Radhabinod Pal

Radhabinod Pal was an Indian jurist who served on the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. His dissent rejected the tribunal’s convictions of the Japanese defendants.

International Military Tribunal for the Far East: The Allied tribunal that tried Japanese leaders for war crimes after World War II. Pal served as the tribunal’s Indian member and wrote its sole dissenting judgment.
Ex post facto law: A law that retroactively criminalizes conduct or increases its punishment. Pal argued that applying the new crime of aggression to earlier acts violated this principle.
Joseph B. Keenan: An American prosecutor who served as chief counsel for the prosecution at the Tokyo trial. Keenan led the prosecution whose legal case Pal opposed.
Japanese nationalism: Political movements and ideas that emphasize Japanese national identity, sovereignty, and collective interests. Some Japanese nationalists later invoked Pal’s dissent to challenge accounts of wartime responsibility.
Pal's dissent: Radhabinod Pal’s separate opinion arguing that the Tokyo tribunal should acquit the Japanese defendants. It sets out the legal and historical grounds behind Pal’s opposition to the convictions.
Aggressive war: The use of armed force by a state in violation of international law. The tribunal treated planning and waging aggressive war as a crime, a basis Pal disputed.
William Webb: An Australian judge who presided over the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Webb’s court issued the majority judgment against which Pal dissented.
Yasukuni Shrine: A Shinto shrine in Tokyo commemorating Japan’s war dead, including convicted war criminals enshrined in 1978. A monument at the shrine honors Pal, linking his dissent to contested Japanese war memory.
Tokyo Trial: The postwar proceedings in Tokyo that prosecuted Japanese political and military leaders for wartime crimes. This was the trial in which Pal issued his dissent.
Individual criminal responsibility: The principle that individuals can be held criminally liable under international law. Pal questioned whether the defendants could be convicted under the tribunal’s asserted rules.

Linked from 2 pages

Kenji DoiharaRelated: Pal’s dissent challenged the tribunal’s legal basis and verdicts, including the proceedings against Doihara.