Opinion

by Makoto Iwasaki, Special Editorial Writer

The “A-bomb trial,” in which the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ruled to be in violation of international law, has received renewed attention through last year’s serialized drama “Tora ni Tsubasa” (in English, “The Tiger and Her Wings”), aired by the Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK). The drama is based on the story of Yoshiko Mibuchi, one of the judges involved in the Tokyo District Court decision handed down in 1963. Kenichi Okubo, 78, president of the Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA), who lives in Tokorozawa City, Saitama Prefecture, has recently published a new book titled ‘Genbaku Saiban’ wo Gendai ni Ikasu (‘Bringing to life the A-bomb trial in our time’; published by Nippon Hyoronsha). Herein, we interviewed Mr. Okubo and asked him what should be relearned from the trial in this 80th year after the atomic bombings.

Five atomic bomb survivors sought compensation from the Japanese government in the A-bomb trial, which lasted eight years. You apparently helped create the television drama detailing the trial.
The family of the late Yasuhiro Matsui, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs at the time and a founder of JALANA, donated a variety of original documents to us, including the complaint, written responses, brief, requests for submission of evidence, and expert opinions. We would provide relevant materials when the production staff paid us repeated visits. The drama directly asked what the cruel atomic bombings brought about in the A-bomb survivors and confronted how the law and the trial should deal with what happened.

Now that the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo) has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, what do you think the significance is of reflecting back on the trial? It was the first legal case in history in which the wisdom of law challenged the ultimate violence of nuclear weapons. One of the issues raised was how to provide relief to the survivors. The other issue was how to question the illegality of the atomic bombings and prohibit nuclear weapons. I would like to return to the A-bomb trial amid a situation in which we are making progress toward a world without nuclear weapons.

What was the point of the court’s ruling?
While rejecting the claim for compensation, the court declared that the atomic bombings by the United States were in clear violation of international law. The court examined international law at that time and concluded that the act of the bombings was a violation, incorporating the opinions of three international law experts as expert witnesses, based on two points—that it was an indiscriminate bombing of a defenseless city, and that it caused unnecessary suffering. The ruling has significant meaning in that it led to the establishment of today’s Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Another point is that the court declared, “We cannot help but lament the poverty of politics” regarding the passive stance of Japan’s government and its parliament on the issue of relief for the A-bomb survivors. Although support for survivors continues to be inadequate, that statement affected relief measures and led to establishment of the current Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law. However, in his speech at the Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony, Terumi Tanaka, co-chair of Nihon Hidankyo, seemed to be expressing his anger at the still unresolved poverty of politics by highlighting the Japanese government’s refusal to provide state compensation for those who had been killed in the atomic bombings.

What was the court’s ruling on the issue of state compensation?
Although concluding that the bombings were illegal, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim, arguing that individuals did not have the right to bring a claim without international law first recognizing the rights of victimized people to do so. While rejecting the claim with that logic, the decision also explicitly stated that the case had raised issues about government compensation for war damages consistent with its responsibility for the results of its actions. Why did the court make these contradictory statements? In its statements I can discern the judges’ anger at the government and the parliament for failing to do anything about the horrific devastation caused by the atomic bombings.

The same might also apply to other damages besides the atomic bombings, such as air raids, right?
You are right about that. Even though certain kinds of relief are provided to A-bomb survivors, there is none for other war damages. The government’s stance calls for all citizens to bear wartime damages equally, but I call attention to the fact that the ruling expanded on the need to provide relief for all war damages.

From the A-bomb trial, we can interpret there to be issues that remain unresolved to this day. In particular, the attitude of the government.
The defendant (the state) in the legal case claimed that the bombings did not violate international law. However, immediately after the bombings, the country had lodged a protest against the United States, asserting that the bombings had violated international law and demanding abolition of the inhumane weapons. The country simply reversed course. Moreover, the government went so far as to say at the trial that the bombings had helped reduce damages to its own people. Japan had become a country based on the concept of making progress by relying on U.S. nuclear weapons and dollars. The recent movement to extend nuclear deterrence based on the Japan-U.S. alliance and the so-called “nuclear sharing” policy is far from consistent with the government’s original claim at the time, and the situation is only getting worse. It is misleading to say you are aiming at a world without nuclear weapons while relying on the nuclear umbrella.

You have made valuable trial documents available to the public.
Most of the documents have been archived on the JALANA website. We will eventually transfer them to the non-profit organization No More Hibakusha Project, which Mr. Tanaka mentioned in his acceptance speech. We are hoping that the information proves useful to future generations.

Profile

Kenichi Okubo
Born in Nagano City, Kenichi Okubo graduated from Tohoku University. After working in Japan’s Ministry of Justice, Mr. Okubo registered as an attorney in 1979 and became a member of the Saitama Bar Association. He is involved in the activities of the Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA), founded in 1994, becoming its fifth president in 2020. He serves as chair of the Subcommittee on Nuclear Weapons Abolition of the Constitutional Issues Task Force within the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. His published works include Kenpo Runesansu (in English, ‘the Constitutional Renaissance’) and Kakuheiki Haizetsu to Kenpo kyu jo (‘Abolition of nuclear weapons and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution’).

(Originally published on January 22, 2025)