One of the most controversial aspects of the Tokyo Trial is the fact that five of the eleven justices (including the President of the Tribunal Sir William Webb) submitted opinions on the Judgment separate from the Majority. Justice Radhabinod Pal, Justice B. V. A. Röling and Justice Henri Bernard each expressed dissenting opinions. Justice Webb logged no formal dissent, but his separate opinion was critical of several portions of the IMTFE. Justice Delfin Jaranilla put forward a concurring opinion with some differing objections. Most specifically, Jaranilla felt that stricter punishments could have been applied to several of the accused. The Northcroft collection has copies of each of these separate opinions. It also has a unique view of Justice Northcroft’s views on the trial. This takes the form of a report to the Prime Minister of New Zealand regarding the IMTFE.
The Dissenting Opinion of the Member from India on Judgment is a massive 1235 pages. It is set into three volumes, and made up of seven parts. These include: Part I: “Preliminary Questions of Law”; Part II: “What is ‘Aggressive War’?”; Part III: “Rules of Evidence and Procedure”; Part IV: “Overall Conspiracy” – First Stage: "Obtaining Control of Manchuria", Second Stage: "The Expansion of Control and Domination from Manchuria to all the Rest of China", Third Stage: "The Preparation of Japan for Aggressive War Internally and by Alliance with Axis Powers", and Final Stage: "The Further Expansion of the Conspiracy into the Rest of East Asia and the Pacific and Indian Ocean by Further Aggressive Wars"; Part V: “Tribunal's Jurisdiction”; Part VI: “War Crimes stricto sensu” – Section I: "Charges of Murder and Conspiracy", Section II: "Against the Civil Population of the Territories Occupied by Japan", and Section III: "Against the Prisoners of War"; and Part VII: “Recommendation”.
The Separate Opinion of the Member from the Netherlands on Judgment includes: Part I: “Introduction”; Part II: “Observations on the Law”: Section I: "Jurisdiction", Section II: "Crimes against Peace", and Section III: "Responsibility for Omission"; Part III: “Observations on the Facts”; Part IV: “Appendices”; and Part V: “The Verdicts in the Individual Cases”.
The opinions of the Members from France, the Philippines, and Australia were bound together in a single volume for this inventory. The Dissenting Judgment of the Member from France of the IMTFE includes: Part I: "Constitutionality of the Creation of the Tribunal"; Part II: "Jurisdiction of the Tribunal"; Part III: "The Substantive Law"; Part IV: "Conventional War Crimes"; Part V: "Opinion Relative to the Proceedings of the Tribunal"; and Part VI: "Verdict and Sentences".
The Concurring Opinion of the Member from the Philippines includes: Part I: "Conspiracy under the Charter"; Part II: "Counts on Planning, Preparation and Initiation of Wars of Aggression Disregarded"; Part III: "Counts on Murder and Other Atrocities"; Part IV: "Conspiracy with Germany and Italy"; Part V: "Objections to the Tribunal"; Part VI: "The Maxim 'nullum crimen, sine lege, nulla poena sine lege'"; Part VII: "On Individual Responsibility"; Part VIII: "Atomic Bomb"; Part IX: "Dissenting Opinion of the Member from India"; Part X: "Incommensurate Penalties"; and Part XI: "Conclusion".
The Separate Opinion of the President of the IMTFE includes: Part I: "The Law"; Part II: "Crimes against Peace"; Part III: "Self-Defence"; Part IV: "Individual Responsibility"; Part V: "Conspiracy"; Part VI: "General"; Part VII: "Punishment"; Part VIII: "Immunity of the Emperor"; and Part IX: "Sentences".
Justice Northcroft wrote two replies to the queries made by the government of New Zealand. The first, his Letter to the Right Honourable the Prime Minister RE: The Tokyo Trials 1946 – 1948, includes: Part I: "Adequacy of Publicity Arrangements for the Trial"; Part II: "Differences in International Political Thought"; Part III: "Expediency of Death Sentences", Part IV: "Japanese Cooperation"; Part V: "Number of Judges"; Part VI: "Choice of President and of Chief Prosecutor"; Part VII: "Provision of American Counsel"; Part VIII: "Secretariat and Prosecution Section"; Part IX: "Language Difficulties"; and Part X: "Difficulties from Diverse Legal System".
Northcroft’s second reply was his Memorandum for the Prime Minister upon the Tokyo Trials 1946 – 1948. This includes: Part I: "Basis of the Tribunal's Jurisdiction"; Part II: "Binding Effect of the Charter"; Part III: "The Value and Significance of the Trial in International Law"; Part IV: "Effect of Dissenting Judgments"; Part V: "Classes of Crimes Charged"; Part VI: "The Nature of Crimes Against Humanity"; Part VII: "The Two Main Classes of Charge"; Part VIII: "The Enquiry Into Conventional War Crimes"; Part IX: "Charges of Aggression Depended upon Conspiracy"; Part X: "The Enquiry into Crimes against Peace"; Part XI: "Reasons for the Protracted Trial"; Part XII: "General Findings of the Tribunal upon the Facts"; Part XIII: "Individual Responsibility for Crimes against Peace"; Part XIV: "The Trial Not Inadequate in Scope"; Part XV: "Impossibility of Dispensing with Proof that Japan Was the Aggressor"; Part XVI: "Moral and Political Criticisms of the Trial"; Part XVII "The Doctrine of the Unity of the State in Relation to Criminal Liability of Individuals"; Part XVIII "Value of the Tokyo Trial in Relation to the Future of Japan"; Part XIX: "Deterrent Effect of the Trial"; and Part XX: "Need for a Permanent International Criminal Court".
