International Tribunals: Mock Trials or Milestones?

 

Part 2:

Legal innovations such as “crimes against humanity”—controversial at the time of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials—are now widely regarded as milestones. Among other advances, they have given survivors and victims—including those of sexual violence—formal public recognition. Nevertheless, geopolitics and regional balances of power have continued to shape justice and undermine the credibility of international courts.

Breaking the Silence of Sexual Violence

Another major shortcoming of the main Nuremberg Tribunal was its limited treatment of sexual violence. Prosecutions addressing sexual violence occurred mainly in subsequent U.S. military tribunals at Nuremberg (1946–49), where such acts were prosecuted primarily as war crimes and, in some instances, referenced within crimes‑against‑humanity counts; they were not recognized as a distinct, standalone category.

Some lower‑level Allied and German tribunals did address sexual violence, mainly as war crimes and not a distinct category, but prosecutions were fragmented and unevenly documented. Examples include the Bergen‑Belsen trial (Curiohaus, 1945–46), the Dachau military trials (U.S. occupation tribunals, 1945–49), various Allied military courts in occupied Germany (British, American, French, Soviet), and numerous German civilian and local proceedings across military districts.

In the Tokyo Trial, references to comfort women appeared in charges framed as war crimes and in some crimes‑against‑humanity counts, but the empire’s organized system of military brothels was not prosecuted systematically, leaving many survivors of sexual slavery without legal redress. The issue was later taken up publicly and symbolically by civil‑society initiatives, most notably the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery (Tokyo, 2000), which sought moral and historical accountability outside formal state tribunals.

While the Tokyo Trial did not systematically prosecute the military’s organized system of sexual slavery through “comfort stations,” it did address sexual violence in the Nanjing Massacre (1937–38), where mass rape was documented alongside mass killings. The Nanjing atrocities were prosecuted primarily as war crimes (Class B) and were also invoked within crimes‑against‑humanity (Class C) counts because the acts were systematic, widespread, and directed at civilians. Prosecutors concentrated on atrocities with strong documentary evidence—such as Nanjing—which meant that the empire’s broader system of sexual slavery was neglected to be examined closer, in part because of gaps in documentation and in part because of prosecutorial and political priorities.

"Allied political-driven interests and early Cold‑War priorities which explains the prosecutorial selectivity and political compromises throughout the process of the trial.

 

Despite its shortcomings, the Tokyo Trial did recognize sexual violence in the Nanjing Massacre, one of the war’s most horrific episodes; the tribunal’s record cites roughly 20,000 incidents of sexual violence committed by Japanese troops between December 1937 and January 1938 (a conservative estimate). This prosecution, along with the prosecutions in the various other Nuremberg trials, would help lay the groundwork for the moral and legal recognition of wartime sexual violence in future international courts—and crucially, contributed to breaking the silence surrounding these wartime crimes.

In the 1990s, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) prosecuted rape and sexual slavery as distinct international crimes, recognizing them as standalone war crimes and crimes against humanity and thereby addressing key gaps left by the Nuremberg and Tokyo proceedings. Both tribunals clarified that rape can constitute an act of genocide when committed with the requisite intent to destroy a protected group, and they developed how sexual slavery and systematic rape fit within crimes‑against‑humanity frameworks. Nevertheless, like Nuremberg and Tokyo, the ICTY and ICTR have been criticized for selective prosecution and for outcomes that some scholars describe as instances of victor’s justice.

Moral and Legal Validation, and Political Justification

One important impact of the Nuremberg Tribunal is that the local and national trials across Europe beyond Nuremberg offered a broader, victim-centered pursuit of accountability and official record, contributing to survivors' and victims' sense of justice as well as to enduring legal precedents. Moral condemnation delivered through processes perceived as politically vested and partial can, however, weaken long‑term legitimacy and the rule of law. At the same time, Nuremberg established a universal moral condemnation of crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes; it punished key architects of atrocities, made the future accountability of individuals conceivable, and gave survivors—including victims of sexual violence—public acknowledgement that has become an important element of reconciliation and human‑rights history.

These achievements have had a lasting impact on international law. Historically, they helped shape the United Nations Genocide Convention (1948), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Geneva Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War (1949), and they informed the development and practice of later international courts and tribunals.

"... politics and geopolitical power dynamics have, to this day, continue to influence judgement and weaken the authority and credibility of international courts.

 

In viewing the Tokyo Trial, many scholars link prosecutorial choices to Allied political-driven interests and early Cold‑War priorities which explains the prosecutorial selectivity and political compromises throughout the process of the trial. Political influences may have overshadowed the tribunal’s legal contributions. Which is why to this day, the Tokyo trial still provokes contestation and debate—it was a milestone and a political instrument. 

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials are criticized for their retroactive charges and partial justice. Nonetheless, their moral and legal legacies of advancing international criminal law by setting a model for establishing individual accountability and redress for victims and survivors, ultimately outweigh their weak legal authority and political motives. The legal innovations considered controversial at the time are now regarded as milestones. However, politics and geopolitical power dynamics have, to this day, continue to influence judgement and weaken the authority and credibility of international courts. As described in Göring’s (Russell Crowe) line in the Nuremberg film, “No man has ever beaten me.” In other words, it’s not purely about judicial process as justice is inseparable from power.

So, are these international tribunals merely mock trials that should be abandoned? Certainly not. They remain essential instruments for establishing individual accountability and for giving victims and survivors public recognition. However, a balance of power needs to be restructured to prevent politics from influencing moral and legal validation. This means greater independence from victors, broader representation of affected communities, and stronger enforcement mechanisms. Also, think about it—throughout history, fascists regimes collapsed under bloodshed, not through new elections or peaceful transitions. Therefore, these tribunals should play an important role in our future.

Read Part 1 

Image: nationalww2museum.org

Read my other blog for topics on history and countercultures

Sources:

Arden, Timothy (2025) The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: An Explainer 77 Years On. National World. https://www.nationalworld.com/heritage-and-retro/retro/the-tokyo-war-crimes-trial-an-explainer-77-years-on-5311537 [30 December 2025].

Deutsche Welle (2024) 1945 - Women as Spoils of War. https://www.dw.com/en/1945-women-as-spoils-of-war/a-68778721 [29 December 2025].

Klokeid, Jacob (2024) “The Enduring and Controversial Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials.” Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 24 p. 80.  https://journals.library.wustl.edu/globalstudies/article/8971/galley/25740/download/ [29 December 2025].

Slice full doc (2025) Judging Japan: How the Tokyo War Crimes Trial Went Wrong. YouTube. https://youtu.be/xeaL_xfynEI?si=xeB0gf53k0Vg0F2D [28 December 2025].

Sony Pictures Classic (2025) Nuremberg Official Trailer #1. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvAy9C-bipY [26 December 2025].

Tetsuo, Hirata and John W. Dower (2007) “Japan’s Red Purge: Lessons from a Saga of Suppression of Free Speech and Thought.” The Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7. https://apjjf.org/John-W-Dower/2462/article [30 December 2025].

Wikipedia (2025) Dachau Concentration Camp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp.  [29 December 2025].

——— (2025) Rape during the Occupation of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany [29 December 2025].

———. (2025) International Military Tribunal for the Far East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East [30 December 2025].

———. (2025) Nuremberg Trials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials [26 December 2025].

International Tribunals: Mock Trials or Milestones?

 

Part 1.

“This war ends in a courtroom. The world needs to know what these men did so that it can never happen again.” That line appears in the film Nuremberg, which recounts the historical Nuremberg Tribunal, also known as the International Military Tribunal (IMT). The sentiment has not aged well; nevertheless, its legacy, despite the critique that it represented “victor’s justice”, has helped shape international criminal law—eighty years since the hanging of ten Nazi leaders on 16 October 1946 and the suicide of Hermann Wilhelm Göring, the highest‑ranking defendant, in his cell the night before.

Nuremberg Tribunal: Partial Justice

The Nuremberg Tribunal set an important precedent and left a lasting imprint on subsequent war‑crimes courts. The trial’s focus on individual accountability helped satisfy, to some degree, a public sense that justice had been served. That sense of justice, however, has been criticized as “victor’s justice.” The trial was convened by the Allied powers, and each of the four Allied nations appointed judges to the International Military Tribunal (United Kingdom, United States, France, and the Soviet Union). At the same time, comparable Allied actions—such as strategic bombing campaigns and certain detention policies—were not prosecuted at Nuremberg. Thus, while the Tribunal established the principle that individuals, including state leaders, could be held criminally responsible, the fact that there were no prosecutions of Allied officials is evidence of partial justice.

Furthermore, despite the Tribunal’s important contribution to the development of international criminal law and human rights, its legal foundation has been criticized as weak because some of the crimes charged were not clearly defined as international crimes at the time they were committed. In the proceedings held between 20 November 1945 and 1 October 1946, defendants were prosecuted for offenses—such as “crimes against peace”—that were articulated in instruments and indictments created after many of the alleged acts took place.

"Nonetheless, allegations of hypocrisy and selective prosecution have tainted the Tribunal.

The Tribunal charged defendants with four main crimes. First, conspiracy to commit crimes, meaning participation in a common plan to commit the other three following offenses explained next. Second, crimes against peace, which include planning, preparing, initiating, or waging aggressive war. Third, war crimes, meaning violations of the established customs and laws of war, such as the mistreatment of prisoners or civilians. Lastly, crimes against humanity, which consist of widespread or systematic atrocities—murder, extermination, enslavement, and persecution—directed against civilian populations for political, racial, or religious reasons.

Of 24 indicted, 22 were tried; the Tribunal sentenced 12 to death (10 executed), three to life, four to long terms, and three were acquitted. Many perceive the trial as more retributive than judicial; however, historians and legal scholars generally view that the Tribunal established crucial precedents—individual criminal responsibility, the rejection of sovereign immunity for atrocities, and the principle that state leaders can be held accountable. Nonetheless, allegations of hypocrisy and selective prosecution have tainted the Tribunal: Allied wartime actions were largely ignored, undermining claims of impartiality and fostering perceptions of politically motivated justice.

The Tokyo Trial: Selective Prosecution

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), commonly known as the Tokyo Trial, opened on 29 April 1946 to try leaders of the Empire of Japan for offenses comparable to those prosecuted at Nuremberg. Twenty‑eight high‑ranking military and political figures were indicted and tried. The tribunal included judges from Asian countries, namely China, the Philippines, and India, in addition to the principal Allied powers. Unlike at Nuremberg, the IMTFE’s indictments placed particular emphasis on crimes against peace—the planning and waging of aggressive war. Not surprisingly, many observers conclude that the trial repeated Nuremberg’s flaws of victor‑driven justice but it attracted even sharper criticism for political motives and selective prosecution.

Seven defendants were executed by hanging on 23 December 1948; sixteen others received life imprisonment and the remaining defendants were given shorter terms or other penalties. Emperor Hirohito never appeared in the courtroom as a defendant or witness. The Tokyo Trial has been widely criticized as politically orchestrated, a perception reinforced by, among other factors, the immunity of the emperor and his closest imperial collaborators.

"Hypocrisy and selective prosecution were more telling in the Tokyo Trial. 

Another notable omission from prosecution was Japan’s strategic bombing campaigns in Asia. Many observers argue the omission reflected a deliberate reluctance to prosecute Allied strategic bombing—most controversially the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By then, Western powers were already entering a new geopolitical struggle—the Cold War. It was feared that major structural upheaval in Japan could create openings for communist movements. Balancing geopolitical interests therefore shaped Allied policies and in this context, preserving the Japanese imperial family in exchange for political cooperation was regarded as a strategic decision.

Hypocrisy and selective prosecution were more telling in the Tokyo Trial. In his opening statement on 4 June 1946, Chief Prosecutor Joseph B. Keenan charged that Japan had planned, prepared, initiated, and waged aggressive war that destroyed human life and threatened democracy and freedom. 

… the wars which they were planning and for which they were preparing and which they initiated and waged could result in nothing else than wholesale destruction of human lives, they were determined to destroy democracy and its essential basis, freedom and the respect of human personality, they would determine that the system of government of and by and for the people should be eradicated …

Certainly, that statement contradicted the actions of Western powers, which at the time were still using military force to suppress anti‑colonial uprisings, including Dutch operations against Indonesian independence fighters. Ironically, efforts to retain colonial possessions involved atrocities and practices that mirrored the war crimes the Allies accused the Japanese Empire of committing.

Further contradicting Keenan’s moral framing, communist uprising in postwar Japan was met by violent repression and human rights violation, followed by crackdowns on labor unions and mass dismissals. These purges, known as The Red Purge, backed by SCAP directives, crushed leftist movements to maintain the balance of geopolitical power. The purges and the subsequent commutation and release of many Tokyo‑Trial convicts demonstrate how Cold War geopolitics subordinated legal accountability to strategic aims, demonstrating the inherently political nature of the trial.

"Cold War geopolitics subordinated legal accountability to strategic aims ...

Mirroring the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Tokyo Trial did not treat sexual violence as a distinct category of crimes against humanity; instead, sexual violence was prosecuted within broader war‑crimes and crimes‑against‑humanity counts rather than as a standalone legal category. The Tokyo Trial examined the mass rapes associated with the Nanjing massacre as part of its case against Japanese leaders, but the tribunal did not develop a separate doctrinal treatment of sexual violence.

More on sexual violence in Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Trial will be discussed in Part 2. The second part will also address moral, legal, and political issues concerning both trials.

Image: Harvard Gazzette, 2003

Read my other blog for topics on history and countercultures