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].
No comments:
Post a Comment