Kevin Jon Heller
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199554317
- eISBN:
- 9780191728624
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554317.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law, Criminal Law and Criminology
This book provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the twelve war crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals ...
More
This book provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the twelve war crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMTs). The judgments the NMTs produced have played a critical role in the development of international criminal law, particularly in terms of how courts currently understand war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The trials are also of tremendous historical importance, because they provide a far more comprehensive picture of Nazi atrocities than their more famous predecessor, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT). The IMT focused exclusively on the ‘major war criminals’ — the Goerings, the Hesses, the Speers. The NMTs, by contrast, prosecuted doctors, lawyers, judges, industrialists, bankers — the private citizens and lower-level functionaries whose willingness to take part in the destruction of millions of innocents manifested what Hannah Arendt famously called ‘the banality of evil’. The book is divided into five sections. The first section traces the evolution of the twelve NMT trials. The second section discusses the law, procedure, and rules of evidence applied by the tribunals, with a focus on the important differences between Law No. 10 and the Nuremberg Charter. The third section, the heart of the book, provides a systematic analysis of the tribunals' jurisprudence. It covers Law No. 10's core crimes — crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — as well as the crimes of conspiracy and membership in a criminal organization. The fourth section then examines the modes of participation and defences that the tribunals recognized. The final section deals with sentencing, the aftermath of the trials, and their historical legacy.Less
This book provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the twelve war crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMTs). The judgments the NMTs produced have played a critical role in the development of international criminal law, particularly in terms of how courts currently understand war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The trials are also of tremendous historical importance, because they provide a far more comprehensive picture of Nazi atrocities than their more famous predecessor, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT). The IMT focused exclusively on the ‘major war criminals’ — the Goerings, the Hesses, the Speers. The NMTs, by contrast, prosecuted doctors, lawyers, judges, industrialists, bankers — the private citizens and lower-level functionaries whose willingness to take part in the destruction of millions of innocents manifested what Hannah Arendt famously called ‘the banality of evil’. The book is divided into five sections. The first section traces the evolution of the twelve NMT trials. The second section discusses the law, procedure, and rules of evidence applied by the tribunals, with a focus on the important differences between Law No. 10 and the Nuremberg Charter. The third section, the heart of the book, provides a systematic analysis of the tribunals' jurisprudence. It covers Law No. 10's core crimes — crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity — as well as the crimes of conspiracy and membership in a criminal organization. The fourth section then examines the modes of participation and defences that the tribunals recognized. The final section deals with sentencing, the aftermath of the trials, and their historical legacy.
CHUSHICHI TSUZUKI
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198205890
- eISBN:
- 9780191676840
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198205890.003.0016
- Subject:
- History, World Modern History, Political History
This chapter describes the new constitution and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial. It talks about the ‘unconditional’ surrender. It also presents some characteristics of the reform period of the American ...
More
This chapter describes the new constitution and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial. It talks about the ‘unconditional’ surrender. It also presents some characteristics of the reform period of the American occupation. Democracy was not to be imposed. The chapter then explains the sabotaged democracy. In addition, it discusses the war crimes and the Far Eastern Military Tribunal. The revival of political parties under the occupation period is reported. The major concern of the Shidehara government was to put an end to the ‘aberration’ of wartime military rule and to return to pre-war parliamentary politics or what was known as Taisho democracy. Political parties took advantage of the Potsdam Declaration.Less
This chapter describes the new constitution and the Tokyo War Crimes Trial. It talks about the ‘unconditional’ surrender. It also presents some characteristics of the reform period of the American occupation. Democracy was not to be imposed. The chapter then explains the sabotaged democracy. In addition, it discusses the war crimes and the Far Eastern Military Tribunal. The revival of political parties under the occupation period is reported. The major concern of the Shidehara government was to put an end to the ‘aberration’ of wartime military rule and to return to pre-war parliamentary politics or what was known as Taisho democracy. Political parties took advantage of the Potsdam Declaration.
Mark A. Lewis
- Published in print:
- 2014
- Published Online:
- April 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780199660285
- eISBN:
- 9780191757716
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199660285.003.0003
- Subject:
- History, European Modern History, Political History
After World War One, jurists on the Commission on Responsibilities at the Paris Peace Conference were divided about the types of criminal penalties the Allies should impose on political and military ...
More
After World War One, jurists on the Commission on Responsibilities at the Paris Peace Conference were divided about the types of criminal penalties the Allies should impose on political and military figures from the Central Powers. European jurists favored the creation of an international tribunal, an innovation which U.S. jurists viewed as unprecedented and politically dangerous. Ultimately, there were no post-war extraditions or international tribunals because the Allies lost political interest, the defeated powers resisted, and the League of Nations’ Secretariat did not want to intervene. Still, European jurists on the Commission outlined an important set of ideas: post-war prosecution for war crimes was legitimate, an international tribunal was the best legal forum to present the victors’ political and moral perspective, and international law should be modernized to restore the moral order. Critics called the idea of prosecuting war criminals “the new justice” and contrasted it to the “old justice,” based on national laws and established procedures.Less
After World War One, jurists on the Commission on Responsibilities at the Paris Peace Conference were divided about the types of criminal penalties the Allies should impose on political and military figures from the Central Powers. European jurists favored the creation of an international tribunal, an innovation which U.S. jurists viewed as unprecedented and politically dangerous. Ultimately, there were no post-war extraditions or international tribunals because the Allies lost political interest, the defeated powers resisted, and the League of Nations’ Secretariat did not want to intervene. Still, European jurists on the Commission outlined an important set of ideas: post-war prosecution for war crimes was legitimate, an international tribunal was the best legal forum to present the victors’ political and moral perspective, and international law should be modernized to restore the moral order. Critics called the idea of prosecuting war criminals “the new justice” and contrasted it to the “old justice,” based on national laws and established procedures.
Dean Aszkielowicz
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- January 2018
- ISBN:
- 9789888390724
- eISBN:
- 9789888390427
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Hong Kong University Press
- DOI:
- 10.5790/hongkong/9789888390724.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, Asian History
After the Second World War, the Australian military prosecuted almost a thousand alleged Japanese war criminals. These prosecutions were not only an attempt to punish Japan for its wartime ...
More
After the Second World War, the Australian military prosecuted almost a thousand alleged Japanese war criminals. These prosecutions were not only an attempt to punish Japan for its wartime militarism, but also a move to exert influence over the future course of Japanese society, politics, and foreign policy, as well as to cement Australia’s position in the Pacific as a regional power. During the Allied occupation of Japan (1945-52), Australia energetically pursued Japanese war criminals, and took a tough stance on Japan in general. The U.S. authorities, who dominated the Occupation, initially took the same line. As the Cold War in Asia intensified in the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, the U.S. government ceased to consider Japan a threat to Pacific security, and instead began to cultivate Japan as a potential democratic ally against communism. By the end of the Occupation, U.S. officials were firmly committed to pursuing good relations with the Japanese government. Gradually, in the 1950s, the Australian government came to share the U.S. view of Japan. As Japan shifted in official thinking from being a former foe, to a potential economic and political partner, concerns about the guilt of individual Japanese soldiers made way for pragmatism and political gain. The war criminals became entangled with Australian moves to establish good relations with Japan, and to draw the U.S. into a close alliance. Variations to their sentences - through repatriation to Japan, and later through parole or other forms of early release - became diplomatic bargaining chips. By the end of 1957, all of the surviving war criminals prosecuted by Australia had been released.Less
After the Second World War, the Australian military prosecuted almost a thousand alleged Japanese war criminals. These prosecutions were not only an attempt to punish Japan for its wartime militarism, but also a move to exert influence over the future course of Japanese society, politics, and foreign policy, as well as to cement Australia’s position in the Pacific as a regional power. During the Allied occupation of Japan (1945-52), Australia energetically pursued Japanese war criminals, and took a tough stance on Japan in general. The U.S. authorities, who dominated the Occupation, initially took the same line. As the Cold War in Asia intensified in the late 1940s and early 1950s, however, the U.S. government ceased to consider Japan a threat to Pacific security, and instead began to cultivate Japan as a potential democratic ally against communism. By the end of the Occupation, U.S. officials were firmly committed to pursuing good relations with the Japanese government. Gradually, in the 1950s, the Australian government came to share the U.S. view of Japan. As Japan shifted in official thinking from being a former foe, to a potential economic and political partner, concerns about the guilt of individual Japanese soldiers made way for pragmatism and political gain. The war criminals became entangled with Australian moves to establish good relations with Japan, and to draw the U.S. into a close alliance. Variations to their sentences - through repatriation to Japan, and later through parole or other forms of early release - became diplomatic bargaining chips. By the end of 1957, all of the surviving war criminals prosecuted by Australia had been released.
Phyllis Birnbaum
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- November 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780231152181
- eISBN:
- 9780231526340
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Columbia University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7312/columbia/9780231152181.003.0016
- Subject:
- History, Asian History
This chapter focuses on the testimony of Tanaka Ryūkichi, an officer in Japan's Kwantung Army in China and Kawashima Yoshiko's lover, during the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II. There was ...
More
This chapter focuses on the testimony of Tanaka Ryūkichi, an officer in Japan's Kwantung Army in China and Kawashima Yoshiko's lover, during the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II. There was much speculation about why Tanaka decided to appear at the trial. A major general in the Imperial Japanese Army, he cooperated with U.S. Occupation authorities and testified against his military colleagues. Accused of turning against his fellow officers in retaliation for being denied a wartime post or to escape indictment himself, Tanaka rejected any suggestions of base intent. Tanaka appeared before the tribunal a number of times, sometimes for the defense and sometimes for the prosecution. He admitted that he was entirely responsible for the Shanghai Incident of 1932, claiming that it had been hatched as a distraction from bigger doings in Manchuria, and talked about Yoshiko's involvement in it. Yoshiko was a cross-dressing Manchu princess who turned into a Japanese spy and commanded her own army during the Japanese occupation of China in 1931.Less
This chapter focuses on the testimony of Tanaka Ryūkichi, an officer in Japan's Kwantung Army in China and Kawashima Yoshiko's lover, during the Tokyo War Crimes Trial after World War II. There was much speculation about why Tanaka decided to appear at the trial. A major general in the Imperial Japanese Army, he cooperated with U.S. Occupation authorities and testified against his military colleagues. Accused of turning against his fellow officers in retaliation for being denied a wartime post or to escape indictment himself, Tanaka rejected any suggestions of base intent. Tanaka appeared before the tribunal a number of times, sometimes for the defense and sometimes for the prosecution. He admitted that he was entirely responsible for the Shanghai Incident of 1932, claiming that it had been hatched as a distraction from bigger doings in Manchuria, and talked about Yoshiko's involvement in it. Yoshiko was a cross-dressing Manchu princess who turned into a Japanese spy and commanded her own army during the Japanese occupation of China in 1931.
