Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Implementation of the ‘Nuremberg Principles’

  • Chapter
Aggressive War

  • 106 Accesses

Abstract

A study of the efforts undertaken by the United Nations to make the law recognized and applied by the Nuremberg Tribunal generally applicable, has necessarily a different character from that of the judgment itself. The latter and the judgments of the other post-war tribunals discussed above can be considered as accomplished facts. The work of the United Nations relative to these Judgments is still, however, at the present moment, after the Sixth Session of the General Assembly, in full development. Apart from the affirmation by unanimous resolution of the General Assembly of “the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and the Judgment of the Tribunal” on December 11, 1946, and apart from the formulation of these principles by the International Law Commission during its Second Session, in June and July 1950, no positive steps have been taken in this field and no definite conclusions can be drawn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Department of State Bulletin (1946), Vol. 15, pp. 954-957.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibidem, p. 954.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biddle, Revue International de Droit Pénal, l.c., p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schick, l.c., p. 794; Finch, l.c., p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See discussion in the Sixth Committee at the Fifth Session of the General Assembly, concerning Part III of the Report of the International Law Commission, in U.N. Documents A/C. 6/SR. 233-239, A/C. 6/SR. 235, pp. 165-6 (Delegates of Venezuela and Argentina).

    Google Scholar 

  6. A/C. 6/SR. 237, p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Prof. Mr. B. V. A. Röling, Stand en Ontwikkeling van het internationaal strafrecht, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, 1951, pp. 1 ff., p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  8. See above, pp. 299 and 304 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  9. See particulary the Dutch Delegate in the Sixth Committee, A/C. 6/SR. 232, p. 138 and A/C. 6/SR. 236, p. 172; also Report of the Sixth Committee, A/L 639, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See above, pp. 258-260.

    Google Scholar 

  11. An exception has to be made for the statute of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Annex to Gen. Ass. Resolution 428 (V) adopted on 14 December 1950, by virtue of which is excluded from the mandate of the High Commissioner a person “in respect of whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime mentioned in Article VI of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal”. The same provision was included in Resolution 429 (V) of the same date, recommending a definition of refugees for the purpose of a draft Convention relating to the status of Refugees. The Convention as adopted by a Conference of Plenipotentaries in Geneva, on 25 July 1951, does not contain any reference to the Charter of London on account of the opposition to such express reference by the German Delegation to the conference. The relevant paragraph (Art. I, par. 1) now gives as criterion the committing of “a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instrument drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes”. Article 6 of the London Charter thus remains decisive in this respect (Cf. Prof. Dr. B. V. A. Röling, Internationaal Strafrechterlijke Organisatie, Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, 1952, reprint p. 5, note 9).

    Google Scholar 

  12. N. Politis, The New Aspects of International Law, o.c., p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Official Records of the second part of the First Session of the General Assembly, pp. 699-700 (italics supplied).

    Google Scholar 

  14. The Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Trial; History and Analysis, A/CN. 4/5 (U.N. Publication 1949/V/7).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Formulation of the Nuremberg Principles, Part III of the Report of the International Law Commission covering its Second Session, A/1316, pp. 11-14.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cf. Statute of the International Law Commission, Articles 1 and 15, in Gen. Ass. Resolution, 174 (II).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Quoted by J. Spiropoulos in The Formulation of the Nürnberg Principles, report presented to the International Law Commission at its second session, A/CN. 4/22 (12 April 1950), pp. 20-1.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gen. Ass. Resolution 177 (II) of 21 November 1947.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Sixth Committee, Summary Records of Meetings, 16 Sept.–26 November 1947, p. 212, quoted by Röling in Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht 1951, l.c., p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. A/1316, p. 11, par. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Spiropoulos, Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, report presented to the I.L.C. at its Second Session, A/CN. 4/25 (26 April 1950), p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Prof. Mr. Dr. J. P. A. François, De codificatie van het internationale recht, Economisch-Statistische Berichten, 1949, Nos. 1686 and 1687; reprint pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Report of the I.L.C. covering its First Session, A/925, Chapter III, p. 4, par. 27, and Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 11, note 3.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See the criticism of this method in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of 1950, Report of the Sixth Committee on the Report of the I.L.C, A/1639, (8 December 1950), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See Resolution 174 (II) and François, Vol. I, p. 624.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See the forementioned resolution, and Report of the Sixth Committee. l.c., p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Gen. Ass. Resolution 488 (V); see Report of the Sixth Committee, l.c., pp. 12-14.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Spiropoulos, Second Report on a Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, presented to the I.L.C., A/CN. 4/44 (12 April 1951), pp. 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Report of the I.L.C. covering its Third Session, A/1858, Chapter IV, p. 11, par. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Second Report on a Draft Code, l.c., pp. 7-36.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Report on First Session, l.c., p. 4, par. 26 in fine.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Statement of the Delegate of the United Kingdom, A/C. 6/SR. 233, p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Report of the Sixth Committee, l.c., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Statement of the Dutch Delegate at the 232nd meeting of the Sixth Committee, (A/C. 6/SR. 232), transcript p. 12; cf. Röling in Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, l.c., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Statement of the French Delegate, A/C. 6/SR 232, p. 141, and statement of the Chinese Delegate, A/C. 6/SR. 235, p. 164.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cf. Statement of the Peruvian Delegate, A/C. 6/SR. 237, pp. 179-180.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Statement of the Soviet Delegate, A/C. 6/SR. 234, p. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Statement of the Delegate of the United Kingdom, A/C. 6/SR. 233, p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Report of The Sixth Committee, l.c., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  40. As the Delegate of Israêl, Mr. Robinson, remarked, A/C. 6/SR. 236, p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Report of the Sixth Committee, l.c., p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Formulation of the Nuremberg Principles in Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 12, par. 104.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibidem, pars. 105-6.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Report of the Sixth Committee, l.c., p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ibidem, pp. 11-12.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See above, pp. 297 and 303 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  47. See above, p. 215.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See above, p. 306.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 14, pars. 125-7.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cf. Report of Sixth Committee, l.c., p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See for example Röling in Tijdschrift voor Strafrecht, l.c. pp. 10-11.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Report of Sixth Committee, l.c., pp. 10-11.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Report on Third Session, l.c., Chapter IV, pp. 10-14.

    Google Scholar 

  54. C. G. Fenwick (Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, A.J.I.L., 1948, pp. 98-100, p. 100) rather bluntly states with reference to the U.S. Mutual Security Act of 1951: “The terms of the law made the consideration of the Draft Code by the General Assembly wholly impracticable, with the result that the Code was taken off the agenda of the Sixth and postponed until the Seventh Session of the General Assembly”. See also Pitman B. Potter, ibidem, pp. 101-2.

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Observations of Governments on the Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind and on the Question of the Definition of Aggression (1952), A/2162 and Add. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Report on First Session, l.c., p. 5, par. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 17, par. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibidem; see for the text of the subcommittee’s draft, Doc. A/CN. 4/R. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See above, p. 336.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Doc. A/CN. 4/19.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 17, par. 149. See further Chapter III, section 6 above.

    Google Scholar 

  62. L.c., A/CN. 4/25, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Above, p. 322.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See First Report on Draft Code, l.c., pp. 12-13.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Report on Third Session, l.c., p. 11, par. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See Convention on Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency of 1 May 1929, International Legislation, l.c., Vol. IV, pp. 2692 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  67. See above, pp. 217 ff. and 304 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  68. First Report on Draft Code, l.c., p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Second Report on Draft Code, l.c., p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  70. See Report on Third Session, Chapter III, pp. 8-10, and above, p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  71. See above, pp. 99 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  72. See p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Report on Third Session, l.c., p. 9, pars. 47-48; see above, pp. III ff..

    Google Scholar 

  74. See above, p. 334.

    Google Scholar 

  75. See A. Sottile, Un peu plus de justice S.V.P., R.D.I., 1948, pp. 372–385, pp. 379-381; N. Veicopoulos, Les Responsabilités des individuels dans la préparation de la guerre, ibidem, pp. 53-62. Cf. above, p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  76. See the judgment in the von Weiszaecker case, quoted above, pp. 233 and 306.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See above, pp. 251-2.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Report on Second Session, l.c., p. 17, par. 156.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Second Report on Draft Code, l.c., p. 45.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Report on Third Session, l.c., p. 11, par. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  81. See Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, Vol. I, p. 307.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See Cowles, Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes, l.c., and Janèckzek, o.c., pp. 59 ff..

    Google Scholar 

  83. See on those efforts the Memorandum concerning a Draft Code of Offences against the Peace and Security of Mankind, by V. V. Pella, U. N. General, A/CN. 4/39 (24 November 1950).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cf. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, Vol. I, p. 298.

    Google Scholar 

  85. See Judgment in the Lotus case of 1927, Hudson, World Court Reports, Vol. I, pp. 191-206.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Second Report on Draft Code, l.c., p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  88. See Gen. Ass. Resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948, artt. 5, 6 and 9.

    Google Scholar 

  89. The holding of such trials has sometimes been made a condition of a peace-settlement. The history of the Leipzig Trials after the First World War only stresses the difficulties of such municipal trials of war criminals, while the trial of former President Ryti c.s. held in Helsinki in 1946, in fulfilment of the obligation contained in Article 9, paragraph I (a), of the Peace Treaty with Finland of 1947, was rather a doubtful case (the documents of this trial have been published by Hj. H. Procopé, Fällande Dom Som Friar, Stockholm 1946).

    Google Scholar 

  90. First Report on Draft Code, l.c., p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Report on Second Session, l.c., Part. IV.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Report of Sixth Committee, l.c., pp. 15-18.

    Google Scholar 

  93. See Report to the General Assembly of the Session held 1 August— 31 August 1951 of the Committee on International Criminal Jurisdiction, A/AC. 48/4.

    Google Scholar 

  94. A/AC. 48/4, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See on the Draft Statute, George A. Finch in A.J.I.L., 1952, (pp. 89-97) who rejects, and Quincy Wright, ibidem (pp. 60-72), who favours the idea of the establishment of an International Criminal Court. See also Röling, Internationale Strafrechterlijke Organisatie, l.c..

    Google Scholar 

  96. Like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, containing definitions of war crimes, and the Genocide Convention covering — partly — the crimes against humanity.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Cornelis Arnold Pompe

Authors
  1. Cornelis Arnold Pompe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1953 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pompe, C.A. (1953). Implementation of the ‘Nuremberg Principles’. In: Aggressive War. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8821-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-8821-0_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8177-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-8821-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation