Justice Pal’s reasoning has been a part of broader academic literature on dissents in international

law and especially criminal law. His dissent has been considered to be a ‘radical’ one- analysing “the
authorized version of the historical, political and cultural portrait set up by the trial and creates a
civic space for counter-narratives to emerge and challenge the idiom in which the majority judgment
speaks and which it takes as a given.” Justice Pal’s dissent examined and questioned the retroactive
application of war crimes, the double standards of prosecuting the Japanese, and the legacies of
colonialism and imperialism concealed behind the universal prosecution of various crimes by the
Japanese. The dissent's critique of Western universalism in international criminal law raises
unanswered concerns regarding the basic foundation of the subject.

His dissent highlights the development of seemingly universally applicable international norms and
the emergence of a very unequal and unjust international society at the end of the Second World
Order. Pal was aware imperialism will continue to exist even if they are not directly ruling over
territories. His dissent has been of particular importance to scholars of the Third World View of
International Criminal Law.