Editorial: The A-bomb trial and the world―A-bombed country should send out the message again that the atomic bombings were a “violation of international law”
Sep. 7, 2024
A high-profile “ruling” was handed down yesterday in the world of television. That is, in the popular serial drama “Tora ni Tsubasa” (in English, “The Tiger and Her Wings”) currently airing on NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation), and based on Yoshiko Mibuchi, the first female judge in Japan.
In the scene where the judges hand down the decision in the “A-bomb trial,” which could be called a climax, the presiding judge spoke forcefully that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “illegal acts of combat from the standpoint of international law at that time.” The content and flow of the trial generally follows the historical facts, although there are some differences for staging purposes.
The actual lawsuit, in which the Tokyo District Court in December 1963, took more than eight years to reach a decision, was filed by five survivors of the atomic bombings against the Japanese government for compensation. Ms. Mibuchi, who had long felt compassion for those wounded by war, was one of the three judges who wrote the decision. The plaintiffs’ claim for compensation was dismissed, but although it was a civil case, they criticized the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, and, for the first time, declared the atomic bombings a violation of international law. The unusual ruling became final and had various impacts both in Japan and overseas.
Overseas, the trial is known to some as the “Shimoda case,” after the name of one of the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of the unexpected opportunity to shed light on it in a television drama, let us, as the A-bombed city, review its historical role.
Reading the decision, we can feel the conscience and enthusiasm of the judges who tried to show as much empathy toward the atomic bomb survivors as they could.
The atomic bombings ordered by Harry S. Truman, then president of the United States, killed and wounded many people with its blast, thermal rays and raging flames beyond imagination, and people were still dying of atomic bomb disease one after another.
The indiscriminate and cruel nature of the atomic bombings violated the fundamental principles of international laws of war prohibiting inhumane acts, such as the 1899 Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
While concluding the plaintiffs’ claim could not be granted, the court ruled the central government, which had instigated the war on its own authority and responsibility, should provide sufficient relief to address the tremendous damage suffered by the citizens. It also pointed out the Atomic Bomb Medical Relief Law, enacted after the lawsuit was filed, would not help the survivors, and deplored the negligence of the legislative and executive branches as the “poor politics.”
The desire to help those who were suffering and to never allow nuclear weapons to be used may have spread as a result of this decision. In Japan, the A-bomb Survivors Special Measures Law took effect in 1968, and the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law in 1995. In the global community, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion in 1996 stating the threat or use of nuclear weapons would “generally be contrary to the rules of international law.” These movements led to the establishment of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017.
The global situation over nuclear weapons is only getting worse, with Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons in its war with Ukraine and growing arguments for nuclear deterrence, including from the governments of Japan and the United States. What happens once nuclear weapons are used, and why is it a violation of international law? The appeal of the famous judgment, which has never faded even after 60 years, should be sent out again from the A-bombed country precisely because now is the time.
It is not limited to nuclear weapons. Inhumane acts of combat that are suspected of violating international law, including the attacks on the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip, continue to take place around the world.
Even in Japan, there are still issues inconsistent with the decision. The damage caused by the Great Tokyo Air Raid, which killed about 100,000 people, and other war-related damage, excepting those caused by the atomic bombings, have been neglected. How should we support people who have been damaged by war? The A-bomb trial shows us the compelling question.
(Originally published on September 7, 2024)
In the scene where the judges hand down the decision in the “A-bomb trial,” which could be called a climax, the presiding judge spoke forcefully that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were “illegal acts of combat from the standpoint of international law at that time.” The content and flow of the trial generally follows the historical facts, although there are some differences for staging purposes.
The actual lawsuit, in which the Tokyo District Court in December 1963, took more than eight years to reach a decision, was filed by five survivors of the atomic bombings against the Japanese government for compensation. Ms. Mibuchi, who had long felt compassion for those wounded by war, was one of the three judges who wrote the decision. The plaintiffs’ claim for compensation was dismissed, but although it was a civil case, they criticized the inhumane nature of nuclear weapons, and, for the first time, declared the atomic bombings a violation of international law. The unusual ruling became final and had various impacts both in Japan and overseas.
Overseas, the trial is known to some as the “Shimoda case,” after the name of one of the plaintiffs. Taking advantage of the unexpected opportunity to shed light on it in a television drama, let us, as the A-bombed city, review its historical role.
Reading the decision, we can feel the conscience and enthusiasm of the judges who tried to show as much empathy toward the atomic bomb survivors as they could.
The atomic bombings ordered by Harry S. Truman, then president of the United States, killed and wounded many people with its blast, thermal rays and raging flames beyond imagination, and people were still dying of atomic bomb disease one after another.
The indiscriminate and cruel nature of the atomic bombings violated the fundamental principles of international laws of war prohibiting inhumane acts, such as the 1899 Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land.
While concluding the plaintiffs’ claim could not be granted, the court ruled the central government, which had instigated the war on its own authority and responsibility, should provide sufficient relief to address the tremendous damage suffered by the citizens. It also pointed out the Atomic Bomb Medical Relief Law, enacted after the lawsuit was filed, would not help the survivors, and deplored the negligence of the legislative and executive branches as the “poor politics.”
The desire to help those who were suffering and to never allow nuclear weapons to be used may have spread as a result of this decision. In Japan, the A-bomb Survivors Special Measures Law took effect in 1968, and the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law in 1995. In the global community, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered an advisory opinion in 1996 stating the threat or use of nuclear weapons would “generally be contrary to the rules of international law.” These movements led to the establishment of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017.
The global situation over nuclear weapons is only getting worse, with Russia threatening to use nuclear weapons in its war with Ukraine and growing arguments for nuclear deterrence, including from the governments of Japan and the United States. What happens once nuclear weapons are used, and why is it a violation of international law? The appeal of the famous judgment, which has never faded even after 60 years, should be sent out again from the A-bombed country precisely because now is the time.
It is not limited to nuclear weapons. Inhumane acts of combat that are suspected of violating international law, including the attacks on the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip, continue to take place around the world.
Even in Japan, there are still issues inconsistent with the decision. The damage caused by the Great Tokyo Air Raid, which killed about 100,000 people, and other war-related damage, excepting those caused by the atomic bombings, have been neglected. How should we support people who have been damaged by war? The A-bomb trial shows us the compelling question.
(Originally published on September 7, 2024)
