Senaka Weeraratna    

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), or the Tokyo Trial (1946–1948), remains a cornerstone for debating the legitimacy of international criminal law. While often overshadowed by Nuremberg, the Tokyo Trial’s “one-sided” nature and the radical dissent of Justice Radhabinod Pal have gained renewed relevance in contemporary legal discourse, especially in post-colonial contexts like Sri Lanka. 

The “Kangaroo Court” Critique

Critics and historians have often labeled the Tokyo proceedings a “victor’s justice” or a political trial rather than a purely judicial one. Key arguments supporting this “Kangaroo Court” characterization include: 

• Selective Prosecution: The tribunal only tried Japanese leaders; Allied actions, such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the firebombing of Japanese cities, were excluded from the court’s purview.
• Procedural Flaws: The tribunal allowed second- and third-hand testimony that could not be corroborated and largely set aside traditional rules of evidence.
• Ex Post Facto Law: The charges of “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” were defined by the Allies after the war, violating the legal principle of non-retroactivity (nullum crimen sine lege).
• Lack of Independence: The tribunal was largely an American-led affair, with the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), General Douglas MacArthur, holding final authority over the sentencing and even the publication of dissenting opinions. 

Justice Radhabinod Pal’s Dissent

Justice Pal, representing India, was the only judge to submit a comprehensive dissent (over 1,230 pages) finding all defendants not guilty of all charges. His “heroic” stand-alone judgment was based on several foundational critiques: 

• Illegitimacy of the Mandate: He argued a victor could dispense mercy or vengeance, but never “justice” to the vanquished.
• Imperialism as the Greater Crime: Pal contended that if “aggression” was a crime, then the centuries of Western colonial domination in Asia should also be treated as criminal. He viewed Japan’s actions through the lens of a “sister nation” resisting Western imperialism.
• Rejection of Conspiracy: He criticized the use of “conspiracy” to hold individuals liable for state actions, arguing that in a modern state, attributing a national declaration of war to specific individuals is legally flawed. 

Relevance to Sri Lankan Legal Education

There is a growing argument that these historical critiques deserve more focus in Sri Lankan legal education to provide a balanced view of international law: 

• Transitional Justice: Sri Lanka has faced its own “top-down” transitional justice mechanisms, which critics say are often manipulated by international actors to suit external agendas.
• International Law Interpretation: Scholars suggest that Sri Lankan courts should adopt a more “purposive approach” to international law, using it as a tool for social justice rather than strictly following Western-centric positivism.
• Sovereignty and Human Rights: Understanding the Tokyo Trial helps law students analyze the tension between universal human rights norms and the protection of national sovereignty, a frequent theme in Sri Lankan political and legal discourse. 

Sri Lankan lawyer’s criticism of Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal on the premises of the Japanese Parliament 

On November 14, 2018, Sri Lankan attorney Senaka Weeraratna addressed a symposium at the Japanese Diet, arguing that Japan’s WWII actions facilitated Asian liberation from Western rule and criticizing the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal. Organized by the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, the speech labeled the tribunal a “victor’s justice” and “Kangaroo Court,” highlighting the lack of Asian judges and the retroactivity of “crimes against peace” charges.

Key criticisms included:

• Impartiality Concerns: Only three of eleven judges were Asian, despite the war being in Asia.
• Hypocrisy: The trials ignored Western actions like the atomic bombings, and the fire bombings of Japanese cities particularly Tokyo on March 9 – 10, 1945 while punishing Japan.
• On the night of March 9–10, 1945, the U.S. Army Air Forces conducted Operation Meetinghouse, a devastating firebombing raid on Tokyo that destroyed over 15 square miles of the city, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians and leaving over one million homeless. Considered the deadliest air attack in history, it involved 279 B-29 bombers dropping incendiary bombs to create a massive firestorm.
• Support for Dissent: Weeraratna emphasized Indian Judge Radhabinod Pal’s dissent, which termed the proceedings a travesty. 

Senaka Weeraratna advocated for a re-trial by Asian judges to correct these historical, one-sided judgments. 

see also

The speech in the Japanese Parliament (Diet) 

The speech in the Japanese Parliament (Diet)  that won Japan’s abstention on the Resolution against Sri Lanka at UNHRC

Source:  AI Overview