Acceso usuarios
Latha Varadarajan
At the end of the Second World War, the leaders of the defeated Axis powers were tried for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in two specially established international military tribunals. Unlike at the vaunted Nuremberg trials, the judgment of the less-illustrious Tokyo tribunal was not unanimous. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Radhabinod Pal of India comprehensively disagreed with all aspects of the trial, finding all defendants “not guilty” of the charges leveled against them. Despite being considered quite incendiary at that time, the dissenting opinion has been largely ignored by International Relations scholarship analyzing the development of legal norms and institutions in global politics. Notwithstanding its many limitations, the questions raised in Pal’s dissent about criminality, power, and justice, while situated in a specific historical moment, remain far from settled. This article provides a second look at Pal’s dissent in order to recover its unique and critical insights into the relationship between imperialism and the development of international law
