dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
out a definition of aggression because, however perfect or good our definition would be, it would not be binding to the defendants, and they might question it. If such an argument does crop up, it would be up to the Chief Prosecutors, who would be very competent to parry any arguments that the defendants or counsel might put up. As far as I know, although I have not studied in detail the United Nations Charter adopted in San Francisco, even there there was no attempt to define aggression as such. If the San Francisco Conference did not do that, the more reason I think that this commission, or I personally, am not competent, to work out a definition. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I wonder whether it would meet that point and give us the assistance we want if we were to put in quite briefly as the policy of aggression the policy defined, for example, by the Kellogg-Briand pact and the declaration of the United Nations. That would give a pointer without defining it. That would not be tying us to defining it but would be showing us the sort of aggression at which we were aiming. PROFESSOR GROS. I cannot see any difficulty. It is only the position of the treaties, and it should be said that it is only an example, because there are other treaties. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Wouldn't it be rather disrespectful to the members of the Tribunal to point out to them the treaties which we should expect them to know or at least to study? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I do not think so. We don't usually assume that a judge knows any specific laws in my country and require counsel to file a brief on nearly every point. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I do suggest that that would really give us reasonable basis of compromise; it would indicate to the Tribunal where they ought to look and what they ought to see, which, though I haven't been in Mr. Justice Jackson's high judicial position, I think would help without offense. On the other hand, we would not be falling into the position which General Nikitchenko and Professor Gros have envisaged of trying to decide a problem which the United Nations organization has not yet tackled. PROFESSOR GROS. It was implied that-if Mr. Justice Jackson thinks it will give satisfaction,
would help without offense. On the other hand, we would not be falling into the position which General Nikitchenko and Professor Gros have envisaged of trying to decide a problem which the United Nations organization has not yet tackled. PROFESSOR GROS. It was implied that-if Mr. Justice Jackson thinks it will give satisfaction, particularly to public opinion-materially it is in the text of the treaties. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Really I do not think it concerns me very much. That is probably one thing we Americans would not get in at all at the trial. It concerns European powers rather than ourselves. I should hate to see a political controversy at this trial, which will be widely reported, and the suggestion really comes to mind because of the Soviet suggestion that we should eliminate propaganda. I do not think we can eliminate what may be propaganda if it also is relevant to issues we ourselves raise in the case. But I should think we could so limit the crime charged in this case that it would not be necessary to worry about propaganda. It is an entirely different thing trying to define aggression for the United Nations organization as a future policy and solving it as a juridical policy. This Tribunal will have to act on the subject, and the United Nations organization does not. Political definition seems to me much more difficult than judicial definition. Either we or the court have got to define this concept on which we predicate a charge of crime. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Then I revert to my original suggestion: If we take the French draft as the basis, perhaps Professor Gros could discuss it with Mr. Clyde and Mr. Troyanovsky on the question of wording, and we might meet tomorrow afternoon after our pleasant interlude as guests of General Nikitchenko [see note following] and see whether we have the form to suit us. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. As for this reference, would it not be better to refer to some more recent declarations-say, for instance, the policy of aggression condemned by the United Nations organization? PROFESSOR GROS. The reason for referring to the Kellogg-Briand pact is that it was signed by Germany. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Perhaps, if you could find a good modern one to add to them, it would do no harm.
for instance, the policy of aggression condemned by the United Nations organization? PROFESSOR GROS. The reason for referring to the Kellogg-Briand pact is that it was signed by Germany. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Perhaps, if you could find a good modern one to add to them, it would do no harm. Perhaps you could turn that over in your mind-a very short one, but I think it would be necessary. The draft of article 15 [XXXVIII] was circulated, and the Conference adjourned. Note: On Friday, July 20, 1945, all delegations were guests of the Soviet Delegation at a luncheon at the Savoy Hotel in London. At that time the Soviet Delegation advised that they would not be able to go on the trip to Nurnberg on the following day. justice Jackson offered to change the date to any time that would be agreeable to them. They said, however, that a change of date would not make any difference to them. On consultation with the Attorney-General and judge Falco it was decided that the remaining delegations should proceed to Nurnberg nevertheless. On July 21, 1945, the British Delegation and the French Delegation, together with the American Delegation and staff, flew to Nurnberg, inspected the Palace of Justice and the prison, as well as hotel facilities, billeting, and other features entering into the desirability of the selection of that city as the place for the trial. Source: International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 International organization and conference series; II European and British Commonwealth 1 Department of State Publication 3080 Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Proposed Revision of Article 15 of Draft Agreement, Submitted by British Delegation, July 19, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
COMMITTEE FOR THE INVESTIGATION AND DESIGNATION OF MAJOR WAR CRIMINALS AND THEIR PROSECUTION
19th July, 1945.
15. Each Signatory shall appoint a Chief Prosecutor for the investigating of the charges against and the prosecution of major war criminals.
The Chief Prosecutors shall act as a Committee for the following purposes:
(a) to make a general plan for the carrying out of any trial or trials:
(i) Until all the Signatories have appointed Chief Prosecutors, each of the Chief Prosecutors already appointed shall take such steps as, in his view, are best calculated to assist in the preparations for trial.
(ii) When the Chief Prosecutors have been appointed, they shall, as soon as possible, meet and arrange a general plan for the first trial and shall, so far as possible, adopt the steps taken under (i).
(iii) In the execution of that or any subsequent plan, each of the Chief Prosecutors shall be entitled to take such action as he thinks best calculated to carry it out and to decide how best the portion of the plan undertaken by him can be carried into effect.
(iv) If one Chief Prosecutor proposes that any subject-matter be included in any plan, such subject-matter shall be included unless, by a majority vote, the Chief Prosecutors decide otherwise.
(b) to settle the list of major war criminals to be tried by the Tribunal:
If one Chief Prosecutor proposes that any Defendant be tried by the Tribunal, such Defendant shall be tried unless, by a majority vote, the Chief Prosecutors decide otherwise.
Unless otherwise agreed, there shall be submitted to the first trial before the Tribunal, only Defendants who have been unanimously designated by the Chief Prosecutors.
(c) to settle the draft of the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, copies of which are to be furnished to the Defendants.
Unless otherwise agreed, there shall be submitted to the first trial before the Tribunal, only Defendants who have been unanimously designated by the Chief Prosecutors. (c) to settle the draft of the Indictment and the documents to be submitted therewith, copies of which are to be furnished to the Defendants.
The documents to be submitted with the Indictment shall include:
(i) lists of treaties, agreements or assurances, to be referred to by the Prosecution, and copies of relevant clauses and parts thereof:
(ii) official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes and records or findings of military or other tribunals of any of the United Nations:
(iii) copies of the statement, deposition or affidavit of any witness on which the Prosecution intends to rely save in cases where it is proposed that the witness shall testify before the Tribunal in person:
(iv) copies of any statements made by any Defendant.
No document of a class other than those mentioned shall be submitted with the Indictment unless the Chief Prosecutors, by a majority vote, decide otherwise: but nothing herein contained shall prejudice the right of the Chief Prosecutors to submit to the Tribunal (with the duty to serve copies thereof on the Defendants) at any time after the lodging of the Indictment or at the Trial, any other document (whether or not of the classes referred to in sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv) hereof) which was not available or convenient for lodging with the Indictment: or to call at the Trial any oral evidence.
(d) the lodgment of the Indictment and the accompanying documents with the Tribunal:
(e) the drawing up and recommending to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure contemplated by Article 14 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended.
and the accompanying documents with the Tribunal: (e) the drawing up and recommending to the Tribunal for its approval draft rules of procedure contemplated by Article 14 of this Charter. The Tribunal shall have power to accept, with or without amendments, or to reject, the rules so recommended.
In the event of any difference of opinion as to matters (d) and (e) the Committee shall act on a majority vote, and any proposal which fails to secure more than two votes shall be deemed rejected,
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Proposed Revision of Definition of "Crimes" (Article 6), Submitted by British Delegation, July 20, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
The Tribunal shall have power to try, convict and sentence any person who has, in any capacity whatever directed or participated in the planning, furtherance, or conduct of any or all of the following acts, designs, or attempts namely:
1. Domination over other nations or aggression against them in the manner condemned or foresworn in (inter alia)
(1)
the following Pacts or Declarations ------------------------------
2. Systematic atrocities against or systematic terrorism or ill-treatment or murder of civilians
3. Launching or waging war in a manner contrary to the laws, usages and customs of warfare and who is hereby declared therefore to be personally answerable for the violations of international law, of the laws of humanity, and of the dictates of the public conscience, committed in the course of carrying out the said acts, designs or attempts by the forces and authorities whether armed, civilian or otherwise, in the service of any of the European Axis Powers.
(1)
A legal term meaning "Among other things". (Footnote added by the Avalon Project).
Back
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of American Member of Drafting Subcommittee, July 20, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
MEMORANDUM TO MR. JUSTICE JACKSON
Subject: Report on the Drafting Subcommittee meeting on the morning of Friday, July 20, 1945.
1. This morning the Drafting Subcommittee got over the whole redraft of the agreement and of the charter and adjourned sine die
(1)
to await the further developments in meetings of the heads of delegations on article 6 and article 15 of the charter.
2. As I told you in my report of yesterday, the worst difficulty yesterday arose from the complete refusal of Professor Trainin to budge on the question of empowering the Tribunal to appoint special masters or examiners. I told you orally of the debate on that point.
3. The other sticking point which developed with great sharpness today was in connection with our effort to redraft article 22. Barnes, Clyde, and I had redrafted it, in accordance with our understanding of what happened at the plenary session, to read as follows:
"The administrative seat and secretariat of the Tribunal shall be at Berlin. The first trial before the Tribunal shall be held at Nuremberg and any subsequent trial shall be held at such place as the Tribunal shall decide."
4. Professor Trainin would not agree to that. We tried "headquarters", "Central Office", and various other formulae for the site at Berlin, but to no avail. He insisted on amending article 22 of the agreement so as to make it read that "There shall be established in Berlin an International Military Tribunal", etcetera. It became quite obvious in the discussion that he had it in mind that the Tribunal would be "permanently located" in Berlin, that its "archives" would be there, that preparations for trials would take place there, and, apparently, that the prisoners would be there.
Respectfully,
SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN
(1)
A legal term meaning "Without day, without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing"
would be "permanently located" in Berlin, that its "archives" would be there, that preparations for trials would take place there, and, apparently, that the prisoners would be there. Respectfully, SIDNEY S. ALDERMAN (1) A legal term meaning "Without day, without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing". (Footnote added by the Avalon Project).
Back
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Proposed Amendment to Paragraph I of Article 15 on Functions of the Prosecution, Submitted by American Delegation, July 20, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
It is suggested that there be added to paragraph 1 of article 15 the following:
In case the Chief Prosecutors shall be equally divided any Chief Prosecutor may (1) bring to trial before such International Military Tribunal any person in the custody of his government or of any government which consents to the trial of such person, and any group or organization, representative members of which are in the custody of his government, if, in his judgment such person, group, or organization has committed any criminal violation of International Law defined in article 6 hereof; and (2) introduce any evidence which in his judgment has probative value relevant to the issues raised by the charges being tried.
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
International organization and conference series; II
European and British Commonwealth 1
Department of State Publication 3080
Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1949
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945 Minutes of Conference Session of July 20, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document The Conference was called to order by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe and resumed discussion of the definition of "crimes". PROFESSOR GROS. I think that on the first point the French word "try" implies try, convict, and sentence [XXXV]. I don't know as a matter of drafting whether to say "try, convict, and sentence", because it could also acquit. On the other point of the draft, I am in a difficult position to criticize because it is an extremely able attempt to put in good English what was in bad English. So it does not change much of the French text. But on the last paragraph I'm afraid that there is more in the actual British draft [XXXIX] than in the French text. In the first line only where it is said, "and who is hereby declared therefore to be", the text declares something that means a pronounced judgment of liability, and that is what I want to avoid. I might be too literal, but, if they are declared, there is no need to try them. My building of that article was perhaps a bit heavy, but it was this: I started from the commission of crimes, which is a fact not denied and certainly contrary to the laws of war and laws of humanity, and I tried to explain in that article that those acts had been committed as a consequence of policy which was defined in 1, 2, and 3, and that the effect of the relation of causation between the commission of acts and the execution of policy was a responsibility of the man who had planned policies. I recognize that this is certainly given in the French text and it might not be sufficiently expressed in the British translation I gave, but the new draft seems to me to go too far in so far as it "declares". So if there is any possibility of modifying that first line only, I am quite willing to accept. I tried to make a draft which gave effect to those facts presented and to avoid any discussion afterward by the prosecutors on the jurisdiction of the court. As it is more or less only a question of drafting, I will accept any formula which will be agreeable to the delegations. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The point I want to
gave effect to those facts presented and to avoid any discussion afterward by the prosecutors on the jurisdiction of the court. As it is more or less only a question of drafting, I will accept any formula which will be agreeable to the delegations. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The point I want to be clear on is this: As I understood it, you agree that if someone is guilty of 1, 2, and 3, it should follow as a consequence of law that he is personally responsible for the violations of international law. PROFESSOR GROS. As a consequence of law. I might misunderstand the word "declare", but, as we had explained in French and Russian, it would mean we would declare it or pronounce it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Would it meet your point if we used the words "and who is therefore in law personally answerable"? PROFESSOR GROS. I should think so. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Of course we have studied this problem a great deal, and the definition is a very difficult task. The word "declare" has, I think, a different connotation for us than it appears to have for Professor Gros. We frequently enact what is known as a declaratory statute which merely declares what the law was-merely declares some point that was not clear; or frequently we enact statutes which are declaratory of the common law, merely reducing decisional law to statute form. That does not mean that the law embodied in that statute had no existence previously. I think "declaration" merely sums it up and crystallizes it, and in using "declare" in this connection I have thought of it as just having that connotation. Thus we crystallize it, drawing together all the disputed points, and the Four Powers agree that this is and has been the rule and announce it as a declaratory act rather than as the creation of new doctrine. So "declare" does not offend me. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I have only been able to make an acquaintance with this new draft of the article. I have not been able to study it thoroughly and therefore cannot at the present stage set forth my considerations in detail. But one thing strikes me as unnecessary here and that is reference to the pacts or declarations of number one. No pact or declaration is named here, but, if it is mentioned,
I have not been able to study it thoroughly and therefore cannot at the present stage set forth my considerations in detail. But one thing strikes me as unnecessary here and that is reference to the pacts or declarations of number one. No pact or declaration is named here, but, if it is mentioned, the pacts that are named were the Kellogg-Briand and League of Nations declaration. The Soviet Union was not a member of the League at that time, and it would seem to us that reference to a declaration as to which one of the signatories was not a member should not be put into the draft. The question of defining crimes is, as we have learned, a difficult one to solve, and attempts have been made by individual delegations and by several delegations to work out an agreeable solution. At yesterday's meeting I stated that the French proposal was generally acceptable to the Soviet Delegation as it is apparently to the other delegations. But some changes or alterations have been made which at first glance I have not been able to study thoroughly. Therefore, if other delegations will allow, we on our part shall try to work out a formula which will be based on this French proposal. We shall try to take into consideration the views expressed by Professor Trainin, who in my opinion is well versed in questions of international law. We will submit a formula based on this French formula. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Have you got that at the end, the suggested alteration to meet Professor Gros' point --- "and who is therefore in law personally answerable"? PROFESSOR GROS. If that is the only modification of the draft by the French Delegation and the Soviet Delegation are willing to accept the French text, I cannot see the necessity of having a new draft. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. If General Nikitchenko wishes to consult Professor Trainin, he must have an opportunity of doing so. But there is no difference between Professor Gros and me on the last paragraph. That does leave the question of reference to pacts or conventions. Of course I appreciate the General's point, that the Soviet Union and the United States were not members of the League of Nations. Russia, however, adhered to the Kellogg-Briand pact . MR. TROYANOVSKY. General Nikitchenko has not