DISSENTillG oPWIOU OF THE
l~MBER
FROM INDIA
The dissenting opinic:n of uy brother Justice, meober 'froo
India reads, in part, as f nll oweJ
".A Vi ew seems t o have been ent ertained in SO!:te
quprtere that as this Tribunal 1a eet up by th~ Viotor
nations, it ie not cornpo tont t o question their euth0ri ty in respect of any of tho provisi ons ot th~ Charter
eetpbliehing the Tribunal. x x
"Those who entflrtain thia Vi nw s p_y:
"l. ~t tho 'S"l e sources of tho :onwers of the
judges of th~ Tribunpl pre tho Cherter end th~ir
a~~oint~ents t o act undor the Charter';
"2. That apart f ro::i the Chert c-r they have no
power ~ t all; ~nd
3. That ~ech judgo of this TribunAl accepted
the appointoent t n sit under t he Charter end that
apart fron tho Charter he cennot sit et Rll nor
pronounce eny order at ~11.
11
"Frora t hese t hey conclude that this Tribunal ia
not com:oetont to try the question whethor thP Su~reao
Col':lf.lander hes exce~ded hie me.ndAte, 1 ps the C~rter
has not rccitted such A question t o it'"·
It then concludes;
"That the Charter has not defined the crioe in
·\uestion; that it was not within the c~~etenco of
its author t o define any criue; that even if any
crioe would bpve been definad by the Charter thet
definition vould have been u,],tra Virns x x ; thet
it is Within our coopetence to question ite authority in this respect."
-
,}
In t he first place, u1tre Vires 1e a t echnicel t erm which
is aJ>pliceble only t o acts Of e corpcration n~ t authnrized by
lew or its Charter, fllld cannot t hcr ef orP be a)')l>lied in this
ceso t o th~ acts of t he Supren~ Cot1r.1pndor fnr the AlliPd Powers.
Wo hpve elready atet Pd, in our docieion, the repsons in
1Upport of thEl velidity of thA Tribunel"' e · Ohartcr.
l Wish,
- 28 -
_J
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
.- .
hOWC'VPr. t o nekc addi ti <>nel obsEir ve ti one principally upt'n
whethi"?r the dissenting oer.lber who questions the velidi ty of
t ho Tribunal's Chert ar hes th<' power t o do so.
The dissenting
~emb er
eccoptcd hie f\P"Oointoent by Virtue
0f Articl e ? of t h<' Chart <'r whi ch prf)"7idee es follnwa:
"Article ?. Monbcra. The TribunAl shell coneiet
of not l ees th~ six mo~b c re nor mn r e thpn cl oven
1.1cobers. al>"Oointad by the Su"Or C::le Con.":lpnder f'> r the
Alli ed Powers fro:.1 the> nfloo e eubui ttcd by t ho Signatori es
t c tho I netr u1.1ent of Surr ~ndor. Indie. end the Coor.1<'nwealth of t hl) Philippi nes ".
pursuent t o the
Spec i ~l
that "the constitution.
bunal ar e t h'l BO
s~ t
dey" : pnd. bef or e
Prc clpoation eetpbliehing this Tribunal
juria~i ct i r. n
Ohert <'~
f orth i n t he
cn t ~ring up~ n
pnd
fun~ti one
x x
of this Tri-
~:o~roved
by n o this
t i s duties AB a oor.lbcr <'f the
Tribunal. he &u..becribed hie OAt h of office.
Heving dr:no ec , he uncondi ti,onplly acc o:ot ed not cnly t ho
v~U dity
cf t he Chart er end of · llll i ta pr,.·Yieir ns. such e.s the
definiti on of t he crinoe AgPinst p cAc r.. t h<' individuel rce"Ooneibili ty thAr cf or, etc •• but ale<' t he duti oe i mpl') eed u:oon hiu by
t he Cherter "for t he just pnd prof.11't tri el
e~d
puniehocnt of the
f.lej or Wpr crh1inels i n t he Fer Ee.st. 11 Not only that - and i t ia
the ooet controlling cnneider e tion - ho ie t her eby bound. contrer/ opini ons he r.lllY hevc notwithstanding, t o givo effect t o
t he "Or oviei one of t h<' Chprtcr which
.al.Q.M gave hin
.1uriediction
and defined hi a functi ons.
To
t hpt t he Chert rr ie invalid is t o hold that his
.cb initio,
a,ppointmcnt as puch rao~b cr is invel idJbcceuec h~ derives hie
h~ l d
eppr-intment froi:t t he authority of t he Chprtor.
8 ppo1ntnent
is
in~e li d ,
it f ell ows t hp t ho hp e
And if hie
n~ ~elid
powers
- 39 -
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
at ell, that all hie acts ere invalid, thet his r endering e.nY
opinion rt all ia without flflY
le~P.l authority. and that thPr~­
f oro all hie acts are whet h e hLrJoelf hfle called "ultra virea".
I qui to agree with Lor d Wright, r ef C?rrinR t o t he NureHborg
Cherter, thP.t "these
~rovisi ons
defined t he l aw t o be applied
by the Tribunal and were binding on it" ena thtlt "the judges
c~uld not, of course, question t h<' ~:'lPetcncy of their ep~oint­
o ent pnd r efuse t o e.._"Oply t h<' d et'ini ti one '>f the l aw l aid down
in the- London p.greeocnt and in the C~rtor x x n.
To the sene
effect, the Nurember& '.r-ribunP.l hol d t het "these ~roviaiona pre
binding u:i?on the Tribunal as t he law t o be f\P"Oliei t o the case"
and that "the jurisdiction of thC' Tribunal is dc!inei in the
,
.....
agreement .end in the Charter and the crirnos c"r.iing within the
jurisdiction of t he Tribunal, f or which t h Ar e
s~ll b C' indivi-
dual responsibility, ere set out in .Article 6.
The law of the
O}larter ie decisive and binding upon t he Tribunal".
The
Supre~e Court of a c0untry n~y declare
P l aw unc<'nstitu-
tional and t her eby overriC.e or ov('rrul e tho Logisleture which
enacted the law or t he Chief Executi V(' who p,nforces that lpW,
b ecause above the Legislature pnd
abo~rc the Chief Exf.'cuti ve ie
tho Constituticn, t he supr~n<' l PW ~f th~ l and which P.nnowere
the Su"Oreoe Court t o de eo And t o u"Ohol d it;
So plec pn inter-
national court crept ed, ap.y, br a nuub er of net1ona with a
chtlrter of their own, nay r everse t hP position of e ninori\y
group, which th€ ccurt r.iaY find not in ACcordence w1 th their
o~:'ll'!lon agreemP-nt, b ecause above t hat ~inority i;roup is the wholo
O"mbination
a~eaking
t hr ouz,"l t he chert er of their cor.mon accord.
- 30 -
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
-..
--
.. , .. ..
...
.,
Tho dissentinp, opini on sePnS t o hpve t pken the position thet
this Tribunel is either e Mtionel suprene court or ( unfortun~tely there is none yet) an internati onel au~ren~ court l.he.t,
ia above the Allied Powers end t he Su~r~oo Co~~ender and t o which
wo owe our epoointr.:cnt.
Thie is defini tely nnt the case hPrE".
The Tribunai is not such a su~rooo court.
its ChGrter, the
OnlY
powers and functi ons.
Its constituti on is
source of its creation, jurisdiction,
Neither is t he Tribunel
A
aubor dinete
international court oWing obedi ence, by f oropl pgr~eoent, .tQ_a
hir.her~or
suneri or cherter.
Contrery opinions t hat ary b0 ent~rtAine~ by the oenbors
of the Tribunal in contradiction t o the Chprtcr Ar r outside the
scope of th~ir powers conteined end defi ned in tho Ch~rtor end
ere beyond their functi ons.
For 1nstence, th~ C~rter lips defined
tb.t>t an p~~eeaive war is a cr 1oc end hpe ~rovided thpt those
guilty of it E1rc indi•71.duelly li ebl e.
Then t he Ohl:irter further
provides that "the Tribunal shall x x try end wnisb Far Eastern
war criminals who x x er e Qherged ~1.~h offens es which include
Ori~es e~einst PPeoe." MeY the rneobP.rs of tho Tribunal, deriving
A
their functi ons sol ely fron t he s ei d Charter, SeY thet epid
El~essive var is ne t e crioe end thpt thosP who wegcd it should
not be personally liabl e? With due r espect, such a position, in
ey opinion, aeeos ebsur d.
The Tribunal oey, in the proper exercise of its functi ons, .
acquit e defend.ant, on tho ,~cund that he has not been proven t o
have oomr.11tted. ellY of t he cd, 1:i~ s 4Pfinci in t he Ohl!rter, but
- 31 ..
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
..
---
~ on the grouni, es the dissenting n~1ni ~ n holds, t hat
egt;ressive wer is not a crime.
1
A f ortiori, the .Al.lied Powers, in r estraining Jf\l)en s
E'ggreHion, cleerly s et f orth their objccti " es, frou which
they d.echred they "will not ieyiate" pnd t n which 11 there ere
of
no eltcrnet1ves", and t o 8 ccon~l1sh which/the Ja~an~se territ ory sball b~ occu~i ed until
"A
now 0r ier of ~eao e, security
end Justice" is esteblished, "irr~sponsible oilitprisn 1s
driven froIU the world",
Jpppn 1 s we.r-L1aldng yover is destroyed",
11
and "a peecefu~ly inclinod ani r esponsibl e gover nuent" is
instituted, ell of which wore accepted by Jppan by 'Virtue of
tho lnatrunent of
-
Surr~nder.
"
INCOMMENSURATE PEM,ALTIES
In our
fin~ngs
on t he Counts of the Indictment, we
eophasize tho seriousness of e conspirpoy t a wege e Wpr of
si;gresaion, thus:
•These f~r-reaching ylans f or wegj.ng wers of
eggresaion, end the prol onged end intricete preparation f or end waging of these wars of eggreasion were
not the work of one oen. They were the work of oeny
lead.era acting in pursuenoe of a cotuion plen for the
achicve~ent of a cori0on obj~ct. That connon object,
that they should s ecure Jai>an 1 a dooinetion by preparing end waging wars of egsreBBion, was a crioinal
obj ect. Indeed no gore grave crioea cen bo conceived
of than a conspiracy t o wage a war of e greaeion or
the wer,1.ng of a wer of ~rsressi on, f or the conspiracy
threetene the security of t he peoples of the world,
and the we#'.;1.ng disrupt& it. The yrobable r esult of
such e conapirecy, and tho in~vitebl c result of its
execution is that deeth end suffering will be inflicted
- 32 -
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
on countiess
human beings. "
I would add thett a conspiracy f?. vea uore det<.'n 1inetion end
de.rinc; t o the conspire.tore by mutual assur ances, encourageocnt
and cooperation, virtuelly nullifying t he likelihood of desistance fron t he intended course end consequently assuring the
execution of the pr eooii t atod crioinel aot.
parcel of J a:oen'e
Furtheroor~. t o
~o ssion .
The Allied Powers f ought aJ'ld "Oor sover ed in ori~r "t o
r estre.i n end. punish t he f!,~ eeai on
<'f
J e"Oan", 11nd, in t ho
Potsdam Decleration, they docl arei t heir objecti ves as f ollows:
0 (4)
The tine b,:ie c~nc f or Jepan t ~ decide
whether she ~'111 continue t o b e controlled by t hose
s elf-will ed uili taristi e ei visors whos e unintelli gent
celculationo have brought t ho Ei.•:oiro of Jepan t o t ho
threshol d o! annih1l~t1on, er whet her she will f ollow
the path of r oeson.
Fellowing are our t oros. We will not devieto
11 ( 5)
fron thco. There er o no elternetives. We shall· bronk
no delaY.
tt(6) There oust be olinineto~ f or e11 tia o the
authority ann influonoe of t ho se who have doceiv~d
and oieled tho people cf J A;Pan into eoberking on
world conquest, f or we insist that a now order <'f
peace, security and juetice will b e i apossible until
irresponsible nilitRI"i am is nrivon f r oo t he world .
,, i
'
"(7) Until such e now or der is estRblished E\Ild
until t her e is convincing pr cof t het Jepan's Wel"ne..ldng power is C.estroyed, pr. int& in J apanese t erritory t o b e deeigneted· by thr Allies shell be occupi ed
t o s ecur e the ach1ever.1 ent of tho basic objectives we
ar c here setti~ f orth.
Tho t orr.is of the C~iro DeclAration shell be
cprried out x x.
n( a)
n(10) W
e do not intend t het the JepRneee shell be
enslaved as a r ace or i~etroyed pa a nation, but .!1£l:n
justice shp,ll b o meted out t o all war crininela, including
- 33 -
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
those who ha7e Visited cruelties upon our prisoners.
x.x.
(12) The '>ccupying forces of the Allies shall 'b e
withdrawn from Japan as soon as these ebJec~ives have
been accomulished and there has been established in
accordance. with the freely e:x-oressed will of the Japanese people a peacefully inclined and res~or.sible go7ernment. 11
11
To achieve t hese objectives. this Tribunal wae therefore
es tablished 11for t he just and prompt trial ancl. punishment of
the major war criminals in the 1ar East.
11
In view of these Vital and controlling pr onouncements for
the benefit of the whole world, I am const r ained to di ffer on a
few only of t he :oenal ties to be i m-oo sed by the Tri bunal - they
are. i n my judg111ent. too l enient. not exemplary and deterrent,
and not commensurate with the gravity of the offense or offenses
committed.
We are entitl ed to live in
~world
of law and
Our action maY be construed as weakness and failure.
~eace.
There can
be and t her e is no comparison betwe P.n national crimes and t hes e
monstrous international crimes against peace. war crimes and
crimes agains t humanity which are against al l mankind and which
should, ther r:fore, transcend national considerations if ciVilization is. as it should. survive.
As Secr0tar y of War Stimson.
in his book already cited. has said,
11
it is t he enfor cPment of
a moral obl igation which dates back a gener ation"; that ni t was
not a trick of l aw which brought" the
aggres s~rs
to the bar;
"it was t he ' mass ed anger ed forc es of common humanity 111 , f or
"The man who makes aggressive war at all ma)cea war against
mankind" and 11is
~
criminal 11 ; and t hat "aggressi on x x is an
offense so deep and so heinous that we cannot endure its
r epetition" (pp. 588-90).
-M-
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/
As t o the defendants who
malady, I f e el that they arr
human consci ence maY
ar~ ~fflicted with an incurable
~ntitl ed
t o such l nniPncy as
~"rmit.
CONCLUSION
Wi t h t hC' f or egoing c<'naidElrati ona, I concur in the judgment of t he Tribunal which wo of tho majority have writt0n in
this cas e.
DELFIN J ARANILLA
Member, Internati onal Hili tary
Tribunal f or the Far ~ast, f r om the
Republic of the Phi lipyinos
- 35 -
PURL: http://www.legal-tools.org/doc/d46836/