@article{oai:nichibun.repo.nii.ac.jp:00000239,
 author = {USHIMURA, Kei},
 journal = {Nichibunken Japan review : journal of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies},
 month = {Jan},
 note = {Nearly six decades have passed since the International Military Tribunal for the Far East handed down its judgment, in which all the defendants were found guilty of one or more of the charges. Six out of the eleven judges submitted separate opinions, among which was the Indian justice Radhabinod Pal’s totally dissentient one. Pal did not in the least affirm all of Japan’s past actions; he simply held that the defendants’ actions were not illegal in an indictable sense. And yet, inasmuch as the prewar and wartime picture of Japan painted by the official verdict came as a shock to the Japanese in the wake of World War Two, Pal’s opinion was interpreted as another “judgment” delivered by an Asian judge and functioned as an alternative or a strong antidote for the view of the history generated by the tribunal. That is, whether approving of or refuting his opinion, one has referred to Pal’s view as none other than “the argument for Japan’s innocence.” This essay will attempt to dissect how the post-war Japan has responded to Pal’s opinion and discuss the significance of the opinion in the context of Japanese intellectual history.},
 pages = {215--224},
 title = {<RESEARCH NOTES>Pal’s “Dissentient Judgment” Reconsidered : Some Notes on Postwar Japan’s Responses to the Opinion},
 volume = {19},
 year = {2007}
}