The Tokyo Trial is widely recognized as lacking legitimate jurisdiction under international law, yet it continues to be defended by Asahi Shimbun, China, South Korea, and their sympathizers. By examining the Potsdam Declaration and the objections raised by defense counsel, this section exposes the trial’s fundamental legal flaws.

2017-06-15
The following is a continuation of the previous section.
Asahi Shimbun, China, and South Korea in defense of the Tokyo Trial.
If the Tokyo Trial had been a legitimate and fair trial, we would have had no choice but to accept it.
However, it is now perfectly clear that it was an outrageous trial.
Even so, those who continue to support the Tokyo Trial include Asahi Shimbun, China, South Korea, and those who sympathize with them.
One way to demonstrate that the Tokyo Trial was a sham lies in the issue of its “jurisdiction.”
The Allied Powers placed the legal foundation of this trial in the Potsdam Declaration issued to Japan on July 26, 1945.
Within it is a clause stating that “stern justice shall be meted out to all war criminals, including those who have mistreated prisoners of war” (Article 10).
On the basis of this clause, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the Tokyo Trial) was convened, and in addition to ordinary war crimes, so-called crimes such as “crimes against peace” and “crimes against humanity” were prosecuted.
The Tokyo Trial was conducted on the basis of the “Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East” created by MacArthur.
However, that charter was entirely unrelated to international law, customary law, or treaties, and existed solely to fulfill the supreme order to conduct a trial.
At the opening of the trial, defense counsel Ichiro Kiyose, representing the defendant Hideki Tojo, presented a “motion concerning the jurisdiction of this tribunal” on behalf of the defense.
Kiyose stated that, as understood by civilized nations, the definition of war criminals generally consisted of four categories: unlawful acts by combatants, combatant acts by non-combatants, acts of plunder, and espionage.
He further argued that at the time of the Potsdam Declaration, the concept of war crimes did not commonly include notions such as “crimes against peace” or crimes involving the planning, preparation, or execution of war.
Although the Tokyo Tribunal had been ordered by the Allied Powers to conduct a trial, it could not, in principle, try war crimes that did not exist under international law.
It thus suffered from a fundamental defect.
In response to Kiyose’s statement, Presiding Judge Webb said he would answer later and attempted to proceed with the trial as it was.
At that point, defense counsel Smith argued that jurisdiction must be clarified immediately in that forum, and that if this could not be done, the indictment should be dismissed at once.
Nevertheless, despite such objections, the trial was ultimately forced forward.
To be continued.