(Source: Cambridge University Press)
Cambridge
University Press is publishing a new book on the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal next
month.
ABOUT THE BOOK
Like its
Nuremberg counterpart, the Tokyo trial was foundational in the field of
international law. However, up to now, the persistent notion of 'victor's
justice' in the existing historical literature has made it difficult to treat
it as such. David Cohen and Yuma Totani seek to redress this by cutting through
persistent orthodoxies and ideologies that have plagued the trial. Instead they
present it simply as a judicial process, and in so doing reveal its enduring
importance for international jurisprudence. A wide range of primary sources are
considered, including court transcripts, court exhibits, the majority judgment,
and five separate concurring and dissenting opinions. The authors also provide
comparative analysis of the Allied trials at Nuremberg, resulting in a
comprehensive and empirically grounded study of the trial. The Tokyo tribunal
was a watershed moment in the history of the Asia-Pacific region. This ground
breaking study reveals it is of continuing relevance today.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
David Cohen, Stanford University,
California
David Cohen directs the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice at Stanford University. Previously Cohen was at the War Crimes Studies Center at the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught for thirty-five years before moving the Center to Stanford University in 2013. He publishes on international criminal law, transitional justice, human rights, classics, and comparative legal history, while also directing human rights, rule of law, and accountability projects in South and Southeast Asia and Africa.
Yuma Totani, University of Hawaii
Yuma Totani is a historian of modern Japan and presently teaches at the University of Hawaii. Her research interests are in World War II and war crimes trials in Asia and the Pacific. She is the author of The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (2008) and Justice in Asia and the Pacific Region, 1945–1952 (Cambridge, 2015). She has received various fellowships, including a National Fellowship from the Hoover Institution (2016), the Frederick Burkhardt Residential Fellowship (2012), and the Abe Fellowship (2011).
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Introduction
Part I. The Allied War Crimes Policy, the Indictment, and Court Proceedings:
1. The framework of the trial
2. Charges of crimes against peace
3. The Japanese system of government
4. Individual roles in the making of the war and the overall conspiracy
5. Counts on murder, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity
6. Accountability of war crimes
Part II. Law and Jurisprudence of the Judgments and Separate Opinions:
7. The majority judgment: crimes against peace
8. An alternative perspective on accountability for crimes against peace: the two Webb judgments
9. The majority judgment on war crimes
10. An alternative Tokyo judgment: the draft Webb judgment on war crimes
11. The dissenting opinions by Justices Bernard and Roeling
12. Pal's 'judgment', or dissenting opinion, on crimes against peace
13. Pal's treatment of war crimes charges
14. The concurring opinions of Justices Webb and Jaranilla
Conclusion.
Part I. The Allied War Crimes Policy, the Indictment, and Court Proceedings:
1. The framework of the trial
2. Charges of crimes against peace
3. The Japanese system of government
4. Individual roles in the making of the war and the overall conspiracy
5. Counts on murder, conventional war crimes, and crimes against humanity
6. Accountability of war crimes
Part II. Law and Jurisprudence of the Judgments and Separate Opinions:
7. The majority judgment: crimes against peace
8. An alternative perspective on accountability for crimes against peace: the two Webb judgments
9. The majority judgment on war crimes
10. An alternative Tokyo judgment: the draft Webb judgment on war crimes
11. The dissenting opinions by Justices Bernard and Roeling
12. Pal's 'judgment', or dissenting opinion, on crimes against peace
13. Pal's treatment of war crimes charges
14. The concurring opinions of Justices Webb and Jaranilla
Conclusion.
More information
here
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.