dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
we would accept that, and I would make an equal appeal to General Nikitchenko to accept the intermediate on 17. 1 think then we could abide by the decision. I suggest that the delegations consider that point. I am most anxious to come to agreement this week and ask that both consider it in that light.
GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I share your hopes to wind up our work this week.
The conference adjourned.
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
Redraft of Definition of "Crimes", Submitted by Soviet Delegation, July 25, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
July 25, 1945.
The following acts, designs or attempts at any of them shall be deemed crimes and shall come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
a) Aggression against or domination over other nations carried out by the European Axis Powers in violation of treaties, agreements and assurances;
b) Atrocities against civilian populations including murder and ill-treatment of civilians and deportation of civilians to slave labour, and persecutions on racial or religious grounds inflicted in pursuance of the aggression or domination referred to in paragraph (a) above;
c) Violations of the laws, rules and customs of war. Such violations shall include murder and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, atrocities, wanton destruction of towns and villages, and plunder.
Any person who is proved to have in any capacity whatever directed or participated in the preparation for or carrying out of any of the above-mentioned acts shall be personally answerable therefor and for each and every violation 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 or any of them by the forces and authorities whether armed, civilian or otherwise in the service of any of the European Axis Powers.
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
Redraft of Definition of "Crimes". Submitted by American Delegation, July 25, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
DEFINITION OF CRIMES PROPOSED BY UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE
July 25, 1945
6. The following acts shall be deemed criminal violations of International Law, and the Tribunal shall have power and jurisdiction to convict any person who committed any of them on the part of the European Axis powers.
(a) Violation of the laws, rules or customs of war. These include but are not limited to murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war; atrocities against and violence towards civilian populations of conquered or occupied countries; deportation of civilians for slave labor; plunder or spoliation.
(b) Persecutions, exterminations, or deportations on political, racial or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated, when in pursuance of a common plan, enterprise or policy to prepare for or wage a war of aggression.
(c) Invasion, attack or initiation of war against another state in breach of treaties, agreements or assurances, or otherwise in violation of International Law.
(d) Launching a war of aggression.
(e) Entering into a common plan or enterprise aimed at subjugation of other nations, which plan or enterprise did involve or was reasonably likely to involve in its execution any of the foregoing acts or a combination of such acts with lawful ones.
No political, military, economic or other consideration may serve as an excuse or justification for any such action. Exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to armed invasion or attack, or action to assist a State which has been subjected to armed invasion or attack, shall not constitute a war of aggression.
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
or action to assist a State which has been subjected to armed invasion or attack, shall not constitute a war of aggression. 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 Definition of "Aggression", Submitted by American Delegation, July 25, 1945
Previous Document
Contents
Next Document
SUGGESTED TEXT FOR CONSIDERATION AS AN ADDITION TO ARTICLE 6
An aggressor, for the purposes of this article, means that state
which is first to commit any of the following actions:
1. Declaration of war upon another State.
2. Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
3. Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
No political, military, economic or other considerations may serve as an excuse or justification for such actions, but exercise of the right of legitimate self-defense, that is to say, resistance to an act of aggression, or action to assist a State which has been subjected to aggression, shall not constitute a war of aggression.
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 25, 1945 Previous Document Contents Next Document SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE [presiding]. The drafts of the Soviet Union [XLVIII] and the United States [XLIX] on article 6 have not got together so well. Since we have gone over it in detail, there is really one point of supreme importance in the American draft, obviously important to them, which is the main stumbling block to agreement. That is (e)-the question of the common plan. As I understand the American draft, that is the vital point in it ' which is not included in that form in our draft. I would like the delegations to concentrate on that point first. Is that fair, Mr. Justice Jackson? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, that and our (d) -launching a war of aggression, and, of course, the corollary to it, which is limiting wars of aggression, as I have proposed in a short draft [L], so as to rule out economic justification-which I think is quite important. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Could we deal with the common plan or enterprise first? It seems to me the other points will be dealt with by drafting, but I think that is a point on which we ought to see whether there is any difference in principle as to its inclusion before we go on to the other points. If Mr. Justice Jackson would be good enough just to explain the mission of that point. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, we think it would be basic to our plan of conducting the case and basic to our interest in the case that the planning, whipping up, and carrying through of this plan of aggression against other nations be proved and judged as criminal. I ,think we have discussed it until I am quite sure there can be no misunderstanding of its importance to our plan of the case. I don't know that I can add very much more to it. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. Mr. Justice Jackson, just to clarify the discussion, could your point be fairly put this way: that you want the entering into the plan to be made a substantive crime? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Yes. The knowing incitement and planning is as criminal as the execution. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I think that, if we dealt with that point to see whether there is any difference between us, it would be
this way: that you want the entering into the plan to be made a substantive crime? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Yes. The knowing incitement and planning is as criminal as the execution. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I think that, if we dealt with that point to see whether there is any difference between us, it would be helpful. PROFESSOR GROS. It does quite agree with the views of Mr. Justice Jackson and the language of the other draft covering the question when to say, "to have directed or participated in the preparation We could have said "planning"--that was the intention of the French draft EXXXVI when we said "directed the preparation and conduct of "-so it is only a question of words. If it can be worded differently, we would agree immediately. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. I have already had occasion to state, and may repeat again, that in drafting this article 6 we should base our deductions on the Moscow declaration, which points to the necessity of punishment for certain concrete crimes and to punish those who had actually perpetrated those crimes and who had organized them. And from that point of view I should have thought that Sir David's draft of article 6 would answer these points raised by the Moscow declaration. In this draft, participation in the preparation and carrying out of the general plan is provided for, as are certain concrete crimes. It seems to me that we have gone one or two steps back during the last few days, that some time ago we seemed to be nearer agreement than we are now, as regards all the articles except article 6, and even as regards 6, in which there was a certain measure of agreement to take the French proposal as a basis. If we continue to discuss the same things over and over again, the question comes up of whether such discussion would have any profit at all. It might well be that it would be profitable to adjourn, perhaps, for a few days so that during those days the delegations could study the various proposals in detail and try to reconsider the position and perhaps after that we could have a better chance of reaching mutual understanding and coming to agreement. PROFESSOR GROS. We are open to any suggestion, but we are in a position to accept the Soviet draft with the exception of three words, and
proposals in detail and try to reconsider the position and perhaps after that we could have a better chance of reaching mutual understanding and coming to agreement. PROFESSOR GROS. We are open to any suggestion, but we are in a position to accept the Soviet draft with the exception of three words, and it seems to us to be a pity at such a stage not to finish that article today or tomorrow. Each day lost is a day lost for the prosecuting officers, and we had, as the Soviet Delegation pointed out, thought we were near the end of discussion of article 6. May I give just one indication on one point which has been raised by Mr. Justice Jackson! I was impressed by the argument of Mr. Justice Jackson that it does not seem fair in paragraph (a) to speak of acts carried out only by "the European Axis Powers"'. And I was also convinced, as the Attorney-General put the question, that it was in error to say something like that. I might suggest that in the beginning of the article we could say something like this: "In view of the decisions of the United Nations, the major war criminals of the European Axis powers will be judged by the International Military Tribunal." And after that would come the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and that would provide for trial of the crimes arid atrocities committed by the Axis powers because we have been put in charge of that job only, and are not to set up a general international court. That would give satisfaction to Mr. Justice Jackson. Now, just to show how near we are on other points to the Soviet draft, the modification which I would suggest is only a formal one in the second line-"shall be deemed to be crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal". There seems to be a slight difference as it stands-"shall be deemed crimes and shall come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal". What we are doing is putting all war crimes before the Tribunal. The last change is to satisfy Mr. Justice Jackson, and I hope to do it. I think we could put after the last paragraph some words like "in the planning", or "in the common planning, preparation for", et cetera. I must say that the criticism which was made against the generality of the word "policy" seems to me to apply to the
Mr. Justice Jackson, and I hope to do it. I think we could put after the last paragraph some words like "in the planning", or "in the common planning, preparation for", et cetera. I must say that the criticism which was made against the generality of the word "policy" seems to me to apply to the word "common plan". But I don't object to that; in fact, the result would be a decision of the court, and it would be after the decision of the court that the common plan would be established. So it does not matter very much whether we use in that article the words "policy", "design", or "plan" because the real thing is to get a decision of the court which will say "the general plan". The important thing is the conviction against the German leaders. GENERAL NIKITCHENKO. Actually this is not the Soviet text. It is the English text. We have just a few alterations. PROFESSOR GROS. I think it is not such a bad one that we could not accept it, considering it is a conclusion of a draft we like. When you read it, and it will be read widely, it is clear that actually the Soviet draft is a very clear draft. Anyone can understand it, and I would like it adopted. I am sure there would be no justifiable comments on the article as it is drafted, because there has been a political declaration by the three powers which says there must be a judgment by a court of the major war criminals. Well, that does not give a free hand to us to say exactly what we want. We have just to say what crimes will go before the court. This article says that and only that. The American draft would be a perfect article if we were charged with the duty of making a codification of rules of international law for the punishment of international war criminals, which we are not charged to do. We must not try to get too much in that draft, because it will not help. The result of the International Military Tribunal will not be judged by what is in that article, but it would be judged in the next 10 years-and I would not be afraid to say judged severely-by the American draft, by critics who would say that this is partly a political charge. We must leave the law to the judge to decide, and I am not afraid, as it has been said
what is in that article, but it would be judged in the next 10 years-and I would not be afraid to say judged severely-by the American draft, by critics who would say that this is partly a political charge. We must leave the law to the judge to decide, and I am not afraid, as it has been said in other meetings, of what lawyers will say. I am afraid of the public opinion which will take the whole work of the Tribunal, and I would prefer to have this result: "Well, the victors have decided to judge the vanquished, and they put it to the court and that court has judged them for crimes committed by the people in the service of the leaders." That is sensible, and you will get no adverse comment from anyone for the years to come. On the contrary, if you put in a declaration deeming something to be international law, and saying that launching a war of aggression is a violation, you will be criticized, and not by lawyers but by people who will make accusations that the result of the trial was made beforehand. In that draft we are just making plain the work which has been given to us. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. I want to make my position clear. I am confused. I thought the British draft gave expression to the common agreement, and I hoped that it included the American conception of the plan, which I think also of great importance. Like Professor Gros, I had thought that the American conception would be introduced more clearly if we introduced the words "or planning" or some such word, in the last paragraph. That was really the only substantial suggestion I had to make to the Soviet adaptation of our draft. We had the word "planning" in the first paragraph of our draft and thought we could put it in. But I do feel this very strongly: there is a special duty on me, as you have been good enough to treat me as chairman, to try to bring about an agreement. This has been my main purpose throughout, and I am still wondering whether we could not meet Mr. Justice Jackson's point by splitting our original (a) between aggression and domination; that is, not adding to the conceptions, but splitting it in two and, while keeping in "aggression over other nations", as in the Soviet adaptation, at the same time introducing
am still wondering whether we could not meet Mr. Justice Jackson's point by splitting our original (a) between aggression and domination; that is, not adding to the conceptions, but splitting it in two and, while keeping in "aggression over other nations", as in the Soviet adaptation, at the same time introducing another paragraph which would be "to enter into a conspiracy for domination", which would really meet the substance of the American paragraph (e). Mr. Justice Jackson, how would you feel on that as to meeting your point? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, I agree with General Nikitchenko that we have been moving backward on this matter of definition since before I left Washington, because there was presented to me there an aide-memoire by the Soviet Government accepting in principle our definition, making additions which we thought embodied the same plan, making additions to it, making annihilation and other atrocities crimes, which we were agreeable to adding. Then the drafting committee had only a few points reserved, and now we are in questions involving everything. So I am afraid we are not making progress. We tried very hard in defining crimes, which is a very difficult and technical subject, to adopt definitions consistent with the views of Professor Trainin as we understood them from his book. It is a rather difficult subject to analyze without taking a good deal of time to do it. Of course, the violation of the laws, rules, and customs of war are matters for which no international tribunal is needed. I think that every one of the top prisoners that we have is guilty and provably guilty of joining in a plan of 'warfare that involved ordering the execution of American prisoners of war, etcetera, and they can be tried in our military courts and disposed of within the next two months. So far as it affects our nationals, our interest in an international trial of offenses set out in that paragraph is rather secondary. About the only difference we have about that is that we left out of our draft the destruction of villages and towns, because I have seen the villages and towns of Germany. I think that you will have great difficulty distinguishing between the military necessity for that kind of destruction
rather secondary. About the only difference we have about that is that we left out of our draft the destruction of villages and towns, because I have seen the villages and towns of Germany. I think that you will have great difficulty distinguishing between the military necessity for that kind of destruction as distinguished from some done by the Germans, assuming the war to be legitimate. It seems to me those subjects invite recriminations that would not be useful in the trial. The provision as to atrocities against civilians is much the same as the draft we submitted except that we expressly provided for disregard of domestic law because otherwise there would be difficulty reaching some of the German activities toward their own population. The difficulty with the phrase "aggression or initiation of war in violation of treaties, agreements, and assurances" seems to drop out entirely if the launching of war of aggression regardless of agreements, treaties, or assurances is in itself-as it is in our judgment-a crime. We are supported by a course of dealings in which the countries have given up war as a means of promoting policy. The next definition, joining in a common plan aimed at other nations and involving in its execution any of the above crimes, may reach the same end that we have suggested; I am not quite sure. The last is one of those rather vague declarations that I don't know that I object to particularly, but I think a better conspiracy provision, perhaps a more exact declaration of responsibility, could be made. Of course it omits our suggestion of a definition of aggression that, as I have said before, we did not make at the outset. It is not in our original draft, but it seems to us very essential as we have heard these discussions go on. Now, however, we propose that no political, economic, or other consideration may be justification for a war of aggression, reserving, of course, the right of legitimate self-defense. As I have said before,. our country was so far from this war and we were so late coming in that I am not at all worried, so far as the United States is concerned, about the countercharge that there has been no aggression, because there were acts of Germany's
right of legitimate self-defense. As I have said before,. our country was so far from this war and we were so late coming in that I am not at all worried, so far as the United States is concerned, about the countercharge that there has been no aggression, because there were acts of Germany's enemies which made the aggression really self -defensive in character. But I don't want to be in a position where the United States is obliged to enter into a discussion at this trial of the acts or policies of our allies. If that arose in the trial, I should withdraw and leave it to be discussed by the powers involved. I think it would be a most unfortunate situation if the trial became involved in the political policies that lay back of the war. Too many recriminations would result. And why should the court stop it if we four men are not willing to stop it? There is much more justification for us to stop it than for the court to stop it, and it seems to me this trial is likely to take a very unfortunate course if we don't so limit it that it does not get into the remote causes of the war. SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE. On the last point-just to make one thing clear on the question of initiation of war-I think we could show that every war with which we were concerned was in violation of treaties, agreements, and assurances. That is the particular point. It looks to me as if there is no answer to the point made by both General Nikitchenko and Mr. Justice Jackson that we don't seem to be getting any further. It may be that the only answer to that is to adjourn for a final effort to see what concessions we are all prepared to make to get agreement before the announcement to a desolate world that we have failed to come to agreement on a question on which we all have the same designs. The only point I want to make clear is that I think the problem was covered by our draft and should be answered if the word "planning" were introduced in the suggested adaptation. I should be quite prepared to agree that to enter into a plan or conspiracy to dominate be made a substantive offense in order to reach an agreement, if the other delegations could consider that point. Then I should have thought that the major