en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryuichi_Shimoda_v._The_State
3 corrections found
the use of nuclear weapons in warfare wasn't illegal
This misstates the ruling. The Shimoda court explicitly declined to decide the general legality of nuclear weapons as such, and instead held that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal under the international law then in force.
Full reasoning
The article says the court ruled that using nuclear weapons in warfare "wasn't illegal," but the translated judgment says the opposite about the bombings at issue and does not resolve the broader question in that way.
In the court's own formulation, it first separated the general question from the case-specific one: whether nuclear weapons are permitted in international law is an "important and very difficult question," but "in the present case" the issue was whether the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal under the positive international law then in force. The court then concluded that those bombings were illegal, calling them "an illegal act of hostilities" and specifically an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities.
A leading contemporary analysis of the case says the same thing: the Tokyo court's principal conclusion was that the United States violated international law by dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So the Wikipedia sentence is inaccurate because it converts a limited, case-specific holding of illegality into a broad ruling that nuclear weapons use in warfare was not illegal.
2 sources
- Ryuichi Shimoda Et Al | Ryuichi Shimoda Et Al | Manifold @CUNY
The judgment says the broader question whether an atomic bomb is permitted in international law is "important and very difficult," but "in the present case" the issue is whether the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were illegal; it then concludes those bombings were "an illegal act of hostilities under international law".
- The Shimoda Case: A Legal Appraisal of the Atomic Attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki | American Journal of International Law | Cambridge Core
Richard Falk summarizes the decision as a court effort to address the legal problems arising from atomic warfare and notes the court's key language that the aerial bombardment with an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "an illegal act of hostility".
the final ruling was rendered on December 8, 1963
The decision date is off by one day. The Shimoda judgment was delivered on December 7, 1963, not December 8, 1963.
Full reasoning
Multiple sources identifying the case give the decision date as December 7, 1963.
The English text of the decision reproduced on Manifold @ CUNY labels the case "District Court of Tokyo ... December 7, 1963." A contemporaneous American Journal of International Law analysis likewise states that "On December 7, 1963" the District Court of Tokyo delivered its decision. Because both sources identify the judgment date as December 7, the article's statement that the final ruling was rendered on December 8, 1963 is inaccurate.
2 sources
- Ryuichi Shimoda Et Al | Ryuichi Shimoda Et Al | Manifold @CUNY
The case header identifies the decision as: "District Court of Tokyo ... December 7, 1963."
- The Shimoda Case: A Legal Appraisal of the Atomic Attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki | American Journal of International Law | Cambridge Core
The article states: "On December 7, 1963 ... the District Court of Tokyo delivered its lengthy decision in the case."
the Superior Court of Orange County rejected the motion and referred to the Shimoda case as follows:
This misattributes the quoted passage. The quoted discussion of Shimoda appears in a published California Court of Appeal opinion, not in an Orange County Superior Court opinion.
Full reasoning
The text attributes the quoted discussion of Shimoda to the Superior Court of Orange County, but the quoted language appears in the published appellate decision Mitsubishi Materials Corp. v. Superior Court, issued by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three.
The appellate opinion's caption identifies the Superior Court of Orange County as the respondent, not as the court issuing the quoted analysis. A secondary discussion of the litigation likewise describes that language as something the California Appeals Court wrote. So the article is inaccurate in attributing that passage to the superior court rather than the court of appeal.
2 sources
- Mitsubishi Materials Corp. v. Super. Ct. :: 2003 :: California Courts of Appeal Decisions :: California Case Law :: California Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
The published opinion is identified as a California Court of Appeal decision: "CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ... MITSUBISHI MATERIALS CORPORATION et al. ... v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY"; the Shimoda discussion and quote appear in that appellate opinion.
- Individual rights and the making of postwar Japan (UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal PDF)
The article summarizes the case by stating: "In its decision to dismiss, the California Appeals Court wrote, 'Without a waiver of all war crime claims ...'"—attributing the quoted language to the appeals court, not the superior court.