I was watching an episode of the Netflix series 'Tokyo Trial', on the trial of Japanese military and civilian officials accused of war crimes, by a tribunal appointed mainly by the US General MacArthur, with judges from different countries from US, Europe, Asia all the way upto Australia and New Zealand. (The role of an Indian judge Pal, portrayed rather well by the recently deceased talented Indian actor Irrfan Khan, has interesting nuances.)
There's a scene (perhaps in Episode 3), after the Australian President of the Tribunal is effectively 'deposed' by the machinations of the British and a couple of other judges (who are worried that the 'too democratic' President is compromising on the ratio of Nuremberg trial of the Nazis), where the Netherlands judge, a 'protagonist' in the series, as it's produced jointly by Japanese and Dutch producers (having been 'turned' by Pal, pointing to still existing imperialist regimes, to a view that international jurisprudence hadn't yet progressed to a degree to consider a war, or an Act of Aggression by a country against another, as a crime in itself), recently 'advised' by his country's government to 'fall in line' with the majority view, goes up to a group of dining judges, which includes the US Judge Advocate General (recently appointed Tribunal President) and the British judge, and point blank asks the British judge whether he had anything to do with pressure being brought upon him.
The expression on the face of the British judge is worth noting: it's a mixture of haughty denial tinged with embarrassment at being accused so and also a bit of guilt (perhaps realising that the British government may have caused such pressure tactics).
Got me thinking: if this same scene was being enacted in 2020 instead of 1945, the expression on the face of the British judge would probably be a mixture of defiance, smugness and 'so what', half-trying to take credit for the influence-mongering even if not precipitated by him (as opposed to, in 1945, trying not to have anything to do with the same even if directly instigated!).
How far the world has come esp. in terms of humility and a sense of justice...
There's a scene (perhaps in Episode 3), after the Australian President of the Tribunal is effectively 'deposed' by the machinations of the British and a couple of other judges (who are worried that the 'too democratic' President is compromising on the ratio of Nuremberg trial of the Nazis), where the Netherlands judge, a 'protagonist' in the series, as it's produced jointly by Japanese and Dutch producers (having been 'turned' by Pal, pointing to still existing imperialist regimes, to a view that international jurisprudence hadn't yet progressed to a degree to consider a war, or an Act of Aggression by a country against another, as a crime in itself), recently 'advised' by his country's government to 'fall in line' with the majority view, goes up to a group of dining judges, which includes the US Judge Advocate General (recently appointed Tribunal President) and the British judge, and point blank asks the British judge whether he had anything to do with pressure being brought upon him.
The expression on the face of the British judge is worth noting: it's a mixture of haughty denial tinged with embarrassment at being accused so and also a bit of guilt (perhaps realising that the British government may have caused such pressure tactics).
Got me thinking: if this same scene was being enacted in 2020 instead of 1945, the expression on the face of the British judge would probably be a mixture of defiance, smugness and 'so what', half-trying to take credit for the influence-mongering even if not precipitated by him (as opposed to, in 1945, trying not to have anything to do with the same even if directly instigated!).
How far the world has come esp. in terms of humility and a sense of justice...
