DOCSLIB.ORG

Enabling the International Criminal Court to Punish Aggression

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enabling the International Criminal Court to Punish Aggression Washington University Global Studies Law Review Volume 6 Issue 3 Symposium—Judgment at Nuremberg January 2007 Enabling the International Criminal Court to Punish Aggression Benjamin B. Ferencz Nuremberg International Military Tribunal Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin B. Ferencz, Enabling the International Criminal Court to Punish Aggression, 6 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 551 (2007), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol6/iss3/7 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Global Studies Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENABLING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT TO PUNISH AGGRESSION BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ∗ According to Article Five of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court (ICC) cannot exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until amendments are adopted: (1) defining the crime; and (2) setting out the conditions, consistent with the United Nations (U.N.) Charter, under which the ICC is to act.1 This Essay analyzes the problems posed by these stipulated requirements, and suggests solutions to fulfill them. I. DEFINING THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION A. Brief Historical Review 1. The Nuremberg Precedents On August 8, 1945, after intensive negotiations, the victorious powers of World War II, “acting in the interests of all the United Nations,”2 drew up a constitution for an International Military Tribunal (IMT) “for the just and prompt trial and punishment of major war criminals of the European Axis.”3 The IMT Charter was endorsed by twenty-one nations with diverse systems of jurisprudence. The first offense within the Court’s jurisdiction was described as: Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.4 Justice Robert H. Jackson, on leave from the U.S. Supreme Court and designated by President Harry Truman to be Chief Prosecutor for the United States, was the principle architect of the trial. Influenced by the ∗ J.D. (1943), Harvard Law School; Former prosecutor at the Nuremberg war crimes trials; Contact information: [email protected]. For additional sources, see www.benferencz.org. 1. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court art. 5, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 [hereinafter Rome Statute]. 2. Charter of the International Military Tribunal pmbl., Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 U.N.T.S. 279. 3. Id. art. 1. 4. Id. art. 6. 551 Washington University Open Scholarship p 551 Ferenz book pages.doc10/29/2007 552 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY GLOBAL STUDIES LAW REVIEW [VOL. 6:551 historical record and existing treaties such as the 1928 Kellogg Pact (outlawing the use of force), Jackson became convinced that “[n]o political, military or other considerations” excuse going to war.5 According to Jackson, “[w]hatever grievances a nation may have, . warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances.”6 After debating several drafts, Jackson concluded that, rather than listing the several treaties prohibiting the use of force, it would be more expedient to leave it to judges to consult their sources. Professor Andre Gros, who represented France at the trial, noted that “there are plenty of documents in actual international law defining aggression.”7 The British, eager to avoid political debate, were hesitant. The Soviets argued that the side that fired the first shot should obviously be considered the aggressor and should be punished accordingly. The final text was the best compromise possible. In his opening statement to the IMT, Jackson emphasized: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”8 In its final and comprehensive Judgment of October 1946, the Nuremburg Tribunal held that to initiate a war of aggression “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime . It contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”9 Rejecting the defense’s argument that it was applying ex post facto law, the Tribunal held that the IMT Charter was not an arbitrary exercise of power by victorious nations, but “the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation.”10 There was nothing unfair about not having a more precise definition of the crime of aggression; to allow the accused to remain immune would have been unfair. “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international 5. Robert Jackson, Opening Statement for the Prosecution at Nuremburg (Nov. 21, 1945), available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/11-21-45.htm [hereinafter Jackson Opening Statement]. 6. Id. 7. Minutes of Conference Session of July 19, 1945, Int’l Conference on Military Trials, http://www.yale.edu.lawweb/Avalon/lmt/Jackson/jack37. 8. Jackson Opening Statement, supra note 5. 9. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals: The Nazi Regime in Germany, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/ judnazi.htm#common. 10. Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals: The Law of the Charter, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/ judlawch.htm (last visited Oct. 19, 2007). https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol6/iss3/7 p 551 Ferenz book pages.doc10/29/2007 2007] ENABLING THE ICC TO PUNISH AGGRESSION 553 law be enforced.”11 Leading German officials were found guilty of planning and waging aggressive war against ten nations. Five of the twenty-two defendants were sentenced to death. Jackson reported to his President: “[A]t long last the law is now unequivocal in classifying armed aggression as an international crime instead of a national right.”12 The legal principles of the IMT Charter and Judgment—including the brief definition of aggression—became the foundation for later trials by the Allied Powers in Japan and other countries. The quadripartite Control Council Laws authorized several “subsequent proceedings.” These proceedings borrowed the IMT definition of Crimes against Peace, but inserted one additional illustration: “Initiation of invasions of other countries.”13 The 1946 Charter of the Military Tribunal for the Far East adopted the exact wording of the IMT Charter regarding aggression, adding only a clarifying clause explaining that a war of aggression could be “declared or undeclared.”14 The Tokyo Judgment of November 1948, which found the defendants guilty of the crime of aggressive war, conformed completely with the definitions laid down at Nuremberg. Nations were beginning to live up to Jackson’s hope that a firmer enforcement of the laws of international conduct would “make war less attractive to those who have governments and the destiny of peoples in their power.”15 2. The U.N. Searches for a Consensus Definition of Aggression At its first session, held on December 11, 1946, the General Assembly of the United Nations established Committees for the Progressive Development of International Law and its Codification, as required by the U.N. Charter. It also affirmed the principles of international law recognized by the IMT Charter and Judgment. As “a matter of primary 11. Id. 12. REPORT OF ROBERT H. JACKSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TO THE INT’L CONFERENCE ON MILITARY TRIALS: LONDON, 1945, reprinted in CONFERENCE ON MILITARY TRIALS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 3080 (Government Printing Office) (1949), available at http://www.yale.edu/ lawweb/avalon/imt/jackson/jackson.htm. 13. Control Council Law No. 10, Punishment of Persons Guilty of War Crimes, Crimes Against Peace and Against Humanity art. 2, Dec. 20, 1945, 3 Official Gazette Control Council for Germany 50–55 (1946). 14. Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East art. 5(a), Jan. 19, 1946, amended Apr. 26, 1946, TIAS No. 1589, 4 Bevans 20. 15. ROBERT JACKSON, REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON ATROCITIES AND WAR CRIMES, JUNE 7, 1945, reprinted in UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE BULLETIN (Government Printing Office) (1945), available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/jack01.htm. Washington University Open Scholarship p 551 Ferenz book pages.doc10/29/2007 554 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY GLOBAL STUDIES LAW REVIEW [VOL. 6:551 importance,”16 the General Assembly called for the formulation of a general Code of Offenses against the Peace and Security of Mankind, or of an International Criminal Code, based on the precedent of Nuremberg. In addition, genocide, on any grounds, was affirmed as a crime under international law for which both principals and accomplices would be punishable. After considerable discussion by U.N. Delegates (but little progress), the dual problems of drafting the Criminal Code and creating the related Criminal Court were referred to an International Law Commission (ILC) composed of legal experts from different parts of the world. In 1950, the ILC formulated the Nuremberg Principles while noting the absence of a precise definition for a “war of aggression.” In 1952, a Special Committee on the Question of Defining Aggression was formed by the General Assembly. Until there was a definition, the Criminal Code would be incomplete, and without a Code, the Court could not function. Definition, Code, and Court were made dependent upon each other. The problems were interconnected, but opinions on how to resolve them remained sharply divided.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Founders Respected International Law
    US Founders respected International Law Chile Eboe-Osuji [Paper submitted to the Council on Foreign Relations, on 6 July 2020; also presented orally to the Rutgers International Law & Human Rights Journal's Fall 2020 Lecture Series on 16 November 2020, and appearing in print as adapted from that lecture series in the Rutgers International Law & Human Rights Journal, Vol 1, Ep. 1, April 2021] Contents 1. The US as the Principal Architect of the Modern International Order .............................................. 1 2. Was the ICC created by ‘Self-Styled “Global Governance” Advocates’? ......................................... 16 3. A ‘flawed’ International Legal System ......................................................................................................... 18 4. Is the ICC Truly the ‘Worst Nightmare’ of US Founders?..................................................................... 21 5. Does the ICC Usurp National Sovereignty?................................................................................................ 34 6. Are US Citizens Immune from the Jurisdictions of Non-US Courts? ............................................... 34 7. The Alien Torts Claims Act ............................................................................................................................... 44 8. Self Defence ............................................................................................................................................................ 45 9. Is the ICC Judiciary a Mere Rubber Stamp
    [Show full text]
  • Versailles-Nuremberg-The Hague Germany and International Criminal Law
    Versailles-Nuremberg-The Hague Germany and International Criminal Law CLAus KRESS* "Comedy, scandal and parody of justice!-these were the words French Prime Minister Briand used in 1921 on the Leipzig trials concerning German war crimes against the French., "What lesson can we learn from Versailles and Leipzig? First, the United Nations must not again trust the Germans to do justice in the case of German war criminals. To the Germans, these men are heroes." These statements were Sheldon Glueck's evaluation of the Leipzig trials as expressed in 1944.2 In 1953 the American State Department came to a very similar conclusion-that time with regard to the German attitude to the Nurem- berg trials: [t]he German position on the trials of war criminals is a problem which has continued to trouble us ever since the trials were held. The Germans have failed to accept the principles on which the trials were based and do not believe that those convicted were guilty. Their attitude is very much sentimental and can not be influenced by arguments or an objective statement of the facts. They adhere to the view that the majority of the war criminals were soldiers who were punished for doing what all soldiers do in war, or indeed were ordered do.3 *Professor of Criminal Law and Procedure, International Criminal Law and Public International Law in the University of Cologne. The text is the extended version of the author's inaugural lecture delivered on December 16, 2005 at the University of Cologne; the oral style was largely maintained.
    [Show full text]
  • Telford Taylor Panel: Critical Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trials
    NYLS Journal of Human Rights Volume 12 Issue 3 SYMPOSIUM: THE FIFTH ANNUAL Article 2 ERNST C. STEIFEL SYMPOSIUM Spring 1995 PANEL I: TELFORD TAYLOR PANEL: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NUREMBERG TRIALS Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_human_rights Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation (1995) "PANEL I: TELFORD TAYLOR PANEL: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NUREMBERG TRIALS," NYLS Journal of Human Rights: Vol. 12 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/journal_of_human_rights/vol12/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in NYLS Journal of Human Rights by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@NYLS. NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS © Copyright 1996 by the New York Law School Journal of Human Rights Volume XII Symposium 1995 Part Three THE FIFTH ANNUAL ERNST C. STIEFEL SYMPOSIUM: 1945-1995: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NUREMBURG TRIALS AND STATE ACCOUNTABILITY PANEL I. TELFORD TAYLOR PANEL: CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE NUREMBERG TRIAL Ms. Suzy Littell MS. SUZY LITTELL: Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you on behalf of the New York Law School Journal of Human Rights to the Fifth Annual Ernst Stiefel Symposium: Critical Perspectives on the Nuremberg Trials and State Accountability. We are greatly indebted to Dr. Stiefel, an internationally 453 454 N.Y.L. SCH. J. HUM. RTS. [Vol. XII recognized practitioner,' for his support of this and previous symposia. Previous symposia have focused on foreign lawyers in New York and New York lawyers abroad, the establishment of a legal system in China after the cultural revolution, practicing law and doing business in the Soviet Union, and the privatization of Eastern Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examining Nuremberg As a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms
    Re-examining Nuremberg as a New Deal Institution: Politics, Culture and the Limits of Law in Generating Human Rights Norms By Elizabeth Borgwardt* Major Airey Neave, famous at age twenty-nine for his multiple escapes from Nazi prisons, noticed the unusually brilliant shine on Colonel Burton Andrus' helmet, as the two officers stood waiting outside the prison wing of the Palace of Justice at Nuremberg on the afternoon of October 19, 1945. Neave was a German-speaking London barrister whose wartime heroics with the clandestine British intelligence service, MI-9, had involved disguising himself variously as a Dutch electrical worker, a German corporal, and a German artillery lieutenant.1 The afternoon before, Francis Biddle, former U.S. Attorney General and the American judge at Nuremberg, had cavalierly informed Neave that the young major was to serve copies of the Nuremberg Charter, along with a detailed criminal indictment, on the Nazi leaders incarcerated in the Palace of 2 Justice. * Assistant Professor of History, University of Utah. J.D. (Harvard); Ph.D. (Stanford); M.Phil, International Relations (Cambridge). 1. Major Neave had escaped from the supposedly escape-proof Nazi prison in Colditz Castle, Saxony, a feat which so impressed the senior members of London's Middle Temple that they waived his final Bar examinations. He learned German as an exchange student in Berlin in 1933, where he unwittingly participated in a Nazi youth march. His memoir, although not published until the late 1970s, was based on his contemporaneous notes and on a memo he filed with the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945. See Airey Neave, Memorandum for the General Secretary of the International Military Tribunal (Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending Impunity for the Crime of Aggression Benjamin B
    Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 41 | Issue 2 2009 Ending Impunity for the Crime of Aggression Benjamin B. Ferencz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin B. Ferencz, Ending Impunity for the Crime of Aggression, 41 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 291 (2009) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol41/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. ENDING IMPUNITY FOR THE CRIME OF AGGRESSION Benjamin B. Ferencz* Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crime of aggression has been deferred for reasons that are not persuasive. Aggres- sion has already been adequately defined. The UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court are linked by the existing ICC Statute adopted in Rome. Compromises already reflected in the Rome Statute will be diffi- cult to revise by new amendments. Ambiguities are best resolved by ICC Judges. Nuremberg’s condemnation of “the supreme international crime” should not be repudiated. The ICC must be enabled to deter aggressions by bringing transgressors to justice. AGGRESSION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADEQUATELY DEFINED A. From Nuremberg in 1946 to Rome in 1998 The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (IMT), composed of esteemed judges from the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union and the United States, acknowledged that ex post facto punishment was abhor- rent to the law of all civilized nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Have We Criminalized Aggressive War? Abstract
    TOM DANNENBAUM Why Have We Criminalized Aggressive War? abstract. On the dominant view, accepted by both defenders and critics of the criminaliza- tion of aggression, the criminal wrong of aggressive war is inflicted on the attacked state. This view is mistaken. It is true that whether a war is criminally aggressive is determined ordinarily by whether it involves a particular form of interstate wrong. However, that is not why such wars are criminal. Aggressive war is a crime because it entails killing without justification. Five reasons explain why this is so. First, banning aggression restricted states from using force to protect their core sovereign rights, including even their rights of political independence and territorial integri- ty. Those core states’ rights cannot make sense of the move to ban aggression. Second, what dis- tinguishes aggression from any other sovereignty violation—what makes it criminal, when no other sovereignty violation is—is not that it involves an especially egregious violation of territori- al integrity or political independence, but that it involves killing without justification. Third, the unjustified killing account makes sense of aggression’s standing alongside genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The traditional notion that aggression is a crime against sovereign- ty instead isolates aggression as the inexplicably odd crime out. Fourth, the public reasons for restricting jus ad bellum rights in the early twentieth century focused not on infringements of states’ rights but on the infliction of death without justification. Finally, the importance of wrongful killing to the criminalization of aggression was apparent at the post-World War II tri- bunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo.
    [Show full text]
  • International Criminal Justice.Pdf
    INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE a dialogue between two cultures Patrícia Galvão Teles Mateus Kowalski (eds.) Luís Moita Almiro Rodrigues Sofia Santos Miguel Santos Neves Maria Francisca Saraiva Miguel de Serpa Soares Title International Criminal Justice: a dialogue between two cultures Coordination Mateus Kowalski and Patrícia Galvão Teles Editor Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa and Observare Editorial Coordination Madalena Romão Mira Design Rita Romeiras Print Tipografia Lousanense ISBN 978-989-8191-73-1 e-ISBN 978-989-8191-79-3 Legal Deposit 424875/17 Note: This book is available in OBSERVARE site www.observare.autonoma.pt on the publications section. The translation of the articles was funded by national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia – as part of OBSERVARE project with the reference UID/CPO/04155/2013, with the aim of publishing Janus.net. Translated by Thomas Rickard. © OBSERVARE and Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa KOWALSKI, MATEUS; TELES, PATRÍCIA GALVÃO (EDS.) (2017). INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE: A DIALOGUE BETWEEN TWO CULTURES. Lisboa: Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa; OBSERVARE. I.Title. II. Mateus Kowalski. III. Patrícia Galvão Teles. IV. Miguel de Serpa Soares. V. Maria Francisca Saraiva. VI. Sofia Santos. VII. Almiro Rodrigues. VIII. Luís Moita. IX. Miguel Santos Neves. X. Patrícia Galvão Teles ISBN 978-989-8191-73-1 CDU 341.4 Index INTRODUCTION – INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE: A DIALOGUE BETWEEN TWO CULTURES — Mateus Kowalski and Patrícia Galvão Teles 13 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Prosecution Watch, Vol. 14, Issue 13 -- August 04, 2019
    PILPG Logo Case School of Law Logo War Crimes Prosecution Watch Editor-in-Chief Alexandra Hassan FREDERICK K. COX Volume 14 - Issue 13 INTERNATIONAL LAW CENTER August 04, 2019 Technical Editor-in-Chief Kurt Harris Founder/Advisor Michael P. Scharf Managing Editors Gloria Neilson Faculty Advisor Mary Preston Jim Johnson War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email [email protected] and type "subscribe" in the subject line. Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group. Contents AFRICA NORTH AFRICA CENTRAL AFRICA Sudan & South Sudan Civilians And Military Leaders Sign Power-Sharing Deal In Sudan (NPR) U.S. Balked at Sanctions on Sudan (Foreign Policy) Sprouting Weapons of War (OCCRP) Democratic Republic of the Congo UN Criminal Court Upholds Reparations for Congo Victims (Courthouse News Service) DR Congo: Child soldiers and the conflict in Kasai-Central (AlJazeera) WEST AFRICA Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast) Achieving Justice For Victims And Ending Impunity Across The Continent By Femi Falana (sahara reporters) Lake Chad Region — Chad, Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon Contact made with pirates holding 10 Turkish sailors
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Dimension of Peace and Aggression
    The Human Dimension of Peace and Aggression Chiara Redaelli 96 INT’L L. STUD. 603 (2020) Volume 96 2020 Published by the Stockton Center for International Law ISSN 2375-2831 The Human Dimension of Peace and Aggression Vol. 96 The Human Dimension of Peace and Aggression Chiara Redaelli CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................................................................. 604 II. The Humanization of Aggression ........................................................ 607 A. Aggression as the “Supreme International Crime” ....................... 607 B. The Humanization of International Criminal Law ....................... 612 C. Reconciling Aggression with Humanized International Criminal Law ...................................................................................... 615 III. The Humanization of Peace .................................................................. 619 A. The Invention of Peace ..................................................................... 619 B. Reframing Peace in Terms of Human Rights ................................ 625 C. The Peace versus Justice Conundrum ............................................ 631 IV. The Implications of the Humanization of Peace and Aggression ... 633 A. Is Aggression Still the “Supreme International Crime”?.............. 633 B. Peace, Justice, and the Question of Humanitarian Intervention ... 638 V. Conclusion: Going Back to Move Forward? ...................................... 641 Research Fellow, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Against Peace Franz B
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 38 | Issue 5 Article 1 1948 Crimes against Peace Franz B. Schick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Franz B. Schick, Crimes against Peace, 38 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 445 (1947-1948) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY JANUARY-FEBRUARY, 1948 VOL. 38, No. 5 CRIMES AGAINST PEACE Franz B. Schick The author received the LLB degree in the Law School of Vienna. During many years afterward he wrote the political editorials for various European newspapers and magazines. He came to the. United States on his own free will long before the outbreak of World War II. He has received the Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California where he was a lecturer and instructor in Political Science during several years. Dr. Schick is now Associate Professor of Political Science in the University of Utah and the Institute of Government. He has published in: The American Journal of International Law, The Fortnightly Law Journal, The Toronto Law Journal, The Juridical Beview, The Modern Law Review, The International Law Qudrterly and others.-EDIToR. It may be stated without exaggeration that the London Agreement'- and the Charter of the International Military Tribunal2 which forms an integral part of this Agreement, greatly transcend in scope and importance the immediate pur- pose for which they were created.
    [Show full text]
  • A Note on the Nuremberg Debate
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1947 A Note on the Nuremberg Debate Bernard D. Meltzer Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bernard D. Meltzer, Comment, "A Note on the Nuremberg Debate," 14 University of Chicago Law Review 455 (1947). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENT A NOTE ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE NUREMBERG DEBATE BERxAED D. MELTZER* History has not and cannot for a long time render its verdict on the Nuremberg trials. This verdict will, it is clear, depend less on Nuremberg and on the events which preceded it than on events which are to come. But debate on the issues raised by the trial is in full swing. It has been hailed as a significant contribution to international law, order, and jus- tice.' It has been attacked with a variety of objections: ex post facto, novelty and confusion, threat to the great traditions of Anglo-American justice, disrepute for the judiciary, the power of the victors masquerading as law, a barrier to the development of a democratic legal order in 2 Germany. 3 Professor Max Rheinstein in the February issue of this Review joined the men who have attacked the legal and moral foundations of this trial. His views are representative of the whole current of criticism.
    [Show full text]