Narrative Struggle in the Judicial Arena: A Cross-Disciplinary Investigation of Court Discourse on the Hongqiao (Oyama) Incident in the Tokyo Trial

Abstract

Based on the original verbatim records of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) from April 30 to May 1, 1947, this study focuses on judicial inquiries into the causal background of the Hongqiao (Oyama) Incident and the outbreak of the August 13 Battle of Shanghai in China. Using an integrated analytical framework of critical discourse analysis, international criminal evidence rules, and modern Chinese–Japanese war history, this paper establishes a three‑layer model: discursive construction → judicial falsification → historical disenchantment. It systematically examines the discursive practices and power struggles among Japanese witnesses, the prosecution, and the Tribunal. The study finds that Japanese witnesses Suemasa Okamoto and Isamu Takeda fabricated a cohesive false narrative claiming that “China breached the 1932 Shanghai Truce Agreement; Japan acted in legitimate self‑defense”. To conceal Japan’s premeditated provocation and war of aggression, they employed legitimizing rhetoric, pervasive reliance on impermissible hearsay, strategic evasion, spatial obfuscation, responsibility externalization, and victimhood reversal. The prosecution dismantled the false narrative through rigorous evidence‑based cross‑examination, while the Tribunal upheld judicial justice through procedural authority. Court discourse during the trial was not merely factual exchange but a three‑dimensional struggle over war responsibility, historical narrative authority, and international justice. This study transcends disciplinary boundaries and provides both theoretical innovation and empirical evidence for historical justice, critical discourse studies, and China’s international narrative capacity.