At its second session in 1950, the ILC adopted a formulation of seven Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
* Principle I : Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. This is based on the general rule that international law may impose duties directly on individuals.
* Principle II : The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an international crime does not relieve the person who committed the act from international responsibility. This implies the "supremacy" of international law over national law.
* Principle III : The fact that a person acted as Head of State or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.
* Principle IV : Acting pursuant to an order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility, 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 : sets out the crimes punishable under international law:
* Crimes against peace : Includes planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, as well as participation in a conspiracy for these acts. The ILC understands the term "waging of a war of aggression" to refer only to high-ranking military personnel and high State officials. The Tribunal affirmed the illegality of aggressive war based on the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
* War crimes : Violations of the laws or customs of war, such as murder, ill-treatment, deportation, killing of hostages, and plunder.
* Crimes against humanity : Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when done in execution of or in connection with a crime against peace or a war crime. These acts may constitute crimes against humanity even if committed by the perpetrator against their own population.
* Principle VII : Complicity in the commission of any of the crimes listed in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
The ILC also considered the General Assembly's invitation to study the desirability and possibility of establishing an international judicial organ for the trial of persons charged with genocide or other crimes. While some members questioned its effectiveness, particularly for grave international crimes, others argued that the creation of such a jurisdiction was desirable as an effective contribution to world peace and security, serving as a deterrent against aggressors. (496 words)
(Summary of the Principles of International Law recognize recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, with commentaries 1950 based on the Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its second session, in 1950)
ILC Clarification on 'Waging of War of Aggression'
The question asks why the International Law Commission (ILC) clarified the specific term "waging of a war of aggression" within Principle VI (a) of the Principles of International Law recognized in the Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This clarification was a crucial step in defining international criminal responsibility.
Understanding Principle VI(a) and the Clarification
Principle VI outlines the specific crimes punishable under international law, including "Crimes against peace." This category encompasses planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression. The provided text highlights a specific clarification made by the ILC regarding this principle:
"The ILC understands the term 'waging of a war of aggression' to refer only to high-ranking military personnel and high State officials."
This statement directly limits who can be held responsible for the act of "waging" such a war. It narrows the scope of perpetrators significantly.
Reason for the Clarification
The clarification was made to address potential misunderstandings and prevent overly broad application of the law. The text implies that without this specific limitation, there was a concern that the definition might be applied too widely. Let's examine the options in light of this:
- Option 1: The text doesn't explicitly state that the Charter lacked a definition, but rather that the ILC was tasked with formulating principles already recognized. The focus was on formulation and clarity, not necessarily filling a void in the original Charter definition itself.
- Option 2: This option directly aligns with the ILC's clarification. By restricting the definition to "high-ranking military personnel and high State officials," the ILC aimed to prevent the serious charge of waging aggressive war from being applied to every soldier involved in conflict. This addresses the fear that every combatant in uniform might face such charges, which would be an impractical and potentially unjust interpretation of international law.
- Option 3: The provided text does not mention any specific confusion or lack of distinction between "planning" and "preparation" as the reason for clarifying "waging of a war of aggression."
- Option 4: While the General Assembly initiated the ILC's work, the text does not specify a request for a more precise definition of "waging of a war of aggression" specifically for future conventions at this stage. The ILC's task was to formulate existing recognized principles.
Therefore, the primary reason the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" was to manage the scope of responsibility and ensure that only those in positions of significant authority were held accountable for initiating or conducting aggressive warfare, thereby alleviating concerns about charging every individual combatant.
Similar Questions
- The author's view of Hohfeld's contribution to legal scholarship can best be described as:
- The phrase "literal inaccuracy in its every phrase" is used by the author to critique the Declaration's statement, suggesting a conflict between its rhetorical power and its:
- The debate within the International Law Commission regarding the creation of an international judicial organ (Part IV) centered on the following contrasting positions:
- Based on the passage, the primary problem the author identifies with the current discourse surrounding "rights" is the:
- The International Law Commission (ILC) concluded that its task, as directed by General Assembly resolution 177 (II), was primarily:
- Principle IV of the Nuremberg Principles concerning superior orders, differs from Article 8 of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal by:
- The Tribunal, in its judgment, was constrained from making a general declaration that the acts of persecution and murder committed in Germany before 1939 were "crimes against humanity" primarily because:
- The author attributes the growing public frustration with the UN primarily to which pair of continuous failures?
- A primary point of divergence between the US Conservative position and the Secretary-General's Conservative position on security matters, according to the summary is:
- According to the critique's conclusion, the immediate, insurmountable barrier preventing the implementation of any reform, major or minor, is:
Important Questions from Non Grammar
- The author's view of Hohfeld's contribution to legal scholarship can best be described as:
- The phrase "literal inaccuracy in its every phrase" is used by the author to critique the Declaration's statement, suggesting a conflict between its rhetorical power and its:
- The debate within the International Law Commission regarding the creation of an international judicial organ (Part IV) centered on the following contrasting positions:
- Based on the passage, the primary problem the author identifies with the current discourse surrounding "rights" is the:
- The International Law Commission (ILC) concluded that its task, as directed by General Assembly resolution 177 (II), was primarily:
