1

The War Crimes Tribunals

Name

Institution

Course

Professor

Date
 2

The War Crimes Tribunals

The War Crimes Tribunals, more specifically the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo Trials,

were epochal judicial trials following the end of World War II aimed at prosecuting the leaders

of the Axis powers for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The

motivations behind the trials have nonetheless long stood the subject of heated debate among

historians. Even though these tribunals marked the start of a new era of global justice and the

accountability of the humans, they were just as influenced by the geopolitical interests and moral

posturing of the allies. Thus, even though the tribunals were instrumental in advancing justice in

holding some perpetrators accountable, it is fair to a large extent to say that they were as much

intended for the benefit of Allied interests as pure justice.

One of the most evident markers of the tribunals' adherence to the interests of the Allies

is how they were structured and controlled. The Allies had sole power over the legal basis of the

tribunals, the appointment of the judges, the charging process, and the selection of the defendants

(Lubecka, 2024). By having control of all these aspects of the tribunals' operation, the Allies

ensured that they tried only the top people among the Axis and turned a blind eye to and justified

serious Allied war crimes. For instance, the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the

firebombing of cities such as Dresden, and the Soviet slaughter of Polish officers in the Katyn

Forest remained judicially immune (Lubecka, 2024). By leaving out these atrocities, the tribunals

did not have to face embarrassing facts regarding the conduct of the victors and hence

safeguarded their international image and postwar power.

In addition, the jurisprudence of the trials questioned fairness and retrospective justice.

Most of the crimes, such as “crimes against peace,” had previously not been properly defined

under international law. Therefore, the defendants were tried for acts that were not legally
 3

defined as crimes when they took place. This questioned the legitimacy of the trials and

reinforced their political character (Saakshi, 2021). The Allies created new legislation and

enforced it discriminately against their adversaries so that they could pose as purveyors of justice

and then not account for the controversial wartime actions they themselves took.

In the Tokyo Trials, the primacy of American interests was most evident. The trials were

conducted under the authority of General Douglas MacArthur, who had tremendous control over

the process (Burton, 2020). Most important of all, the Emperor Hirohito of Japan was spared

prosecution although he had hitched his wagon to no other person than the head of state during

the war. His exemption was a political decision carried out in the calculated manner to preserve

the stability of Japan and to have it follow the West in the new Cold War (Higurashi, 2023).

Being an illustration of how justice took a back seat to strategic interests is the fact that the

emperor was protected but lower-level officials were brought to trial. Further, the trials

prosecuted selectively and left many of those who had materially aided the war effort of the Axis

bloc unpunished. In Germany, some industrialists and financiers were punishable, but most

others were reintroduced into society quietly due to their significance for postwar reconstruction

in an economic sense (Klokeid, 2024). This is true more so in the 1950s when many convicted

war criminals received early releases in a bid to help West Germany develop as a capitalist ally

against the Soviet Union. These actions manifested a change of priorities towards geopolitical

pragmatism.

In spite of these criticisms, it should be noted that the tribunals did establish key legal

precedent. They proclaimed the rule according to which the heads of state and military leaders as

individuals could be responsible for war crimes liability. It was a rather revolutionary idea that

paved the way for future development of international criminal law (Klokeid, 2024). The
 4

exclusion of the superior orders defense as a ground for exoneration, the qualification of

genocide as a crime, and the recording of such extensive atrocities as the Holocaust all surfaced

as key outcomes of the trials. Herein, the tribunals added significantly towards the growth of the

law of human rights as well as the international concept of justice.

The trials also had an important educational and symbolic function. By putting the full

extent of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese atrocities on public record in the form of an open trial,

they left a written record that is still used today to raise international awareness of atrocities of

war. The precise evidence presented served to inhibit denial and revisionism and served as a

degree of justice for the victims and the survivors. Furthermore, the formal recognition of crimes

committed against humanity assisted in creatively fashioning the moral and legal standards of the

post-war world, such as the formation of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights.

However, the disparity in how the justice was meted out is still the fundamental

weakness. Since the trials failed to probe the actions of the Allies, they undermined the

legitimacy of the trials and negated their moral high ground. Justice that is served only against

the vanquished but not against the victors cannot possibly remain unbiased (Klokeid, 2024). The

political environment of the nascent Cold War added a deeper bias to the picture as

determinations regarding the prosecution of individuals and how the postwar communities

should be reoriented got mired in the conflict between capitalism and communism.

In conclusion, the War Crimes Tribunals realized some significant legal and moral ends

but in a large part were motivated by the political agendas of the Allied powers. The trials were

influenced by the need to affirm moral dominance, avert Allied responsibility, and support

strategic agenda of the rapidly shifting post-war world. Their selective justice, retroactive legal
 5

basis, and political maneuvering demonstrate a process that put the consolidation of Allied power

ahead of an actually balanced exercise of international law. Therefore, it is fair to say that the

War Crimes Tribunals more represented Allied interests than the pursuit of justice—albeit their

contribution towards international law is a permanent legacy.

References

Burton, K. (2020, November 24). War Crimes on Trial: The Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. The

National WWII Museum | New Orleans.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/nuremberg-and-tokyo-war-crimes-

trials

Higurashi, Y. (2023). Law and Politics in the Tokyo Trial. In M. Yamauchi & Y. Hosoya (Eds.),

Modern Japan’s Place in World History (pp. 123–133). Springer.

Klokeid, J. (2024). The Enduring and Controversial Legacy of the Nuremberg Trials.

https://journals.library.wustl.edu/globalstudies/article/8971/galley/25740/view/

Lubecka, J. (2024). Themis at Nuremberg: Between Justice and Politics | ENRS. ENRS.

https://enrs.eu/article/themis-at-nuremberg-between-justice-and-politics

Saakshi, S. (2021). The Tokyo Trials: An Analysis from a Modern Perspective. International

Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 4(2), 929.

https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs10&div=82&id=&

page=