, including setting up a translation service and appointment of personnel complicated the Tribunal’s work, but the selection of defendants also proved to be a complex task as well. In particular, the decision not to prosecute the Emperor became a highly divisive matter for the Allies.
The book is very well structured; its narrative is coherent and not extremely overloaded with legal jargon (which makes it a good read for scholars outside of the legal field). The author demonstrates a good understanding of the history and politics of East Asia and provides valuable insights into the Japanese position over the IMTFE and its activities by referring to Japanese historiography on the subject. A minor remark to be made is that it could have been a good idea to include a list of abbreviations since it is, at times, difficult to navigate across the names of multiple government departments and other institutions.
Several points of criticism should be mentioned, however. It appears that nowadays it is mauvais ton to appraise the international criminal tribunals, with a growing literature that stresses the tribunals’ failures and their reliance (and dependence) on the interests of the most powerful states (the most common reference point is the United States, of course, and its “hegemonic view” of international law, p. 27). This line of reasoning is usually advanced by critical legal studies (CLS) scholars who are strongly influenced by Gerry Simpson’s assessment of the ambiguities of international criminal justice. This discourse undoubtedly offers an alternative picture to the often overly optimistic and even utopian scenarios of the potential of international criminal tribunals to contribute to peace in the war-torn societies. However, one question is whether it is possible at all to consider international tribunals as independent actors of world politics, and if not, how accurate it is to view them merely as a smoke screen to reinforce Big Power interests globally? Also, why choose this rather expensive way to promote these interests, when cheaper alternatives like propaganda are available? Further, while it appears rather commonplace nowadays to stress the tribunals’ failures (and, certainly, Tokyo Tribunal is no exception), the broader question remains open: What should the international community do with mass atrocities? Would imperfect justice still be better than no justice at all (especially if viewed from the victims’ perspective)?
Moreover, unaddressed crimes, as the author points out herself when she speaks about “comfort women,” tend to complicate interstate relations for decades to come. Tribunals, as imperfect as they are, constitute just one of the multiple ways to address the traumatic past. Domestic prosecutions, lustration, and other means are supposed to complement long and cumbersome international trials. It is not clear, however, how the IMTFE fits into the overall picture of postwar reconstruction in Japan.
Despite these points of criticism, the book can be regarded as a valuable piece in the complex mosaic of narratives that attempts to explain the intricacies of international justice. It can certainly be of interest to historians, legal scholars, and political theorists dealing with the topic of post-WWII justice.
