There is a simple answer: Yet this obvious response obscures further questions regarding where the political authority to create international tribunals comes from, as well as the vital moral question regarding how courts are constituted as actors with the capacity to assign blame. In modern international politics authority has traditionally rested with states, meaning that rightful legal institutions were created and justified by the consent of states. Asking how a new international authority is constituted and justified as an actor with the political power to try state officials and other international criminals, and to embody and defend supposedly emergent norms of global justice is a more contentious and difficult question that takes us beyond questions of positive law.
Benjamin Ferencz 1 The Vision of Nuremberg in World Peace Through World Law At the end of the second World War, one of the important goals of the victorious allied powers was to make international law effective to help maintain world peace.
The illegal invasions and atrocities perpetrated by the Hitler regime were so outrageous that the temptation was great simply to arrest Nazi leaders and have them shot. This, in fact, was an early British proposal that probably would have been approved by Stalin but it was not acceptable to the United States.
Contrary to some popular misconceptions, war-crimes trials were never intended as victor's vengeance over a vanquished foe. The leading juridical architect of the trials, highly-respected Justice Robert M. The Nuremberg trials were a cornerstone of the great effort to make the peace more secure.
In Jackson's view, it was high time "to make war less attractive to those who held the destiny of peoples in their power," 3 and the way to protect people from domestic tyranny, violence and aggression was to make all men responsible to law and to make sure that those who start a war will pay for it personally.
It was repeatedly confirmed by Nuremberg prosecutors and judges that the standards imposed on the German defendants were equally applicable to officials of the Allied Powers and to those of all nations.
Outstanding jurists from the U. The first - which is the subject of this article - was "Crimes against Peace; namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war 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".
Exactly what was meant by aggression or aggressive war was not set forth.
Jackson argued that the actions of the Nazi leaders were unambiguously aggressive when considered in the light of a multilateral convention on that subject and legal opinions that had already been well crystallized.
In its carefully reasoned final judgment, the distinguished judges who sat on the IMT bench concluded that the London Charter was not ex post facto legislation but an expression of existing international law. Past legal precedents and treaties, that were cited in detail, had put the defendants on notice that what they were doing was criminal.
Justice demanded that they be punished.
These trials were based on the London Charter for the IMT as well as a clarifying law that added invasions as a crime against peace and noted that the listing was not exclusive.
The fairness of the Nuremberg trials has been widely acknowledged. They served as models for war-crimes trials in Tokyo and other parts of the world. Telford Taylor shared the conviction of his predecessor Justice Jackson that law must apply equally to everyone. He too, was convinced that the greatest achievement of Nuremberg was the condemnation of aggressive war since the most heinous crime was war-making itself.
Committees were appointed to prepare both a code of international crimes based on the Nuremberg principles and to draft the statute for a new international criminal tribunal that could enforce the penal code. It soon became apparent that political rivalries between the major powers made consensus agreements impossible.
It was argued that without a clear definition of the crime of aggression, no criminal code would be complete and as long as there was no code, there was no need for a court to enforce it.Following the establishment of ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in and , and the adoption in of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, much has.
Reflections on the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos (T.). ratione personae and ratione temporis of the ICTY and the ICTR are limited by the provisions of their respective Statutes. Bos, Adriaan, “Dedicated to the Adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Statute of the International Criminal Court”, Fordham International Law Journal, vol.
22 no. 2 (December ), pp. [url=benjaminpohle.com][img]benjaminpohle.com×jpg[/img][/url] Link —-> [b][url=benjaminpohle.com]cheap mba business plan. The chairman, Adriaan Bos of the Netherlands, told the PrepCom that it had achieved a draft text of a treaty to establish an international criminal court that, with luck, the forthcoming diplomatic conference inRome might well be able to negotiate intofinal form.
6 Michael J.
Struett, “The Legitimacy of the International Criminal Court,” in Michael J. Struett, The Politics of Constructing the International Criminal Court: NGOs, Discourse, and Agency (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, ), pp.