The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (1946–1948) or Tokyo IMT is overlooked for its contributions to modern international criminal justice. Convened to hold Japanese leaders accountable for conspiring to commit aggression, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes during the Second World War, the IMTFE was both a groundbreaking judicial undertaking and a pioneering multilateral institution. This distinction makes it a unique vehicle for exploring the fundamental challenges of both international justice and organisation. Institutions like the IMTFE are usually viewed through broad geopolitical, legal, and ideological lenses. Although important, these approaches miss a singularly important dimension of multilateralism: the human contingencies that impact international bodies. Using unique participant sources, this article presents an intimate “trial's-eye-view” of how working at the IMTFE affected the emotions, psychology, and temperament of its personnel. Participant responses on these very personal levels had profound consequences on the tribunal's proceedings, findings, and legacy. Other factors shaped justice in Tokyo, but the responses identified here were common, and their impact significant. Ultimately, this paper argues that people and their experiences—as much as anything—produced the outcome of justice in Tokyo. 相似文献
This article examines the requirements for high and very high resolution photography of the USSR and other denied areas during the Cold War. It discusses the partial success of GAMBIT-1 and the much greater success of GAMBIT-3 beginning in 1966 in acquiring the former. The article reviews the development of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) in the same period to collect very high resolution photography, the rationale for it, and the major technical and financial problems the program soon experienced. It then describes the debate beginning in 1968 over the value of this imagery considering the MOL’s costs and the growing success of GAMBIT-3, and these and the other factors that led President Richard Nixon to cancel the program the following year. 相似文献
This essay questions the soundness of a scholarly shift awayfrom refugee studies in favour of forcedmigration studies. It contends, first, that subsumingrefugee studies into the broader framework of forced migrationstudies may result in a failure to take account of the specificityof the refugee's circumstances which are defined not just bymovement to avoid the risk of harm, but by underlying socialdisfranchisement coupled with the unqualified ability of theinternational community to respond to their needs. Second, itargues that forced migration (rather than, forexample, forced migrant) studies encourages afocus on a phenomenon rather than on the personal predicaments,needs, challenges, and rights of refugees themselves. It maythus contribute to a lack of criticality in relation to policieswhich subordinate refugee autonomy to the pursuit of more systemicconcerns. The first concern is illustrated by reference to theemergence of the internally displaced personscategory, the second by reference to the determination to findand mandate durable solutions to forced migration,including to the movement of refugees. 相似文献
There are important studies that have directly focused on how, in times of conflict, it is possible for previously law abiding people to commit the most atrocious acts of cruelty and violence. The work of Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom), Hannah Arendt (Eichmann in Jerusalem), Zygmunt Bauman (Modernity and the Holocaust) and Ernest Becker (Escape from Evil) have all contemplated the driving force of aggression and mass violence to further our understanding of how people are capable of engaging in extreme forms of cruelty and violence. This paper specifically addresses these issues by focusing on C. P. Taylor’s play Good. This provocative play examines how a seemingly ‘good’ and intelligent university professor can gradually become caught up in the workings of the Third Reich. Taylor highlights the importance of appreciating how people can be steadily incorporated into an ideologically destructive system. I argue that the theatre is a powerful medium to explore these complex issues. The audience of Good find themselves confronted with the following question—‘What would you have done?’