Indifference to Accountability: The Tokyo Judgment, Justice Pal’s Dissenting Opinion, & Their Implications for India-Japan Relations Today
Professor Yuma Totani
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
This lecture examines the judicial opinions issued by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE; 1946–1948) and their relevance to contemporary India–Japan relations.
Like the Nuremberg Tribunal before it, the IMTFE tried 25 former Japanese political and military leaders for crimes of aggression (then called crimes against peace), war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Its judgments were far from uniform: eight judges formed the majority, two wrote separate concurring opinions, and three issued dissents. Among these, two opinions continue to shape debates about the trial. The majority upheld the principles established at Nuremberg and found all defendants guilty on at least one charge. In contrast, Indian judge Radhabinod Pal issued a sweeping dissent, arguing that international law had been used selectively by Western powers and concluding that none of the defendants should be convicted.
This lecture evaluates the strengths and limitations of relying on either opinion as a historical foundation for India and Japan’s aspirations to act as global leaders committed to the rule of law, peace, and stability within the Free and Open Indo-Pacific vision.
5:30 PM | Tuesday, January 27th, 2026
Smith Memorial Student Union Room 327/8/9
Free and Open to the Public
Please use the entrance on SW Broadway
For more information on the Center for Japanese Studies and our upcoming events, please visit:
https://www.pdx.edu/japanese-studies