Recently, an international symposium commemorating the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trial was held in Shanghai and Nanjing. Distinguished scholars in history, law, and international relations, as well as former government officials from various countries, gathered to engage in in-depth discussions on the historical significance and contemporary lessons of the Tokyo Trial, while jointly safeguarding historical truth.
In May 2026, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Memorial Hall of the Victims in the Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders jointly hosted an international symposium in Shanghai marking the 80th anniversary of the commencement of the Tokyo Trial. Experts and scholars from China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Russia, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and other countries participated in discussions on the legacy and significance of the Tokyo Trial.
For the past eighty years, the Tokyo Trial has remained a source of discomfort for some people in Japan. Critics have described it as “the victors’ trial of the defeated,” “ex post facto justice,” or an externally imposed “masochistic view of history.” Today, Japan’s right-wing forces continue to promote these narratives alongside efforts to revise history, amend the constitution, and expand military capabilities, further challenging the foundations of the postwar international order.
Let us take a look at some of the views expressed by experts at the symposium.
I. The Significance of the Trial
Cheng Zhaoqi, Director of the Tokyo Trial Research Center at Shanghai Jiao Tong University; Wang Xiumei, Professor at the Law School of Beijing Normal University; and Wang Chaoguang, former Director and Research Fellow at the Institute of World History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that the significance of the Tokyo Trial lies not only in the punishment of war criminals, but also in its establishment of an international mechanism for restraining war through law. The trial’s original purpose of “preserving peace and saving civilization” became a core value of postwar international judicial practice. The principles of international law established through the trial are closely linked to the postwar international order and have exerted a lasting influence on maintaining world peace and preventing the recurrence of war. Revisiting the Tokyo Trial today serves as a reminder that peace without the rule of law is fragile, and that development without peace is impossible.
Majid, former Malaysian Ambassador to China, stated that the contemporary world faces numerous global challenges. The confrontational mindset inherited from previous eras can no longer provide solutions to the realities of the twenty-first century. Therefore, the deeper lesson of the Tokyo Trial lies not merely in punishing past wrongdoing, but also in encouraging humanity to continue exploring ways to build a more just and peaceful international order. If the suffering remembered through the Tokyo Trial can inspire people to exercise power with caution, respect human dignity, firmly safeguard peace, and promote international cooperation, then history can continue to generate positive value and benefit all humankind.
On May 3, 1946, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, composed of judges and prosecutors from eleven countries including China, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, France, Australia, the Netherlands, and the Philippines, held its first public hearing in Tokyo.
Viviane Dittrich, Vice President of the Nuremberg Principles Academy, and Xu Chi, Associate Research Fellow at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, emphasized that the geographic scope of the Tokyo Trial encompassed nearly all of East and Southeast Asia and involved dozens of ethnic groups and colonial populations. In essence, the Tokyo Trial was a cross-cultural judicial undertaking that both inherited and expanded the multinational governance framework established by the Nuremberg Trials. It also marked the first occasion in the history of international criminal justice in which non-Western countries participated as equal judicial powers in holding accountable an empire that had emerged within the Western colonial system but ultimately turned to aggression against other Asian nations and Western colonies.
Neil Boister, Professor of Law at the University of Canterbury, noted that, in a narrow sense, the Tokyo Trial was a judicial proceeding concerning Japan’s more than decade-long wars in East Asia and the Pacific. In a broader sense, however, it represented the legal response of the international community to Japan’s military expansion from the nineteenth into the twentieth century.
II. China’s Role
Chai Wan, Professor at the Federal University of Maranhão in Brazil, noted that Chinese prosecutors devoted enormous effort to the proceedings. Through their professional legal expertise, they transformed profound humanitarian suffering into documentary evidence and witness testimony admissible before the court. In doing so, they helped the tribunal reach a crucial understanding: aggression is not merely a political act but a concrete legal fact that should be subject to judicial examination and the judgment of justice. This contribution played a central role in the jurisprudential development of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.
Jin Yilin, Deputy Director and Research Fellow at the Institute of Modern History of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that in the late 1950s, Japanese war criminals who had been released and repatriated from China established the China Returnees Liaison Association. The organization actively promoted Sino-Japanese friendship and opposed wars of aggression, exerting a profound influence on Japanese society. Regarding their rehabilitation, Premier Zhou Enlai reportedly set forth a clear principle: “Not one should escape, and not one should die.” Of the nearly one thousand repatriated war criminals, only one later recanted his confession, while the others consistently acknowledged their crimes and expressed remorse. Jin described this outcome as one of the most remarkable examples of ideological transformation in human history.
III. Reflection and Critique
Hiroshi Shiratori, President of the Japanese Association of Politics and Law and Professor at the Graduate School of Public Policy at Hosei University, argued that the Tokyo Trial forms one of the foundations of Japanese pacifism. May 3 carries a dual significance for Japan: it marks both the opening of the Tokyo Trial in 1946 and the coming into effect of Japan’s Peace Constitution in 1947. The former symbolizes reflection on war, while the latter represents the institutionalization of pacifism.
Shiratori warned that the current Japanese government has increased defense spending from 1 percent of GDP to 2 percent and intends to raise it further to 3.5 percent. In his view, this development poses a threat to peace in the Asia-Pacific region. Whether Japan may repeat the mistakes of the past remains a serious question, making reflection on the lessons of the Tokyo Trial particularly important.
Masataka Mori, Professor at Shizuoka University, stated that Japan’s far-right forces have distorted the Tokyo Trial by portraying it as “a one-sided judgment imposed by the victors upon the defeated” and claiming that it forced a “self-denigrating view of history” upon Japan. Some have even asserted that Japan’s wartime actions were “wars of self-defense rather than wars of aggression.”
According to Mori, these groups remain trapped in fantasies of reviving militarism. Their continued visits to Yasukuni Shrine, support for military expansion, strengthening of the Self-Defense Forces, and efforts to revise the constitution all reflect this tendency.
He argued that the symposium serves not only as a warning against such right-wing illusions and emerging forms of militarism, but also as an opportunity for people to rediscover the spirit of the Tokyo Trial and engage in deeper self-reflection.
Mori further emphasized that the international community should seize this opportunity to promote the values embodied by the Tokyo Trial, prevent the resurgence of militarism, and safeguard the peace and stability established after the Second World War. At the same time, he argued that addressing Japanese wartime crimes that have long been neglected remains a responsibility that the Japanese people must confront.
Takakage Fujita, Chairman of the Murayama Statement Association, quoted the late Japanese intellectual Shuichi Kato, often referred to as a “giant among intellectuals,” who once remarked on Sino-Japanese relations:
“There is no benefit whatsoever in distorting history. It deeply harms Sino-Japanese friendship and also damages the self-respect of the Japanese people. Japanese self-respect does not lie in whitewashing or concealing past mistakes, but in facing them courageously and criticizing them without hesitation.”
Fujita argued that Japan must solemnly accept the judgments of the Tokyo Trial and do its utmost to contribute to peace and prosperity in Asia and throughout the world. In his view, this is the only viable path forward.
Qi Dahai, Director-General of the Department of Treaty and Law of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, argued that Japanese right-wing forces have attempted to challenge the legitimacy of the Tokyo Trial through claims such as “ex post facto law” and “victors’ justice.” According to him, such arguments seek to conceal the history of aggression and deny responsibility for wartime crimes.
Qi warned that if this trend is not effectively checked, there is reason to fear that the tragedies of war could recur. He argued that all peace-loving nations should send a clear message to Japan: if it fails to learn from history and repeats the path of militarism, it will once again face the judgment of history and the demands of justice.
Rok Seok-jun, Professor in the Faculty of International Relations at Daito Bunka University, argued that one of the root causes of Japan’s wars of aggression was a breach of faith—namely, the violation of commitments it had previously made under international treaties, agreements, and understandings.
He further contended that the deterioration of present-day Sino-Japanese relations stems largely from the Japanese government’s failure to honor its commitments, including those relating to the judgments of the Tokyo Trial, historical issues, and the Taiwan question.
Conclusion
Eighty years is long enough to transform the world beyond recognition. Yet the principles that aggression is a crime, atrocities must be punished, and peace should prevail remain firmly embedded in the conscience of humanity.
Efforts by some in Japan to weaken legal principles, distort historical facts, and challenge established postwar norms serve as a reminder that the warnings of history have not lost their relevance and that the defense of justice can never cease.
All people of conscience, the article concludes, should preserve and promote the core spirit of the Tokyo Trial, safeguard historical truth, expose historical distortions, and ensure that colonial aggression and militarist expansion are never repeated.
