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)
Understanding the ILC and Nuremberg Principles
The International Law Commission (ILC) was assigned a crucial task by the UN General Assembly, following resolution 177 (II). Its objective was to clearly formulate the principles of international law that were recognized in both the Charter and the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal. The ILC's responsibility was strictly to lay out these principles, not to evaluate them, as they had already been affirmed by the General Assembly.
During its second session in 1950, the ILC successfully formulated seven key principles. These foundational principles cover aspects such as individual accountability for international crimes (Principle I), the precedence of international law over national law (Principle II), the non-exemption of high-ranking officials from responsibility (Principle III), the limited relief from responsibility when following orders (Principle IV), the right to a fair trial (Principle V), the definition of specific international crimes like crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity (Principle VI), and the criminal nature of complicity (Principle VII).
Debate on Establishing an International Judicial Organ
Beyond formulating these principles, the ILC also addressed the General Assembly's invitation to explore the feasibility and desirability of creating an international judicial body. This body would be responsible for trying individuals accused of severe international crimes, such as genocide.
Contrasting Positions in the Debate
The discussions within the ILC revealed differing viewpoints regarding the creation of such an international court. The central tension lay in balancing the potential benefits against the practical challenges:
- Argument for Desirability and Possibility: A significant perspective held that establishing this international jurisdiction was indeed desirable. Proponents argued that it would serve as an effective contribution to maintaining world peace and security. Furthermore, they believed it could act as a powerful deterrent against potential aggressors, thus promoting stability.
- Concerns Raised about Effectiveness: Conversely, some members expressed skepticism. They questioned the effectiveness of such an organ, particularly when confronting "grave international crimes." This viewpoint suggested that potential ineffectiveness might make the establishment of the organ undesirable, raising doubts about its practicality and impact.
These contrasting viewpoints highlight the core debate: whether the establishment of the international judicial organ was desirable and possible, or whether it was undesirable due to concerns about its likely ineffectiveness against grave international crimes.
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:
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- 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:
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- 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:
