Talk:Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State

Results

This doesn't make the results of the case clear? Did Ryuichi get Yen from the Japanese State or Dollars from the American State? Or nothing from either? Any apologies? A nice thing on the right side that explains the facts like Miranda v. Arizona and many other legal articles (and articles on Battles) would be nice?

Done. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

I have removed the additions to the list of further reading, as it seemed to me either to cover information already in the article, or other things that are not relevant.

There is a bias in the court ruling that is not addressed in the coverage. It does not matter too much, but it does undermine the fancy legal arguments used to define what is a defended city. The court relied heavily on the Hague Rules of Air Warfare Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare (1923) which was never adopted but it ignored the Amsterdam Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations Against New Engines of War (1938) which (was not adopted either) and AFAICT no explanation is given for this. The trouble for this ruling is that the wording of the Amsterdam Draft Convention is it tends to undermine findings of the Japanese court. For example the definition of defended in article 2 of the Amsterdam Draft Convention is very different from that given by the Japanese court, now it may be that the court would still have found that the town was undefended using the Amsterdam Draft Convention, I don't know, but the further reading list did not bring up papers that discussed this sort of detail instead they tended to be papers that used this court case to advance a position.

Take for example Elizabeth J. Shafer paper Nucler Risks: Necessity and illegality she uses Shimoda to advance a political position but she cites: Falk, Richard, "The Shimoda Case: A Legal Appraisal of the Atomic Attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki", 59 AM.J. INT’L L., No. 4 (Oct. 1965), p. 770. We already cite two of Richard Falk's articles and although we could add more to the reading list the chances are that it repeats what is already in the articles cited. -- PBS (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

I fail to see what the point of the paragraph that starts "The issue of guilt over the destruction of Hiroshima was not laid with the Shimoda ruling. ..." I have left it in place but would like to discuss why it should remain in this article which is about a specific court case. -- PBS (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)