The International Military Tribunal for the Far East
"Before assembling here today the Members of the Tribunal signed a joint affirmation to administer justice according to law, without fear, favor or affection.
We fully appreciate the great responsibility resting upon us. There has been no more important criminal trial in all history. Certainly we are not a Senate or a House of Peers met for the impeachment of a Verrus or a Hastings, but a court of our respective countries. On the other hand the accused before us were no mere provincial governors, but for more than a decade were the leaders of Japan at the height of her power and prosperity. They include former prime ministers, foreign ministers, finance ministers, chiefs of …show more content…
The prosecution team was made up of justices from eleven Allied nations: Australia, Canada, China, France, Great Britain, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Philippines, the Soviet Union and the United States of America.(See Affirmation). The Tokyo trials lasted two and a half years, from May 1946 to November 1948. Other war criminals were tried in the respective victim countries. Lastly, the war crime trials were held at ten different locations in China.
The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) consisted of a large variety of different persons representing different countries. The Tribunal's sheer size and complexity is an example of an un-needed redundancy that among today’s standards is unfathomable. When compared to its counterpart at Nuremberg, one can determine the seemingly comprehensive and complete proceedings as oddly overbearing. The Tokyo Trials "lasted three times longer than the Trial of the Major German War Criminals. It involved at least 230 translators and 237 Prosecution and Defense lawyers." The hypocritical aspects involve the methods and procedures in which the IMTFE operated. It was established in order to prosecute war criminals, allowing for the justice system to take on its role. Yet the IMTFE has set its own rules and standards, decided what evidence , however crucial, may or may not be entered as exhibits. The lack of a complete and fair trial existed not only in the admittance or the one sided
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Perhaps, according to Bernard Schwartz, the greatest failure of American law during World War II may be illustrated by the case of Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu. As graphically described in 1944 by a member of the bench, his case is one that is unique in our system:
Needless to say, they never found one iota of evidence that led the government to believe that they were plotting against the United States. Amendment number six, gives citizens “the right to a fair and speedy trial (Constitution).” The Japanese people didn't even get to pack up their houses, or make sure their homes and farms were being taken care of before they were shipped off. They definitely were not given a fair and speedy trial; they were merely held indefinitely until they were considered no longer to be a “threat.”Amendment number 14 is the one amendment that you can't argue that it wasn't violated. It states, per the Constitution, “everyone has equal protection under the law.” However, this amendment was blatantly withheld during the Japanese's internment. As Jennifer Jones wrote in Time Magazine, “even though America was at war with Italy and Germany they didn't round up immigrants of German and Italian ancestry and place them in internment camps.” Obviously, the Japanese were being targeted and it was masked as a “threat to national security” If immigrants were a threat why wasn't every group of immigrants rounded up? This is a prelude to the fact that the Japanese were being racially targeted. Jennifer Jones wrote in her Time Magazine article that “promoted stereotypes of the Japanese made it seem like they were the enemy. It was a propaganda parade like what happened in Germany, but not to the same
Throughout, 1945 to 1946, the International Military Tribunal, or IMT, for short, tried 22 major war criminals on the charges of crimes against peace and conspiracy. They defined these crimes that the defendants committed as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.” They all got their respective sentences in prison starting from 10 to 20 years in prison to execution.
In the first place, there was no evidence to support all the accusations Americans had against Japanese-American. In the Article “The Japanese-American Internment”, paragraph 8 it states: “ Henry Steele Commager, comments, ‘It is sobering to recall that the record does not hold a single case of Japanese disloyalty or sabotage during the whole war.’ ” This shows that even though there was no documentation that Japanese had a breach of trust but still had their ‘ crimes’ held against them and were sent into the Japanese-American Internment.
Once the war crime tribunals started, the Americans, led by MacArthur, went into action counseling high ranking war criminals on how to help save the Emperor. The US at this time had opened an investigation into the Emperor’s war responsibility and the SCAP began to organize the overall defense so that the Emperor would not be implicated or indicted. MacArthur had been steadfast in his defense of the Emperor through many diplomatic cables stating that there was very little evidence linking the Emperor to the war effort. In one cable MacArthur responded to the investigation by stating that “investigations have been conducted” and “no evidence was found that connected Hirohito to political decisions during the past decade, (Dower 1999).” MacArthur then focused on the importance of
This meant that we had convinced them to believe that the camps were really there for the protection of the Japanese American citizens. To think of it, if president FDR hadn’t order for the camps to happen, how many Japanese Americans would have died of discrimination and hate crimes. I agree with the mock trial’s decision. I truly believe that this is the right decision. I now believe this because even though the United States government had took away their belongings, they also gave them more opportunities than they would have on their own in a feared and hated world it was becoming for them. The Korematsu case had also favored the defense side so this could mean that our side had not been that far off with evidence and arguments. Back in 1942 I would have also said yes to putting Japanese American citizens in camps that would protect them because in the end it truly did. I know now that it may seem very racist. However, back then it wasn’t that big of a deal and I would have wanted to put my children in a camp instead of letting them go to school and get bullied and hated on by children their own age for something they did not do. I am glad that the class jury had also chosen the defense side because it meant that they had also realized what could have happened to these citizens if they were not protected with the same or even better opportunities. This is why I would have to agree with
The trial was the Japanese-American Internment. The Japanese invaded the American land. Because of that, all people of a Japanese descent were seen as an enemy. The Americans felt as if they could no longer trust anyone who obtained ancestry of the Japanese race because they could have a connection with the people who invaded America. As a result, Over 120,000 Japanese were imprisoned during World War II. America felt this was the best way of protecting the wellbeing of all American citizens. These camps were very similar to the concentration camps that Hitler imprisoned people in. Almost two thirds of people who were imprisoned in the camps were Japanese Americans. Some of these Japanese Americans never even visited Japan before and had little connection with their heritage. This did not matter to the government.
According to Justice Lawrence, author, the purpose of the Nuremberg Trials, later known as the Doctor’s Trial, was to “not only the punishment of those who were guilty but the establishment of the supremacy of international law over national law and proof of the actual facts” (Lawrence, p. 153) of the atrocious mass genocide known now as the Holocaust. This means that point of these trials were not only to punish the murderous doctors but also to show the world that international law is the highest form of power. A separate form of trials initially took place in Germany, however, it was a “farce” according to Lawrence. “The majority got off and such sentences as were inflicted were derisory and were soon remitted” (Lawrence, p. Yo27153). Due to the growing tension between the German court of law and other countries the Doctor’s Trial was then moved to Nuremberg, and the evidence was eventually over-turned to the United States who would eventually indict 23 doctors on a number of crimes
The International Criminal Court (ICC), created in 1998 (Thayer and Ibryamova 2010), is responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most extreme cases, including crimes against humanity, aggressive crimes, war crimes, and genocide. The credibility of this institution, however, has been compromised due to the United States revocation of support and membership. Initially it is important to recognize the arguments against the United States becoming a member state of the ICC and what precipitated the U.S. withdrawing its signature from the document that instituted the Court. Once this has been established, addressing and refuting these objections will develop the arguments in favor of ICC membership. Finally, this analysis will lead to
On 8th August, 1945, shortly after the end of World War II in May of 1945, the Allied governments entered into a joint agreement establishing the International Military Tribunal for the purpose of trying those responsible for the war atrocities. Whereas some 5,000 Nazi’s were charged with war crimes, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to prosecute high ranking Nazi officials with whom the authority for the commission of heinous atrocities rested.
The evolution of international criminal justice is important to consider. Two ad-hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR), have facilitated the adoption of the ICC. The ICC came into existence on July 1, 2002. The court operates on the principle of complementarity which means that the court does not function unless a state in question is unable or unwilling to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute for one of the covered crimes. Whereas the ICTY and the ICTR had primary jurisdiction and could supersede state action, the ICC only has the aforementioned
The Nuremberg Trials were a critical point in the history of international law because it established the fact that humanity has the need of an international shield to shelter and protect. This event was responsible for contributing in the ongoing process of developing rules that are binding between states and nations also known as international laws. The judgment of the trials may be one of the most important events in the history of international law due to the fact that it assisted in establishing laws against war crimes. One of the biggest questions raised was whether causing a war was an international crime that would be punishable or not. Many believed there was no
WHEREAS, the Parties have concluded that this Agreement is a fair, reasonable and adequate resolution of all Claims that have been made, or could have been made in the Suit; and
On May 25, 1993, U.N. Security Council Resolution 827 established an international tribunal charged with prosecuting violations of international law arising from the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Not since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, following World War II has an international court tried individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), which was established at The Hague, Netherlands, is widely seen as an important step toward the deterrence of crimes, the establishment of the firm rule of international law, and the promotion of world peace. Yet, from its inception, the tribunal