When Japan surrendered in 1945, the victorious Allies believed there was strong evidence that Japanese forces, during their invasion and occupation of territories in Asia and the Pacifi c, had committed serious war crimes. Led by the United States, the Allies began an ambitious program to bring to justice senior Japanese leaders who had been key in taking Japan to war and other perpetrators of war crimes. Eventually, 28 military and political fi gures were indicted at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokyo (1946–48), otherwise known as the Tokyo trial, and many thousands of Japanese soldiers, sailors, and civilians were prosecuted in military tribunals around Asia and the Pacifi c (1945–51). Political fi gures and legal thinkers on the Allied side claimed the prosecutions were to be a marker in international law which would establish that governments and individuals who wage aggressive war and commit other war crimes should be brought to justice in courts. The Allies also pursued Japan through a military occupation (1945–52) that initially included a plan to reform Japanese politics and industry, through punitive measures such as the payment of war reparations and through international agreements that defi ned Japan’s role in both the war and postwar regional affairs. Lisa Yoneyama argues in Cold War Ruins that the pursuit of Japanese war criminals and other Allied moves to reckon with Japan after the war became hopelessly entwined with the politics of the cold war and with the legacy of colonialism in the region, which ultimately led to the failure of Allied justice. Yoneyama examines how the Tokyo trial and the postwar political and diplomatic settlements (the San Francisco Peace Treaty [1951], the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty [1951], the Treaty of Basic Relations between Japan and Korea [1965], and other agreements) between Japan and its former enemies “performatively defi ne the war’s meaning for the post-belligerence world” (p. 4). Yoneyama claims these agreements and the Tokyo trial have collectively produced an “Americanized view” of the war, marginalized many of the victims of Japanese crimes, and helped establish U.S. hegemony in the Pacifi c after the war. Moreover, the impact of the postwar settlements continues to be felt in post– cold war attempts at redress for Japanese war crimes. Scholarship on Japanese war crimes and the Allied process to bring Japan to account for those crimes has been booming in recent years. For a long time, Richard Minear’s Victor’s Justice, published in 1971, was the seminal

中文翻译：

---

冷战废墟：米山丽莎对美国正义和日本战争罪行的跨太平洋批判

1945 年日本投降时，胜利的盟军认为有强有力的证据表明日本军队在入侵和占领亚洲和太平洋地区期间犯下了严重的战争罪行。在美国的领导下，盟军开始了一项雄心勃勃的计划，将在将日本卷入战争中发挥关键作用的日本高级领导人和其他战争罪行肇事者绳之以法。最终，28 名军事和政治人物在东京远东国际军事法庭（1946-48 年）被起诉，也被称为东京审判，成千上万的日本士兵、水手和平民在军事法庭受到起诉亚洲和太平洋地区（1945-51 年）。盟军方面的政治人物和法律思想家声称，起诉将成为国际法的一个标志，将确立发动侵略战争和犯下其他战争罪行的政府和个人应在法庭上绳之以法。盟军还通过军事占领（1945-52 年）追击日本，最初包括一项改革日本政治和工业的计划，通过支付战争赔款等惩罚性措施，以及通过定义日本在战争和战争中的作用的国际协议。战后地区事务。米山丽莎在《冷战废墟》中辩称，战后追捕日本战犯和其他盟军的行动与冷战政治和该地区的殖民主义遗产无可救药地交织在一起，这最终导致了盟军正义的失败。米山研究东京审判和战后政治和外交解决方案（旧金山和平条约 [1951]、日美安保条约 [1951]、日韩基本关系条约 [1965] 和其他协议）日本与其昔日敌人之间的冲突“有效地定义了战争对战后世界的意义”（第 4 页）。米山声称，这些协议和东京审判共同产生了对战争的“美国化观点”，将许多日本罪行的受害者边缘化，并帮助美国在战后建立了太平洋霸权。此外，战后定居点的影响在冷战后为日本战争罪行的补救努力中继续受到影响。近年来，关于日本战争罪行和盟军让日本对这些罪行负责的程序的奖学金蓬勃发展。很长一段时间，理查德·米尼尔 (Richard Minear) 于 1971 年出版的《维克多的正义》(Victor's Justice) 是开创性的