ABSTRACT
Introduction The year 2006 witnessed the sixtieth anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo War Crimes Trial, officially known as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which began on May 3, 1946. The Japanese press did not fail to grasp the opportunity to ponder the significance of this unprecedented international trial. For instance, just one day before the sixtieth anniversary, the Asahi Shimbun, a major national newspaper, discussed the trial in its editorial.1 The article, entitled ‘What do you know about the Tokyo Trial?’ first defined it as ‘a trial conducted by the Allied Powers, including the United States, in order to condemn the aggressive war waged by Japan and to seek the responsibility of politicians, generals and admirals of Japan’. The article then enumerated some problems inherent in the trial, for example the adoption of ex post facto laws such as ‘crimes against peace’ or ‘crimes against humanity’ and the aspect of ‘victors’ justice’. A calm and objective position, to be sure; but as it began to criticize some understandings of the trial prevalent in present-day Japan, the article seemed to jump to a conclusion: ‘Japan re-joined international society precisely because it accepted the Tokyo Trial by concluding the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Should one insist on the view, then, that the trial was one-sided and unfair, does that mean one dares to take exception to the peace treaty altogether?’ This question suggested to readers the view that those opposed to the Tokyo Trial also have a unanimous, negative outlook on the peace treaty. But this is not the case, for those attempting to relieve Japan of total responsibility for the war are only a handful, categorized as, so to speak, short-sighted ultranationalists.
