Notion of Aggressive War 213
VIII JEAIL 1 (2015)
Tokyo trial experienced a judgment circumscribed for a long period for publication
during allied occupation years. This is Justice Pal’s dissenting judgment at the
only considering subjective ends, rather extends beyond that. The present paper does
not intend to justify the judgment which exceeds author’s competence, but also tries
to extract the notion of aggression where Justice Radhabinod Pal is experimental.
Where all acts are not act of aggression, the main concern is to segregate the concept
of act of war and the act of aggression. Assertion becomes crucial when certain use
of force can be legitimized under sovereign right of self-defense. This paper tends to
clarify these ambiguities concerning the notion of aggression relying on Justice Pal’s
opinion. Firstly, a progressive attempt has been made to identify the extent of use of
force under sovereign right of self-defense, overriding that extent may tantamount to
aggression. Then possible means have been drawn to limit the concept of aggression.
Finally, the paper would shed brief light on the comparison of Justice Pal’s dissenting
opinion with contemporaneous legal framework predominantly concerning the notion
Tokyo Trial, Dissenting Opinion, Act of Aggression, Act of War, Self-
defense, Use of Force, Objective Test, Customary Norm.
Dissenting Opinion of
Justice Radhabinod Pal on
the Notion of Aggressive
War: A Critical Evaluation
∗ LL.M. candidate at South Asian University, New Delhi, India. B.A. (Stamford Univ., Bangladesh), ELL.M.(Rajshahi
Univ., Bangladesh). ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6100-8362. Much gratitude is extended to Professor
Srinivas Burra (South Asian University) for his valuable suggestion. Views and errors, if any, are solely the author’s
responsibility. The author may be contacted at: firstname.lastname@example.org / Address: Akbar Bhawan, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi 110 021 India.