The Strategy of World Order - Vol. 1

By Richard A. Falk; Saul H. Mendlovitz | Go to book overview
Save to active project

RICHARD A. FALK


The Claimants of Hiroshima

On December 7, 1963, the District Court of Tokyo handed down a decision involving claims against the state brought by injured surviviors of the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The opinion of the Japanese court in the case of Shimoda and Others v. Japan has been recently translated into English.

The Shimoda opinion is long and complex. Only its most relevant features can be outlined and some tentative interpretations suggested. Five residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki sought compensation from the Japanese Government for damages sustained by the atomic blasts. Japan was the defendant because in the Peace Treaty ending World War II Japan waived the claims of its nationals against the United States, but the United States was the real defendant--that is, the state whose alleged wrongs gave rise to the damage. It is an irony of the proceedings that the role of the Japanese Government as defendant required it to argue in behalf of the legitimacy of atomic attacks on two of its own leading cities. One senses the reluctance of Japan to press "its side" of the case. In the complaint, which is printed with the opinion, the claimants set forth the facts of the attack, the legal basis for their recovery, and specify the damage that they have individually sustained. The defense does not dispute the facts of the attack or damage, but confines itself to arguing that international law did not prohibit the use of atomic bombs by a belligerent and that, in any event, the Japanese Government has no responsibility to compensate individual victims of atomic damage.

The court recites the agonizing facts, examines, with the help of three expert advisers, the status of atomic weapons and arrives at several important conclusions. First, that it is neither possible, nor necessary, to conclude expressly that international law forbids the use of atomic (or nuclear) weapons, although the reasoning of the opinion suggests that such weapons would almost always be illegal if used against cities. Second, that the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war. And third, that these claimants have no remedy, since international law does not yet allow individuals, in the absence of an express stipulation in a treaty, to pursue claims on their own behalf against a government, especially against their own government.

These conclusions have great interest for international lawyers because they constitute the sole attempt by a legal tribunal to assess the relevance of

-307-

Notes for this page

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Notes
Cite this page

Cited page

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited page

Bookmark this page
The Strategy of World Order - Vol. 1
Table of contents
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this book

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen
/ 394

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?