Political trials in domestic and international law

Only four categories of crimes were to be punished:. Conspiracy conspiring to engage in the other three counts , Crimes Against Peace planning, preparing and waging aggressive war , War Crimes condemned in Hague Conventions of and and Crimes Against Humanity such as genocide , which by their magnitude, shock the conscience of humankind. Each provision of the articles was carefully considered in order to reach an accord that seemed fair and acceptable to the four partners representing the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union.

On the eight day of August , the Charter was signed and the first International Military Tribunal in the history of mankind was thereby inaugurated. A Chief Prosecutor had been appointed for each of the four victorious powers. Designated by President Harry S. Truman as U. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. From November 20, , until August 31, , all sessions of the tribunal were held in Nuremberg under the presidency of Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence.

In its comprehensive judgment, the Tribunal traced the history of international criminal law and the growing recognition in treaties, conventions and declarations, that aggressive war was an illegal act for which even a head of state could be brought to account. There was no longer anything ex facto about such a charge.

Leaders who deliberately attacked neighboring states without cause must have know that their deeds were prohibited and it would be unjust to allow them to escape merely because no one had been charged with that offense in the past.

The evidence, based in large part on captured German records, was overwhelming that crimes of the greatest cruelty and horror had been systematically committed pursuant to official policy. Regarding Crimes Against Humanity such as extermination and enslavement of civilian populations on political, racial or religious grounds , the law took another step forward on behalf of humankind - a step that was long overdue.

The findings and judgment of the IMT helped to usher in a new era for the legal protection of fundamental human rights. Other defendants were hanged or sentenced to long prison terms. Some were acquitted and released. They have become expressions of binding common international law. The Definition of what constitutes a war crime is described by the Nuremberg Principles, a document that came out of this trial. The text below was adopted by the Commission at its second session.

The report of the commission also contains commentaries on the principles. Principle I Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.

Principle II The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. Principles III The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.

Principle IV The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him. Principle V Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.

Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:. Crimes Against Peace: a. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;.

War Crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Crimes Against Humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principles VI is a crime under international law. Contrary to the original plans, no subsequent international tribunal took place because the four Allies were unable to agree on joint subsequent trials.

As a compromise, the quadripartite Control Council that governed Germany enacted a law authorizing each of the four Powers to carry on with such prosecution in its own zone of occupation as it might see fit. From , twelve U. Similar trials were conducted in the French, British and Soviet zones of occupation. Its impact caused several effects beyond creating a mere term to be used in military tribunals and political purposes.

This convention criminalized genocide and related activities in the international sphere, and the convention itself is heavily influenced by many of the Nuremberg principles.

It also extended this crime against humanity beyond periods of war and the specific scenario of the Second World War. The Genocide Convention was not, per se, a major advancement in the upholding of international human rights, especially considering its provision in Articles V and VI, which provide that states should regulate their legal systems accordingly to criminalize such acts in the domestic sphere, and that those found guilty of the crime of genocide should be tried in the courts of the country where the acts were committed in absence of a competent international tribunal with consented jurisdiction over the matter, and many academics have shown to be quite skeptical about its practical possibilities.

However, on the theoretical arena the Convention Against Genocide is a development from the precepts set in Nuremberg, in such a sudden and ad hoc manner, especially where codification of Crimes Against Humanity is concerned. The Convention takes the main aspect of these crimes, extirpates it from a broad definition, and narrows it down into one separate and codified principle. Genocide as defined in Articles II and III practically cover all those measures taken by the Nazis during their persecution and brutal extermination of certain social, religious and cultural groups: those same atrocities which the members of the Court dubbed as Crimes Against Humanity took concrete form in this Convention.

In the United Nations issued the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first legal document to recognize such rights as binding, and creating the notion of Human Rights as we understand it today.

The influence which Nuremberg and to a certain extent the Tokyo trials had upon the formulation and conception of such a declaration cannot be understated. Nuremberg had for the first time in international law traced a definite distinction between jus ad bello a doctrine concerned exclusively on the conduct in warfare, and jus ad bellum, which concerns itself with the justice or legality of the waging of war. By introducing the new principles of Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity, Nuremberg effectively fathered a globalized concern towards certain attitudes in war and, by extension, for the rights of all human beings suffering the effects of certain modes of violence.

This supposed impact on the Universal Declaration has been backed up by the fact that some academics have stated that the UN Charter itself was almost a product of Nuremberg and the issues raised before, during and after the Trial. Superior orders would be no excuse but could be considered in mitigation. Inspired by the horrors revealed at the Nuremberg Trials, the Assembly passed another resolution calling for a convention to prohibit and punish the crime of genocide — by such a tribunal as might later prove acceptable to the parties.

Experts were soon designated to draw up a Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind and to draft statutes for an international criminal court to punish such offenses. In December , the U. The resolution was one of the so-called Geneva conventions, named after the Swiss city where they were signed.

During the Tokyo trials extensive reference was made to Nuremberg and its definition of Crimes Against Humanity. Accordingly to several academics, Article 6 C of the Charter drafted in the London Agreement was in a way formulated exclusively with the thought of prosecuting the Nazi leaders held responsible for the atrocities committed against the Jewish people and other targeted groups both inside and outside Germany. Tokyo was the first stepping-stone from Nuremberg, which would lead to the universalization of Crimes Against Humanity and its relevant derivations.

The end of tight Communist control in Eastern Europe also unleashed long-suppressed nationalism among ethnic groups. Ethnic-based conflict broke out almost immediately, prompted largely by the resistance to independence of large Serb minorities in Croatia. In , the Security Council established a Commission of Experts to investigate evidence of violations of humanitarian law in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The accounts of atrocities in the early years of the Bosnian Civil War prompted the creation of the first international war-crimes court since Nuremberg and Tokyo.

In May , the U. The new court, with its seat in The Hague was given responsibility for prosecuting crimes that violated the Geneva Conventions, including genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.

As of September , a total of 78 individuals have been publicly indicted by the Court. Fifty-seven of those indicted are Serbs, 18 are Croats and 3 are Moslems. The court handed down its first sentence in November , sentencing Drazen Edemovic, a Croat who served in the Bosnian Serb Army, to ten years in prison for his role in the Srebrenica massacre. There were reports that perhaps half a million Tutsi and their supporters were being savagely massacred by the dominant Hutu government.

The Security Council sent a small commission to investigate Res. United Nations forces were dispatched to Rwanda to help restore order to that battered country. It followed closely the general outlines of the ICTFY but was more explicit in assuring that even in a civil conflict violations of the rules of war would not be tolerated.

The Court was authorized to prosecute for genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and war crimes regardless of whether the strife was called an international conflict or a civil war. Because of the nature of the internal conflict, the inclusion of aggression as a crime within the jurisdiction of the court was not relevant. Only the specified crimes committed within the defined area during the year could be dealt with.

The Rwanda Court was thus a special tribunal of very limited jurisdiction. In , the statute of the Court was approved in Rome and it has entered into force the first of July , when the required number of country ratifications was attained.

The court holds a promise of putting an end to the impunity that reigns today for human rights violators and bringing us a more just and more humane world. In the U. Sadly we realize that the cruelties during World War II were not isolated incidents. Genocide has since Nuremberg taken place in Uganda, in Cambodia, in Rwanda, in Somalia, in Bosnia, and the list could go on.

Without doubt, these courts have significantly contributed to the development of international criminal law, but they have not been entirely successful. Their biggest problems have been the lack of formal means of enforcement to seize indicted criminals.

After the Cold War tensions had dissolved the world community showed a renewed interest in creating an international criminal court. This statute was presented in Cultural property is subject to two international legal regimes, one of which protects cultural property during wartime, and the other of which regulates the international trade in cultural property.

The Credible Executive. Legal and constitutional theory has focused chiefly on the risk that voters and legislators will trust an ill-motivated executive. This paper addresses the risk that voters and legislators will fail … Expand. This book studies the interpretation and application of the principle of equality of arms in proceedings before several international criminal courts. The coming of age of these institutions merits … Expand.

Is the Party Over? The Court and the Political Process. This article identifies and analyzes five features of political parties that make them among the most complex and dynamic of any political institution and therefore among the most difficult for the … Expand.

Can international criminal courts provide defendants with fair trials? The question can be approached in at least two ways. First, are the substantive rights accorded to the accused by the tribunals' … Expand. Treaties, Human Rights, and Conditional Consent.

Economics, Political Science. The U. Through these … Expand. The objective of campaign finance regulation has been incorrectly formulated. The main goal of campaign finance laws articulated by judges and legislators has been to eliminate a certain kind of … Expand.

Minimalism at War. When national security conflicts with individual liberty, reviewing courts might adopt one of three general orientations: National Security Maximalism, Liberty Maximalism, and minimalism.

National … Expand. Is the President Bound by the Geneva Conventions. The United States is party to several treaties that regulate the conduct of war, including the Geneva Conventions on the Protection of War Victims.

These treaties require belligerent states, as … Expand. Political Trials in Domestic and International Law. Eric A. Due process protections and other constitutional restrictions normally ensure that citizens cannot be tried and punished for political dissent, but these same restrictions interfere with criminal convictions of terrorists and others who pose a nonimmediate but real threat to public safety.

To counter these threats, governments may use various subterfuges to avoid constitutional protections-often with the complicity of judges-but when they do so, they risk losing the confidence of the public, which may believe that the government targets legitimate political opponents. This Article argues that the amount of process enjoyed by defendants in criminal trials reflects a balancing of two factors: their dangerousness, on the one hand, and the risk to legitimate political competition, on the other.

Political trials are those in which the defendant's opposition to the existing government or the constitutional order is the main issue.