In the quiet halls of the Shanghai Songhu Memorial Hall, an old typewriter once used by prosecutor Xiang Zhejun stands as a silent witness to a seismic shift in international law. May 3 marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE), an event that remains the cornerstone of the post-war legal and moral order in East Asia. Known as the Tokyo Trials, this two-and-a-half-year process saw 11 nations collaborate to hold the leaders of Imperial Japan accountable for systemic atrocities.
While the Nuremberg trials often dominate Western historical memory, the proceedings in Tokyo were an equally monumental effort to litigate the horrors of World War II. The tribunal prosecuted 25 high-ranking defendants, resulting in seven executions—including wartime Prime Minister Hideki Tojo—and life sentences for many others. For Beijing, the legacy of these trials is not merely a historical footnote but a vital legal shield against what it perceives as rising contemporary revisionism in Japan.
The significance of the trials lies in their exhaustive documentation of crimes that had previously existed beyond the reach of international law. Through 818 sessions and over 4,000 pieces of evidence, the court established the Rape of Nanking and the 'Bataan Death March' as incontrovertible legal facts. Chief Prosecutor Joseph Keenan famously described the proceedings as a 'battle for the survival of human civilization,' framing the verdict as a victory for justice over barbarism.
China’s participation was instrumental in shaping the trial's scope and its eventual jurisprudence. Under the leadership of Judge Mei Ruao and Prosecutor Xiang Zhejun, the Chinese delegation fought to include the full fourteen years of Japanese aggression, starting with the 1931 invasion of Manchuria. This inclusion was a pivotal moment, ensuring that the trial addressed the root causes of the conflict rather than just the immediate aftermath of Pearl Harbor.
Beyond specific atrocities, the Tokyo Trials pioneered the concept of 'Crimes Against Peace' and refined the principle of 'Commander Responsibility.' By holding civilian leaders like Foreign Minister Koki Hirota accountable for failing to stop military atrocities, the court set a precedent that remains central to the International Criminal Court today. These legal innovations turned the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact's rejection of war into a functional tool for criminal prosecution.
However, the trials also left a complex legacy due to the burgeoning Cold War. The decision to grant immunity to Emperor Hirohito and the failure to fully purge the roots of militarism created what many in China see as a 'half-finished' justice. These omissions have allowed right-wing factions in Japan to periodically challenge the 'Tokyo Trial view of history,' seeking to reframe the conflict as a war of self-defense rather than imperial expansion.
Today, the rhetoric of 'overcoming' the post-war regime and revising Japan's pacifist constitution is viewed with deep suspicion by its neighbors. Beijing utilizes the 80th anniversary to remind the world that the Tokyo Trials established the legal boundaries of the modern international order. For China, defending the verdict of 1946 is synonymous with defending regional stability and preventing the return of historical tragedies.