A Rereading of the Symposium Entitled “Overcoming the Modern” : Unconscious Links in Japanese Discourse on Civilization or the Modern

国立ロシア人文大学, モスクワ大学, 2007年10月31日-11月2

Discourses on and against Civilization in Pre-war Japan

Cairo Conference on Japanese Studies, カイロ大学, 2006年11月5日-6

「パル判決」再考 : 戦後日本の受容の系譜を顧みる

Nearly six decades have passed since the International Military Tribunal for the Far East handed down its judgment, in which all the defendants were found guilty of one or more of the charges. Six out of the eleven judges submitted separate opinions, among which was the Indian justice Radhabinod Pal’s totally dissentient one. Pal did not in the least affirm all of Japan’s past actions; he simply held that the defendants’ actions were not illegal in an indictable sense. And yet, inasmuch as the prewar and wartime picture of Japan painted by the official verdict came as a shock to the Japanese in the wake of World War Two, Pal’s opinion was interpreted as another “judgment” delivered by an Asian judge and functioned as an alternative or a strong antidote for the view of the history generated by the tribunal. That is, whether approving of or refuting his opinion, one has referred to Pal’s view as none other than “the argument for Japan’s innocence.” This essay will attempt to dissect how the post-war Japan has responded to Pal’s opinion and discuss the significance of the opinion in the context of Japanese intellectual history

Beyond the Judgment of Civilization : The Intellectual Legacy of the Japanese War crimes trials, 1946 - 1949

xvii, 336 p; 21 cm

<RESEARCH NOTES>Pal’s “Dissentient Judgment” Reconsidered : Some Notes on Postwar Japan’s Responses to the Opinion

Nearly six decades have passed since the International Military Tribunal for the Far East handed down its judgment, in which all the defendants were found guilty of one or more of the charges. Six out of the eleven judges submitted separate opinions, among which was the Indian justice Radhabinod Pal’s totally dissentient one. Pal did not in the least affirm all of Japan’s past actions; he simply held that the defendants ’ actions were not illegal in an indictable sense. And yet, inasmuch as the prewar and wartime picture of Japan painted by the official verdict came as a shock to the Japanese in the wake of World War Two, Pal’s opinion was interpreted as another “judgment ” delivered by an Asian judge and functioned as an alternative or a strong antidote for the view of the history generated by the tribunal. That is, whether approving of or refuting his opinion, one has referred to Pal’s view as none other than “the argument for Japan’s innocence. ” This essay will attempt to dissect how the post-war Japan has responded to Pal’s opinion and discuss the significance of the opinion in the context of Japanese intellectual history