News

by Kyosuke Mizukawa, Senior Staff Writer

On December 7, 1963, the so-called “A-bomb trial,” held at the Tokyo District Court, reached a verdict around eight-and-a-half years after the lawsuit had first been filed. The plaintiffs were five survivors of the atomic bombing from Hiroshima, Tokyo, and other locations (one of whom died before the ruling was handed down). They alleged that the dropping of the atomic bombs by the U.S. military was in violation of international law and sought damages from Japan’s national government, which had waived its right to make claims against the United States arising from the war under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which had entered into force in 1952.

The unprecedented lawsuit sought to give momentum to the efforts to ban atomic and hydrogen bombs and establish relief measures for those suffering from the atomic bombings. In a courtroom packed with reporters, presiding judge Toshimasa Koseki read his reasoning regarding whether or not the atomic bombings had been illegal before postponing the main argument explaining the conclusion regarding the claim. He said, “From the standpoint of international law at that time, it is reasonable to conclude that the dropping of the atomic bombs was an illegal act of war” (excerpted from the text of the ruling).

One reason for that determination was Mr. Koseki’s citing of the indiscriminate nature of the bombings, which had caused damage to non-military targets and non-combatants. The other reason was that the use of weapons had caused “unnecessary suffering” due to the effects of radiation from the bombings that lingered even after the war. Both were prohibited by international law under the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague Convention).

The ruling of the court differed from the view of the Japanese government, the defendant in the case, which claimed that the atomic bombings were not illegal. The court reached its verdict based on expert opinions submitted by three Japanese experts in international law. Two of the experts considered the bombings to have been illegal, while the remaining expert pointed out that “there is a strong basis for making the determination that the bombings were illegal.” Meanwhile, based on these same expert opinions, Mr. Koseki dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims for compensation on the basis that, in general terms, individuals, unlike states, had no right to claim compensation for damages in terms of international law.”

“Poverty of politics”

Beyond that decision, Mr. Koseki urged the government to provide “adequate relief measures.” He emphasized, “The national government started the war under its own authority and responsibility, which led to the death and injury of many of its people and forced them into a life of uncertainty.” Citing the enormity of the damage caused by the atomic bombings as well as the inadequacy of the Atomic Bomb Medical Relief Law, which had gone into effect in 1957, he concluded, “I cannot help but lament the poverty of politics.”

Yasuhiro Matsui, attorney for the plaintiffs, was disappointed with the dismissal of his team’s claims but praised the verdict, saying, “It will give great courage to people around the world who long for peace” (as excerpted from his letter addressed to those involved in the case). Ryuichi Shimoda, one of the plaintiffs who had lost his five children in the atomic bombing, sent a letter from Hiroshima to Mr. Matsui, expressing his joy that the court had declared the atomic bombings to have been in violation of international law. Despite losing the case, the plaintiffs decided not to make an appeal to a higher court, and the ruling became final.

“I felt a certain sense of satisfaction that the atomic bombings were clearly indicated to have been a violation of international law,” said Ichiro Kawamoto, an organizer of the Hiroshima Paper Crane Club. Tsukasa Nitoguri, a Hiroshima City Council member who was involved in protests against former U.S. President Harry S. Truman, said, “This will likely serve as a significant warning.” The Chugoku Shimbun newspaper also reported on the opinions of those in Hiroshima who found significance in the court’s ruling. However, even after the ruling, the national government, which was not able to appeal the court’s ruling to a higher court because of its victory in the case, continued to argue in the Diet its original claim that, “There is no basis for making the determination that these [the atomic bombings] were a violation of international law.

Encouragement for A-bomb survivors

Ichiro Moritaki, then chair of the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations (Nihon Hidankyo), wrote that the term “poverty of politics” pointed out in the judgment served as “inspiration for the A-bomb survivors to stand up,” as he had written in a submitted opinion piece to the Chugoku Shimbun in 1970. That was a time at which the A-bomb survivors movement was at a standstill in the aftermath of a split in the movement to ban atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Three years later, in 1966, Nihon Hidankyo published a document titled “Characteristics of A-Bomb Damage and the Call for the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law” (also known as the ‘Tsuru Brochure’). Citing the ruling handed down at the A-bomb trial, the document called on the national government to take responsibility for relief and aid to A-bomb survivors and raised the issue of provision of health-care allowances and condolence money based on the idea of national compensation.

As a result of the movement taking inspiration from the ruling, the A-bomb Survivors Special Measures Law, which stipulated health-care and other allowances, was enacted in 1968. However, even when combined with the Atomic Bomb Medical Relief Law, the provisions of the A-bomb Survivors Special Measures Law fell far short of those of the Atomic Bomb Survivors Relief Law demanded by A-bomb survivors.

(Originally published on April 9, 2025)