dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
is of preliminary character, and there is no possible objection to altering it in any way at the meetings of the Conference. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. May I suggest for the consideration of the Soviet Delegation Professor Gros' point that it has already been emphasized that this must be subject to the recital of the Moscow declaration, which implies that the other governments will be consulted, and that on that basis of the views expressed and in the reiteration, in which I join, we shall all stand by the Moscow declaration. It is not necessary to press this point. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation would like to point out once more that in the article and the suggestion they made there is nothing at all to say that these agreements have to be reached by diplomatic method. The government must decide the method to be adopted, and it may be through the Control Council or may be through law. The statement made by Judge Jackson clearly shows that, in the process of handing over any individual criminal, there is an agreement by the two sides-somebody from the one side or the other does arrange the time and everything else and fixes the procedure of handing over, which has nothing to do with diplomatic agreement or discussion-and therefore it is from their point of view that there must be arrangement by somebody that the Soviet Delegation has proposed this slight clarification of article 4. Would it help if you said "arrangement" instead of "agreement"? PROFESSOR GROS. Would it help if we say, "put at the disposal of the interested country, to be tried at the scene of the crime" or "the return of a person charged with offenses who in accordance with the Moscow declaration would be put at the disposal of the interested country to be tried at the scene of their crime"? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. There is another alternative, it seems to me. The real point of difference is whether to make the agreement before establishing the procedure-which Mr. Justice Jackson has given his reasons against-or to consult the government of the receiving country, which we are all agreed upon. There is no difference between us, if each of the signatories shall establish a procedure providing, after consultation with the country
agreement before establishing the procedure-which Mr. Justice Jackson has given his reasons against-or to consult the government of the receiving country, which we are all agreed upon. There is no difference between us, if each of the signatories shall establish a procedure providing, after consultation with the country interested, for the return of the persons. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I think in the first place that the article is outside of my authority if it refers to the minor criminals, but I have no hesitation in saying that the United States will conform to the Moscow declaration. But I do want it made clear that we are not undertaking to agree to return persons wanted for trial by the International Military Tribunal. In other words, the International Tribunal requirements take precedence over this because, if other governments are to be given more or less what appears to be rights under this, we want to make clear they have no right to interfere with the international trials. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation expresses agreement with the suggestions put forward by Professor Gros. They now propose a slight change as follows: "Each of the signatories shall establish procedure governing the return to the country concerned by arrangement with that country of persons . . . ." et cetera. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I still think it is outside of our business and that it presents difficult problems. What persons are to be returned? We are not going to return persons we want for trial by the International Military Tribunal. That exception should be in. The moment we say that, we in effect say that the rest is outside of our business. The Soviet proposal I shall cable to the State Department, and I shall be governed by instructions because I do not consider that the provision is within my authority. It seems innocuous to say we would comply with the Moscow declaration. That I know to be the policy of my Government, and I saw no difficulty up to that point. But we have many difficulties about specific cases, and I think it must go to the foreign-affairs authorities in my country. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Article 4 does not have any question of handing over the major
know to be the policy of my Government, and I saw no difficulty up to that point. But we have many difficulties about specific cases, and I think it must go to the foreign-affairs authorities in my country. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Article 4 does not have any question of handing over the major war criminals. PROFESSOR GROS. I wonder if I could make a suggestion. When we read the declaration of 5 June 1945 with Germany, we see that there is an article here on surrender of all war criminals who had been designated. There is also an article on the thirteenth which says in paragraph b that complementary requirements would be imposed, and I am under the impression that those requirements are worked out actually and perhaps one of those requirements covers the point which we are actually discussing. All those countries which are represented here also have a delegation in London, and I would suggest that each one of us make contact with the members in each delegation and ask them if such an article has not already been prepared and signed. If it has, it would save us much trouble and discussion here. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation points out that article 4 does not cover only those war criminals who are in Germany but also many of them who are at the present time in other countries. The authority of the Control Council extends only to Germany, not to those other countries, and it is intended that the provisions of this article be applied to those people who happen to be in those countries other than Germany. But for some reason they are being moved to Germany, and we are anxious that this be made clear. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I think nothing further is to be accomplished by discussing it. I will submit it to the State Department because I do not feel it is within my power to deal with anything but major criminals, and I have already advised the State Department that I declined to take responsibility for the return of minor criminals beyond deciding that they are not needed for the international trials, SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I wonder whether we might reserve this for discussion again in the afternoon. As I understand Mr. Justice Jackson's difficulty, it is the question of his
declined to take responsibility for the return of minor criminals beyond deciding that they are not needed for the international trials, SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I wonder whether we might reserve this for discussion again in the afternoon. As I understand Mr. Justice Jackson's difficulty, it is the question of his authority in dealing with the minor criminals. Would it go as far as we want it in this agreement to meet the point that has been raised by Professor Gros to put it in this way: "Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice the provision of the Moscow declaration concerning the return of war criminals to the countries where they committed their crimes"? That would cover this point, Mr. Justice Jackson, if it were put in that way, would it not? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Yes, that would be entirely acceptable. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Perhaps we will consider it in the text. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I am very anxious that we reach agreement on this and other points. GENERAL NIK1TCHENKO. We have one more last remark on the agreement. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Let us finish on the agreement if we can. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I wonder if I may have a point on article 5. Will you allow me just to mention it? The article provides for any government of the United Nations to accede by notice given to my Government. I am a little worried. I don't raise this as a vital point but a point I should like all of the delegations to consider. I am a little worried whether this leads us very far. Does accession impose any rights? I thought that, if we provided two things: first of all, affording other Allied governments a right to participate, and second, seeking the cooperation of the United Nations, we might be giving some more concrete and specific thing to them when inviting their cooperation on something that would help ourselves. I do not want to press the matter but think it a more practical approach on which I should like my colleagues' views. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation, in regard to article 5, consider that the accession of any country, any of the United Nations, to this agreement does not in any way grant rights to that country. The accession does not give it any rights, and,
on which I should like my colleagues' views. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation, in regard to article 5, consider that the accession of any country, any of the United Nations, to this agreement does not in any way grant rights to that country. The accession does not give it any rights, and, therefore, there is no chance of the question being misunderstood in the sense that by acceding to it they thereby secure some right which they have not at present. MR. PATRICK DEAN. If anybody feels that "accession" is wrong, we are perfectly happy to change it to "adherence". I merely feel that that is a common formula. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I agree fully with the point that has been made by the Attorney-General. My question goes a little farther than that perhaps. We have felt very keenly that the War Crimes Commission has been doing excellent work and that the War Crimes Commission ought to have some opportunity to present its work if a way could be found. I mention it now, not having brought it up before because I had assumed we were all going to be prosecutors and therefore we could go on with the next step when we settled the agreement. We do not want to get into the problem of trying all of these individual cases, but here is an official commission set up to represent the United Nations, except Soviet Russia, which has her own Extraordinary Commission, and of course I think her Commission should have the same privilege. It has seemed to me a report by this Commission on the Nazi crimes, or reports by separate governments composing it, might properly find some lodgment in this Tribunal in some manner as an official survey of the methods by which these people conducted warfare. It has seemed to us that a great deal of excellent work has been done here by eminent men whose names are back of their indictments, and we value it. Let me say I think my Government has not supported it as adequately as it should have, but, since we have been in this work and in touch with it enough to know what they have done, we feel that some method should be devised by which the occupied countries of the United Nations, through this Commission, can make some proper presentation of their cases in this trial. The method I don't presume at this moment
since we have been in this work and in touch with it enough to know what they have done, we feel that some method should be devised by which the occupied countries of the United Nations, through this Commission, can make some proper presentation of their cases in this trial. The method I don't presume at this moment to outline because we have not thought it through, but I feel that purpose should underlie our attitude toward the smaller countries. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The point is, does the Conference feel we ought to have a provision for adherence or simply for consultation as to evidence? That is the point I would like your views on. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation considers that the article as set forth now in the agreement fully meets the requirements. It does not provide any rights to any of the other governments which may adhere afterwards, and the fact of adherence of the other United Nations will merely express their wish to cooperate and assist in the work of the Tribunal to punish the war criminals. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I do not want to press it, as I said, but I want to express my agreement with Mr. Justice Jackson that we must find a method of receiving their evidence and recognizing the work they have done when we prepare for the trial. I will not press this any further. Then we do agree that we could use the word "adhere" instead of "accede". [It was so agreed.] GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The question of an acceding government was not discussed in the committee, and in the opinion of the Soviet Delegation it is entirely wrong that an acceding government should be given the right to participate. It is a question of excluding the word "acceding". SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Yes, I agree, as far as I am concerned. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. It is simply an oversight and, of course, for reasons already explained. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think we have one more question on article 7. Shouldn't we make it clear that, while any party may terminate and withdraw from further obligations to proceed, the termination shall not affect the validity of what already has been done, does not affect the substantive law principles involved, and does not invalidate the agreement as between the
on article 7. Shouldn't we make it clear that, while any party may terminate and withdraw from further obligations to proceed, the termination shall not affect the validity of what already has been done, does not affect the substantive law principles involved, and does not invalidate the agreement as between the remaining powers? The remaining ones might want to go ahead. Should we not include those ideas in the termination article? SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Would it not be covered by saying, instead of "terminating", "withdraw" from it? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No one would prevent the two or three remaining powers from agreeing to do as they wish. If one withdraws, the remaining could do what they wish. This is an agreement between four governments. If one withdraws, it ceases to be an agreement. There should be some new agreement if they wish to make one. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That is what we should seek to avoid. If one quit, it should be possible for the others to go on without waiting to renegotiate a new agreement. We don't want the withdrawal of one to break up the arrangement. PROFESSOR GROS. The agreement readsand shall remain in force for the period of one year. .There is no danger for the first year, and, if some three governments, let us say, want to remain, there is no reason for a new treaty. Just keep this one. PROFESSOR TRAININ. This agreement is on the part of four parties. In the prosecution committee, for instance, there are four parties. If one disappears, you would have to change the agreement. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Frequently a clause is put in contracts that the withdrawing of one party shall not affect the rights of the other parties. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Would something like this help-"but such withdrawal shall not prejudice anything done under the agreement or its continuing validity among the remaining signatories"? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We will consider that point. This is a technical one. Any agreement normally establishes a period during which it is to remain in force, and perhaps the best way to do it would be not to fix a definite period of one year here but to say that this agreement shall remain in force for the period necessary for the object of the agreement to be achieved, or until the tasks of the
a period during which it is to remain in force, and perhaps the best way to do it would be not to fix a definite period of one year here but to say that this agreement shall remain in force for the period necessary for the object of the agreement to be achieved, or until the tasks of the Tribunal shall be completed, or something of that sort. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I am not particular about the draftsmanship of it as long as it works out substantially to avoid breakup of a trial by one nation's action. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. General Nikitchenko, will you give us again the wording of that last suggestion V GENERAL NIKITCHENRO. Something like "shall remain in force for a period of one year and shall continue thereafter for the period necessary to achieve the completion of the task set themselves by the signatories". I cannot say whether that method of fixing a period is an acceptable method. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I am prepared to accept it in that form. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I agree. One thing more. This provides for signature by "plenipotentiaries". I do not know whether I am a "plenipotentiary" or not. Perhaps the British Foreign Office will advise me. The name is so formidable that I would not like to assume it without adequate authority. MR. PATRICK DEAN. It could be used correctly. The Conference adjourned until 3 p.m. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE [presiding]. With respect to article 4can we come to an agreement on that? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The situation is still exactly as it was. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Have you given any consideration to the draft I gave to you? GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. No, we have not had time. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Perhaps then we might leave that. We must clearly understand I think that this is the position. If it is left in the form of a provision for arranging with the governments of other countries, then Mr. Justice Jackson will have to consult his State Department. That is the position, isn't it? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That would be the position. However, without specific instructions, I would be perfectly willing to have our agreement contain the provision, in substance, that "nothing in this instrument should prejudice the obligation assumed under the Moscow
his State Department. That is the position, isn't it? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. That would be the position. However, without specific instructions, I would be perfectly willing to have our agreement contain the provision, in substance, that "nothing in this instrument should prejudice the obligation assumed under the Moscow declaration to return persons in certain categories to the scenes of their crimes." GENERAL NIKITCHHENKO. We should like, if possible, that the suggested wording be put forward in writing. It is rather difficult to get it. We will be glad to submit our suggestions in writing. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. It could read, "Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice or release the obligation of the parties to the Moscow declaration to return for trial at the scene of their crimes the persons therein described." GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Let us return to this point later on. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The other point the Foreign Office has put to me I am sorry to raise it again-is that it is usual in agreements to provide for a period, and we are rather worried about leaving it without any period in article 7. 1 think we ought to get the views on that point. I am told that is the correct procedure. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation is proposing that we should adopt the suggestion already made, that is, that this agreement shall be for a period of one year and thereafter shall continue subject to the eventual provision of a month's notice of withdrawal or until the task of the Tribunal has been completed-that the agreement shall continue until such time, etcetera, for a period of one year and to place a definite period. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I thought you said one month's notice would apply after the year. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. We agree that the one month's notice will apply after the year. Exactly as it is in the agreement. Simply make it "one year and shall continue thereafter, subject to the right of any signatory to give through the diplomatic channel one month's notice"--just as it was, putting "withdraw from" instead of "terminate". What exactly is implied by "withdraw"? MR. PATRICK DEAN. One party could withdraw at the end of the year, but the agreement would still run on, as I
subject to the right of any signatory to give through the diplomatic channel one month's notice"--just as it was, putting "withdraw from" instead of "terminate". What exactly is implied by "withdraw"? MR. PATRICK DEAN. One party could withdraw at the end of the year, but the agreement would still run on, as I understand it. PROFESSOR TRAININ. The Soviet Delegation thinks this could not be carried out even if we all agreed to it. There is nothing to prevent the other parties wishing to remain in to conclude another agreement. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. That would imply the other parties would have to make a, fresh agreement. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. They can make the same agreement, of course, but confining it to the three parties remaining. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. The only point is not to fix a termination that might prejudice any action taken during the year. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I think we should make it clear that it does not. So far as I am concerned, I would be willing to let any party withdraw during the year if it wanted to, because I think no unwilling partner could work well even for one day. I'm perfectly willing that anyone can withdraw on 30 days' notice or 10 days' notice. I do not favor holding anybody in a cooperative arrangement like this the moment he does not, want to cooperate. The only thing is that we should make it clear that the work already done, should stand after a withdrawal and the other three parties may still carry on if they wish. We might have an agreement and, though I hope not, we might have a disagreement when one might wish to withdraw even in the middle of the trial, and we should not be obliged to start over again. But I am not for holding anybody in who wants to be excluded. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. If we leave it in the original form, "one month's notice of intention to terminate it", then such termination shall be done prior to any- GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. The Soviet Delegation considers it superfluous. Supposing we have condemned one of the criminals-it is not effective because one has left the agreement. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. But suppose you have pending trials or a trial pending, or suppose you have indicted parties and then there is a withdrawal. It should not invalidate the