dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
' was the lack of a beaten path. A judgment such as has been rendered shifts the power of the precedent to the support of these rules of law. No one can hereafter deny or fail to know that the principles on which the Nazi leaders are adjudged to forfeit their lives constitute law and law with a sanction. 3. The Agreement devised a workable procedure for the trial of crimes which reconciled the basic conflicts in Anglo-American, French, and Soviet procedures. In matters of procedure, legal systems differ more than in substantive law. But the Charter set up a few simple rules which assured all of the elements of fair and full hearing, including counsel for the defense. Representatives of the Four Powers, both on the Bench and at the Prosecutors tables, have bad to carry out that Agreement in day-to-day cooperation for more than a year. The law is a contentious profession and a litigation offers countless occasions for differences even among lawyers who represent the same clients and are trained in a single system of law. When we add the diversities of interests that-exist among our four nations, and the differences in tradition, viewpoint and language, it will be seen that our cooperation was beset with real difficulties. My colleagues, representing the United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union, exemplified the best professional tradition of their countries and have earned our gratitude for the patience, generosity, good will and professional ability which they brought to the task. It would be idle to pretend that we have not had moments of difference and vexation, but the steadfast purpose of all delegations that this first international trial should prove the possibility of successful international cooperation in use of the litigation process, always overcame transient irritations. 4. In a world torn with hatreds and suspicions where passions are stirred by the "frantic boast and foolish word," the Four Powers have given the example of submitting their grievances against these men to a dispassionate inquiry on legal evidence. The atmosphere of the Tribunal never failed to make a strong and favorable impression on visitors from all parts of the world because of its calmness and the patience and attentiveness
Powers have given the example of submitting their grievances against these men to a dispassionate inquiry on legal evidence. The atmosphere of the Tribunal never failed to make a strong and favorable impression on visitors from all parts of the world because of its calmness and the patience and attentiveness of every Member and Alternate on the Tribunal. The nations have given the example of leaving punishment of individuals to the determination of independent judges, guided by principles of law, after hearing all of the evidence for the defense as well as the prosecution. It is not too much to hope that this example of full and fair hearing, and tranquil and discriminating judgment will do something toward strengthening the processes of justice in many countries. 5. We have documented from German sources the Nazi aggressions, persecutions, and atrocities with such authenticity and in such detail that there can be no responsible denial of these crimes in the future and no tradition of martyrdom of the Nazi leaders can arise among informed people. No history of this era can be entitled to authority .which fails to take into account the record of Nurnberg. While an effort was made by Goering and others to portray themselves as "glowing patriots," their admitted crimes of violence and meanness, of greed and graft, leave no ground for future admiration of their characters and their fate leaves no incentive to emulation of their examples. 6. It has been well said that this trial is the world's first post mortem examination of a totalitarian regime. In this trial, the Nazis themselves with Machiavellian shamelessness exposed their methods of subverting people's liberties and establishing their dictatorship. The record is a merciless expose of the cruel and sordid methods by which a militant minority seized power, suppressed opposition, set up secret political police and concentration camps. They resorted to legal devices such as "protective custody," which Goering frankly said meant the arrest of people not because they had committed any crime but because of acts it was suspected they might commit if left at liberty. They destroyed all judicial remedies for the citizen and all protections against terrorism. The record discloses the early symptoms of
"protective custody," which Goering frankly said meant the arrest of people not because they had committed any crime but because of acts it was suspected they might commit if left at liberty. They destroyed all judicial remedies for the citizen and all protections against terrorism. The record discloses the early symptoms of dictatorship and shows that it is only in its incipient stages that it can be brought under control. And the testimony records the German example that the destruction of opposition produces eventual deterioration in the government that does it. By progressive intolerance a dictatorship by its very nature becomes so arbitrary that it cannot tolerate opposition, even when it consists merely of the correction of misinformation or the communication to its highest officers of unwelcome intelligence. It was really the recoil of the Nazi blows at liberty that destroyed the Nazi regime. They struck down freedom of speech and press and other freedoms which pass as ordinary civil rights with us, so thoroughly that not even its highest officers dared to warn the people or the Fuehrer that they were taking the road to destruction. The Nurnberg trial has put that handwriting on the wall for the oppressor as well as the oppressed to read. Of course, it would be extravagant to claim that agreements or trials of this character can make aggressive war or persecution of minorities impossible, just as it would be extravagant to claim that our federal laws make federal crime impossible. But we cannot doubt that they strengthen the bulwarks of peace and tolerance. The four nations through their prosecutors and through their representatives on the Tribunal, have enunciated standards of conduct which bring new hope to men of good will and from which future statesmen will not lightly depart. These standards by which the Germans have been condemned will become the condemnation of any nation that is faithless to them. By the Agreement and this trial we have put International Law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare, and on the side of humanity as against persecution. In the present depressing world outlook it is possible that the Nurnberg trial may constitute the most important moral advance to
the Agreement and this trial we have put International Law squarely on the side of peace as against aggressive warfare, and on the side of humanity as against persecution. In the present depressing world outlook it is possible that the Nurnberg trial may constitute the most important moral advance to grow out of this war. The trial and decision by which the four nations have forfeited the lives of some of the most powerful political and military leaders of Germany because they have violated fundamental International Law, does more than anything in our time to give to International Law what Woodrow Wilson described as "the kind of vitality it can only have if it is a real expression of our moral judgment." I hereby resign my commission as your representative and Chief of Counsel for the United States. In its execution I have had the help of many able men and women, too many to mention individually, who have made personal sacrifice to carry on a work in which they earnestly believed. I also want to express deep personal appreciation for this opportunity to do what I believe to be a constructive work for the peace of the world and for the better protection of persecuted peoples. It was, perhaps, the greatest opportunity ever presented to an American lawyer. In pursuit of it many mistakes have been made and many inadequacies must be confessed. I am consoled by the fact that in proceedings of this novelty, errors and missteps may also be instructive to the future. Respectfully submitted, ROBERT H. JACKSON (1) Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, vols. I-VIII, Supplements A and B, Washington, 1946-48. Back (2) This recommendation was carried into effect by informal notification to other signatories on or about Jan. 22, 1947. 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 Roster of Representatives and Assistants Previous Document Contents International Conference on Military Trials, London, 1945 UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND Representative: Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, Attorney-General Lord Jowitt, Lord Chancellor' Assistants: G. D. Roberts, K.C. Sir Thomas Barnes, Treasury-Solicitor Gen. Lord Robert Clive Bridgeman, War Office Sir Basil Newton, Foreign Office Patrick Dean, Foreign Office Robert Scott Fox, Foreign Office George Coldstream, Lord Chancellor's Office R. A. Clyde, Secretary, Law Officer's Department E. G. Robey, Department of Director of Public Prosecutions E. J. Passaut, Foreign Office M. E. Reed, Law Officer's Department PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE Representative: Robert Falco, Judge, Cour de Cassation Assistants:Andre Gros, United Nations War Crimes Commission Mrs. Stella Mackenzie, Secretary to Professor Gros UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Representatives: Gen. I. T. Nikitchenko, Vice President, Supreme Court A. N. Trainin, Member, Soviet Academy of Sciences Assistants: Constantine Koukin, Minister Plenipotentiary and Counsellor of Embassy of Soviet Union in Great Britain 0. A. Troyanovsky, Interpreter UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Representative: Robert H. Jackson, Associate Justice, Supreme Court Assistants:Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, Director, Office of Strategic Services Col. Murray C. Bernays, United States Army Sidney S. Alderman, Associate Counsel Francis Shea, Assistant Attorney General William Dwight Whitney, Associate Counsel Lt. Gordon Dean, United States Navy Lt. James Donovan, United States Navy Ens. William E. Jackson, United States Navy Maj. Lawrence Coleman, United States Army Mrs. Elsie L. Douglas, Secretary to Mr. Justice Jackson Sir David was the British Representative for all but the closing session. With the change in the British Government, he was replaced by the Lord Chancellor for the session of Aug. 2. 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,
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
Foreword
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
SOME explanation concerning the minutes and documents of the London Conference for the establishment of the International Military Tribunal seems fitting.
The minutes set forth herein are transcriptions of my stenographic notes of what was spoken in English at all sessions except a preliminary one on the morning of June 26. The exact text of all statements by the Soviet Delegation and of many by members of the French Delegation is that of an interpreter, but in each instance in the minutes it is attributed to the person whose statements were being interpreted. Preliminary exchanges before taking up the business of the day and matters of transient interest, such as discussion of the time to which adjournment should be taken, were not recorded.
The Conference was informal throughout, and its sessions were private. It took place around a large square table, each nation's delegation being allotted one side. There were no prepared speeches, and the Conference took the form of general conversations in which sometimes a gesture or a nod of the head took the place of spoken words.
As the conferences were immediately followed, or in fact overlapped, by preparations for the Nuernberg trial, it was not possible at once to transcribe these notes, except such as were needed in the course of negotiation. The minutes have not been submitted to the French, Soviet, or British Delegations for verification or editing. Our own editing has been done only in the interest of accuracy as to statements by all delegations and not in any effort to polish informal modes of expression.
in the course of negotiation. The minutes have not been submitted to the French, Soviet, or British Delegations for verification or editing. Our own editing has been done only in the interest of accuracy as to statements by all delegations and not in any effort to polish informal modes of expression.
As the conversations make frequent reference to documents before the Conference, they would be scarcely intelligible if the documents were not also before the reader. The general rule has been to include only documents that were circulated among the delegations and to include all documents that were so circulated, regardless of which delegation originated them. It has not been thought advisable to reproduce the many and repetitious writings that did not get beyond the stage of being working papers of the American staff. Certain preliminary documents formed the background of the meeting. Although some of them, such as the Cabinet memorandum for President Roosevelt's guidance at Yalta, and Mr. Justice Jackson's report in June 1945 were American rather than international documents, their influence in initiating and shaping the negotiations seems to require their inclusion.
In general, the documents are arranged in chronological order. Documents developed and distributed during the Conference are set forth at the place considered most convenient for the reader, generally preceding the minutes of the meeting in which they were discussed. Such documents as are included are set out in full unless otherwise noted.
From time to time certain events outside of the Conference entered into or influenced discussion or action in the meetings. Brief notes are inserted to supplement the information in the record on such events. Notes also are supplied where it has seemed necessary to show the relation of a particular document to the course of negotiation.
ELSIE L. DOUGLAS
Secretary to Mr. Justice Jackson
Source:
International Conference on Military Trials : London, 1945
to supplement the information in the record on such events. Notes also are supplied where it has seemed necessary to show the relation of a particular document to the course of negotiation. ELSIE L. DOUGLAS Secretary to Mr. Justice Jackson 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
Letter of Transmittal
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
The Honorable
The Secretary of State
SIR:
I have the honor to submit a record of negotiations which I conducted as Representative of the United States at the London Conference, held June 26 to August 8, 1945, at which representatives of the United Kingdom, Provisional Government of France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States made formal statement of the principles of substantive law and agreed upon methods of procedure for the prosecution and trial of the major European war criminals.
Those who engage in future efforts to codify international law or conduct trials, hearings, or arbitrations on an international level may find the origins, evolution, and background of this agreement instructive. Students of comparative law, as well as the legal profession will find both the conflicts and harmonies between legal systems disclosed by those negotiations of interest.
It has therefore seemed fitting to assemble and lay before you a comprehensive report, including not only the deliberations of the Conference but all preliminary negotiations, drafts, and documents necessary to an understanding of the initiation and development of the agreement of London and the annexed charter of the International Military Tribunal, without an understanding of which an appraisal of the Nuernberg trial would be difficult.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT H. JACKSON
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court
WASHINGTON, D.C.
December 15, 1947
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
Preface
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
THE decision of the Department of State to publish the record of negotiations resulting in the London agreement of August 8, 1945, for the trial of major European war criminals and the accompanying charter of the International Military Tribunal makes appropriate some introductory information to help the reader integrate the separate documents and discussions into a general plan.
The United States, at the close of World War II, found itself in possession of high-ranking prisoners. Many of them had been publicly branded with personal blame for precipitating the war and for incitement or perpetration of acts of barbarism in connection with its preparation and conduct. This country, through President Franklin D. Roosevelt, had joined in rather definite commitments to bring such men to justice, but no treaty, precedent, or custom determined by what method justice should be done. The latter problem seems to have been given little consideration by any of the Allied governments until discussion of possible procedures was initiated early in 1945 at the Yalta Conference. Thereafter, as the documents set forth herein show, the United States proposal was expanded and refined into a draft of a proposed agreement which the United States submitted to the Foreign Ministers of France, Great Britain, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the San Francisco Conference. This American draft was again revised and on June 14 was resubmitted to the other governments. On June 26 representatives of the four nations met in London to chart a common course of action.
The four nations whose delegates sat down at London to reconcile their conflicting views represented the maximum divergence in legal concepts and traditions likely to be found among occidental nations
to the other governments. On June 26 representatives of the four nations met in London to chart a common course of action. The four nations whose delegates sat down at London to reconcile their conflicting views represented the maximum divergence in legal concepts and traditions likely to be found among occidental nations. Great Britain and the United States, of course, are known as common law countries and, with some variations between their procedures, they together exemplify the system of law peculiar to English-speaking peoples. On the other hand, France and the Soviet Union both use variations of what generally may be called the Continental system. But between French and Soviet practice there are significant variations, occasioned perhaps by the different derivations of the two systems, the French having its roots in Roman law of the Western Empire and the Russian having been influenced by Roman ideas chiefly from the Eastern Empire by way of Byzantium. It was to be expected that differences in origin, tradition, and philosophy among these legal systems would beget different approaches to the novel task of dealing with war criminals through the judicial process.
A fundamental cleavage, which persisted throughout the negotiations, was caused by the difference between the Soviet practice, under which a judicial inquiry is carried on chiefly by the court and not by the parties, and the Anglo-American theory of a criminal trial, which the Soviet jurist rejects and stigmatizes as the "contest theory". The Soviets rely on the diligence of the tribunal rather than on the zeal and self-interest of adversaries to develop the facts. Another fundamental opposition concerns the function of a judiciary. The Soviet views a court as "one of the organs of government power, a weapon in the hands of the ruling class for the purpose of safeguarding its interests"
rather than on the zeal and self-interest of adversaries to develop the facts. Another fundamental opposition concerns the function of a judiciary. The Soviet views a court as "one of the organs of government power, a weapon in the hands of the ruling class for the purpose of safeguarding its interests". It is not strange that those trained in that view should find it difficult to accept or to understand the Anglo-American idea of a court as an independent agency responsible only before the law. It will not be difficult to trace in the deliberations of the Conference the influence of these antagonistic concepts. While the Soviet authorities accept the reality and binding force of international law in general, they do not submit themselves to the general mass of customary law deduced from the practice of western states. With dissimilar backgrounds in both penal law and international law it is less surprising that clashes developed at the Conference than that they could be reconciled.
That these discords were stubborn and deep, the minutes of the conferences adequately disclose. They do not and cannot disclose all the efforts at conciliation, for there were many personal conversations between members of differing delegations, outside the formal meetings, which aimed to gain knowledge of each other's viewpoints and clear up misunderstandings. Since the press was not admitted to the conferences there was no public exploitation of our divergencies and no temptation to differ merely for reasons of home politics; indeed, in no delegation was there any disposition to do so.
Much of these conference minutes will impress the reader as embodying vain repetition. And much of the exposition of rival legal systems is too cryptic and general to be satisfying to the student of comparative law. How much of the obvious difficulty in reaching a real meeting of minds was due to the barrier of language and how much to underlying differences in juristic principles and concepts was not always easy to estimate