By Huan Yuping
On August 15, 1945, Japan announced its unconditional surrender. Although this marked the end of the war of aggression, it was the Tokyo Trials 80 years ago that truly put an end to the war in legal terms. However, to this day, right-wing forces in Japan are still deliberately trying to reverse the verdict on Japan's history of aggression, seeking to break free from the constraints of the post-war international order and pave the way for "remilitarization" by negating the outcomes of the Tokyo Trials. Faced with these egregious acts, revisiting the legal principles of the Tokyo Trials and upholding the historical justice that must not be distorted is essential to curbing the revival of Japanese militarism and safeguarding peace in Asia and the world.
On May 3, 1946, pursuant to arrangements regarding Japan's unconditional surrender and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East officially convened in Tokyo, Japan. Bringing together judicial forces from 11 nations, the trial lasted two and a half years, held 818 sessions, summoned 419 witnesses to testify, admitted 4,336 pieces of evidence, and produced nearly 50,000 pages of English court records.
Relying on extensive and compelling evidence and rigorous legal reasoning, the Tribunal ruled in accordance with the law that Japanese militarism launched wars of aggression and severely violated international law. It thoroughly exposed the heinous crimes committed by Japanese forces in multiple Asian countries and sentenced 25 Class-A war criminals, including Hideki Tojo, to corresponding penalties. The Tokyo Trials represented the concrete implementation of the provisions of the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Proclamation, reflected the collective will of the victorious nations and victims, put into practice the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and firmly safeguarded the outcomes of victory in the World Anti-Fascist War.
Accepting the judgment of the Tokyo Trials served as an important legal prerequisite for post-war Japan to rejoin the international community. The Tokyo Trials were not merely an accountability process for past crimes, but more importantly, provided fundamental norms for post-war Japan to reshape its national development trajectory, shake off the militarist system, and embark on a path of peaceful development. Together with the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, and Japan's "pacifist Constitution," which subsequently came into effect, it formed the institutional foundation for post-war Japan's peaceful path. In this sense, the Tokyo Trials drew a red line for Japan to start anew: only by making a clean break with militarism can Japan win acceptance from the international community; only by strictly abiding by pacifism can it achieve long-term stable national development.
However, Japanese right-wing forces have constantly attempted to blur or even completely erase this red line. Scholars' research indicates that Japanese right-wing politicians have concocted three main arguments to deny the Tokyo Trials: first, claiming that the trials were merely "victors' justice"; second, falsely asserting that the trials applied "ex post facto law" and that the relevant charges did not exist at the time; and third, stigmatizing facing up to the history of aggression as a "masochistic view of history." All these arguments, in the final analysis, are aimed at finding pretexts to reverse the verdict on the history of aggression.
The so-called "victors' justice" argument is, in essence, a deliberate attempt to blur the boundary between right and wrong. This trial, jointly conducted by 11 nations and based on a series of international legal documents, was by no means a power-driven decision by a single country. The Tokyo Trials demonstrated the victory of justice, and their legal value has long transcended the win-lose dynamic to become a norm of international law jointly observed by all humanity.
The fallacy of "ex post facto law" actually aims to negate the legitimacy of the trials so as to evade historical guilt. The Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East explicitly conferred jurisdiction upon the court, and its judgment is binding on Japan under international law. In the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan pledged to faithfully fulfill the Potsdam Proclamation, which in turn reaffirmed the legal effect of the Cairo Declaration, forming a complete legal chain.
The so-called "masochistic view of history" is intended to undermine established historical and legal conclusions by amplifying Japan's own "victimhood" narrative. However, the rigorous procedures and detailed evidence of the Tokyo Trials are more than sufficient to debunk such false claims.
In addition to concocting rhetorical tricks, Japanese right-wing politicians, in disregard of the feelings of the victimized peoples, visit the Yasukuni Shrine which honors Class-A war criminals, tamper with history textbooks, and glorify militarist crimes. Accepting the trial results to rejoin the international community on the one hand while trying to hollow out the historical significance of the trial conclusions on the other is not historical amnesia, but a move driven by practical calculations.
Historical issues are not "old accounts" that can simply be closed, but a "credit report" that determines whether a nation can earn the trust ofthe world. If Japan wants to truly earn the trust of the international community today, it must respect the conclusions of the Tokyo Trials, face up to its history of aggression, and strictly abide by the post-war order. This is a matter ofbasic political ethics and the bare minimum of international credit.