Prior to this project, very little research in Japan, and practically none outside, had been done on the Japanese military justice system. One reason traditionally given for this was the relative lack of sources, the majority of which was believed to have been destroyed during or immediately after the war. However, our research group succeeded in locating and collecting substantial bodies of sources that have survived in Japan, as well as in other locations (Hong Kong, Europe, the US).
Our analysis of these sources so far revealed the intensely bureaucratic and procedure-oriented nature of Japanese military justice. However, contrary to our expectation and the popular image in Japan, the courts-martial system was by international comparison fairly moderate towards soldiers both in terms of trial numbers as well as punishment.
Trials showed an overwhelming emphasis on internal discipline, at the sacrifice of civilian life, bodily integrity and property. The low numbers were partly due to personnel shortages, but also because judge advocates often identified with the war aims and, in any case, were constantly reminded to place military necessity above intrinsic legal standards. Judge advocates thus constantly toed the fine line between containment and apology of Japanese wartime violence.
The instrumentalisation of law for the purposes of war becomes even more pronounced in the role of martial law in occupied territories: Particularly in Southeast Asia, the field police and the military commissions used martial law as a tool of power, not only to protect military objectives, but also as a tool of governance by deterrence. However, as trials of enemy POWs show, this was not a wholly uni-directional process, and subjects of trials did have, and used their agency to navigate the laws and regulations of Japanese military justice for their own interests and agendas.
As result of this project, we expect to be able to give a full analysis of how the Japanese military justice evolved during the Asia-Pacific War in response to the wartime situation, both on the normative level as well as reflected in its judicial practices in China and Southeast Asia towards soldiers, civilians and enemy POWs.
We also hope to explain how military justice shaped Japanese wartime violence, and to what extent military justice in itself constituted a form of wartime violence. Our findings will be supported by quantitative data as well as illustrated by a wide variety of case studies of judicial practices and judgements.
