Nuremberg principles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Nuremberg Principles)
For the denaturalization of German Jews, see Nuremberg Laws. For the set of research ethics principles for human experimentation, see Nuremberg Code.

The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

Contents

The principles

Principle I

"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."

Principle II

"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."

Principle III

"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law."

Principle IV

Main article: Superior Orders

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

Principle V

"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law."

Principle VI

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Principle VII

"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

The Principles' power or lack of power

See also: Sources of international law and International legal theory

In the period just prior to the June 26, 1945 signing of the Charter of the United Nations, the governments participating in its drafting were opposed to conferring on the United Nations legislative power to enact binding rules of international law. As a corollary, they also rejected proposals to confer on the General Assembly the power to impose certain general conventions on states by some form of majority vote. There was, however, strong support for conferring on the General Assembly the more limited powers of study and recommendation, which led to the adoption of Article 13 in Chapter IV of the Charter.[1] It obliges the United Nations General Assembly to initiate studies and to make recommendations that encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. The Nuremberg Principles were developed by UN organs under that limited mandate.[2]

Unlike treaty law, customary international law is not written. To prove that a certain rule is customary one has to show that it is reflected in state practice and that there exists a conviction in the international community that such practice is required as a matter of law. (For example, the Nuremberg Trials were a "practice" of the "international law" of the Nuremberg Principles; and that "practice" was supported by the international community.) In this context, "practice" relates to official state practice and therefore includes formal statements by states. A contrary practice by some states is possible. If this contrary practice is condemned by other states then the rule is confirmed.[3] (See also: Sources of international law)

In 1947, under UN General Assembly Resolution 177 (II), paragraph (a), the International Law Commission was directed to "formulate the principles of international law recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the judgment of the Tribunal." In the course of the consideration of this subject, the question arose as to whether or not the Commission should ascertain to what extent the principles contained in the Charter and judgment constituted principles of international law. The conclusion was that since the Nuremberg Principles had been affirmed by the General Assembly, the task entrusted to the Commission was not to express any appreciation of these principles as principles of international law but merely to formulate them. The text above was adopted by the Commission at its second session. The Report of the Commission also contains commentaries on the principles (see Yearbook of the Intemational Law Commission, 1950, Vol. II, pp. 374–378).[4]

Examples of the principles supported and not supported

For examples relating to Principle VI, see List of war crimes.
For examples relating to Principle IV (from before, during, and after the Nuremberg Trials), see Superior Orders.

The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Concerning Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individual’s responsibility, it could be argued that a version of the Superior Orders defense can be found as a defense to international crimes in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (The Rome Statute was agreed upon in 1998 as the foundational document of the International Criminal Court, established to try those individuals accused of serious international crimes.) Article 33, titled "Superior Orders and prescription of law,"[5] states:

1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

2. For the purposes of this article, orders to commit genocide or crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

There are two interpretations of this Article:

See also: States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

Canada

Main article: Jeremy Hinzman

Nuremberg Principle IV, and its reference to an individual’s responsibility, was also at issue in Canada in the case of Hinzman v. Canada. Jeremy Hinzman was a U.S. Army deserter who claimed refugee status in Canada as a conscientious objector, one of many Iraq War resisters. Hinzman's lawyer, Jeffry House, had previously raised the issue of the legality of the Iraq War as having a bearing on their case. The Federal Court ruling was released on March 31, 2006, and denied the refugee status claim.[6][7] In the decision, Justice Anne L. Mactavish addressed the issue of personal responsibility:

“An individual must be involved at the policy-making level to be culpable for a crime against peace ... the ordinary foot soldier is not expected to make his or her own personal assessment as to the legality of a conflict. Similarly, such an individual cannot be held criminally responsible for fighting in support of an illegal war, assuming that his or her personal war-time conduct is otherwise proper.”[8][9][10]

On Nov 15, 2007, a of quorum the Supreme Court of Canada consisting of Justices Michel Bastarache, Rosalie Abella, and Louise Charron refused an application to have the Court hear the case on appeal, without giving reasons.[11][12]

See also

Footnotes

  1. "Charter of the United Nations, Chapter IV: The General Assembly". United Nations. June 26, 1945. Retrieved December 23, 2010.
  2. Drafting and implementation of Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations
  3. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Customary international humanitarian law
  4. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) References Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nüremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal, 1950: Introduction
  5. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (10 November 1998 and 12 July 1999). "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Part 3: General Principles of Criminal Law; Article 33: Superior orders and prescription of law". Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved 21 March 2010. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. Mernagh, M. (2006-05-18). "AWOL GIs Dealt Legal Blow". Toronto’s Now Magazine. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  7. "Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2006 FC 420". Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs. pp. (see Held, Para. (1)). Retrieved 2008-06-16.
  8. Mernagh, M. (2006-05-18). "AWOL GIs Dealt Legal Blow". Toronto’s Now Magazine. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  9. Hinzman v. Canada Federal Court decision. Paras (157) and (158). Accessed 2008-06-18
  10. Roman Goergen (Feb 23, 2011). "Sanctuary Denied". In These Times. Retrieved 6 March 2011.
  11. CBC News (2007-11-15). "Top court refuses to hear cases of U.S. deserters". CBC News. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
  12. "Supreme Court of Canada – Decisions – Bulletin of November 16, 2007, (See Sections 32111 and 32112)".

References

Further reading

External links

 

| Fundamentele mensenrechten voor kinderen en gezinnen in Nederland | Stop de Kinderroof en Maak Nederland Humaan!Petitie en brief | Fundamentele mensenrechtenschendingen van kinderen en gezinnen in Nederland | Correcties bij Stop de Kinderroof! | Sven Snijer : "Uithuisplaatsen Stap voor Stap" | Schoolplicht versus Leerrecht | Wat is OORvoorU? | Wat is OOR4U? | Wat is zondebokdenken? | 25 dingen die je moet weten voordat je je kind in Nederland op een school inschrijft | Anti pestprogramma's op scholen verergeren pestgedrag vaak juist | Opdracht voor opstel lijkt wel kruisverhoor | GGD vragenlijst als manier om jeugdzorg klantjes te werven | Wat zeggen deskundigen over thuisonderwijs? | Wat zegt de Overheid? | AD 17 december 2014 | Leerkrachten stappen massaal uit het gangbare onderwijs, omdat ze datgene wat van overheidswege van ze geeist wordt niet kunnen rijmen met het beste belang van het kind | Afgekeurde scholen | Klokkenluiders en mensen die opkomen voor kinderen en gezinnen worden door gemeenten hun huis uitgepest | Sluiting onderzoekscentrum LOOK | Waar gaat er dan wel geld naar toe? | Gesloten scholen | Ouders die het beste onderwijs voor hun kinderen willen worden in Nederland strafrechtelijk vervolgd.Een voorbeeld van hoe zo'n strafzitting verloopt. De Afwezigheid van Vrijheid van Onderwijs in Nederland haalt de internationale pers. | Verzamelde acties van organisaties en individuen tegen de schending van fundamentele mensenrechten van kinderen en gezinnen in Nederland | Sailing for Education | Voor alle moeders die op moederdag niet bij hun kinderen mogen zijn | Connect acties | Conceptpetitie Vrijheid van Onderwijs en Waarborging van de Fundamentele Mensenrechten van Alle Kinderen en Gezinnen in Nederland voor de Optimale Ontwikkeling van Ieder Kind! | Conceptpetitie Stop de Kinderroof! | Conceptpetitie 2 Stop de Kinderroof! | Stop TPP, TTIP, CETA en IFDF! | Vermiste Kinderen | Kinderen in jeugdtehuizen en pleeggezinnen worden drie tot vier keer vaker seksueel misbruikt dan jongeren die thuis wonen. | Hulp aan slachtoffers van fundamentele mensenrechtenschendingen door instellingen | Lijsten waarmee gewerkt wordt om risico kindermishandeling te bepalen | Help ze helpen | Werkverschaffing binnen de jeugdzorg, hoe gaat dat? | Martin Vrijland:Jeugdzorgmedewerker komt uit de kast | Operatie Exodus | Wat wil Nederland? Waarborging van Fundamentele Mensenrechten, of Meer van?t Zelfde? | Brandbrief van lotgenoten van de Commissie Samson | Het kan ook anders, het kan ook beter! Scholen die goed bezig zijn, het nieuwe leren en schoolconcepten die in ontwikkeling zijn | WOWcollege | Neil de Grasse Tyson | Homeschooling legality and statistics per country | Ouderinitiatieven worden de grond in geboord door besturen , een voorbeeld: School Zoekt ZUS | Tweede mislukte ouderinitiatiefKOOG, conceptpetitie | Informatieve links | Inspirerende links | Einstein citaten | Einstein op thema | Martin Luther King dag | Martin Luther King citaten | Tesla | Alfie Kohn, Mensen zijn van nature niet aggressief | OORvoorU blogs op uvrm.wordpress | Hoogbegaafden | Gezellige Gezinnen | Wonderkinderen | Vervolgde Gezinnen | In Jeugdzorgkinderen blikt een voormalig jeugdzorgkind terug op zijn jeugd en vertelt hoe het is om als volwassene te leven met een jeugdzorgverleden | Uithuisplaatsingen zijn slecht voor kinderen. Dat zie je ook weer aan deze foto's | Hans en Irme | De hel die jeugdzorg heet | Sylvano | Kinderen mishandelen wordt protocol genoemd in jeugdzorginstellingen | Voor Sylvano | TjW Strubbe Zaak Silvano, 2014, als voorbeeld over de attitude van ?jeugdzorg? | Stentor 29 september 2014 Sylvano" "Zeg tegen mamma Dat Alles weer Goedkomt." | Spectrum 1 november 2014 "Sylvano, zijn moeder en het netwerk." | NRC artikel Sylvano 8 december 2014 | Stentor 24 december 2014 Sylvano viert kerst met zijn moeder | Artikel Lukretia en Rafael in tijdschrft "Vriendin" September 2014 | Remzi Cavdar | Kamp Nederland | Politiek | Declaration of Independence | Nuremberg Principles | UVRM Universele Verklaring van de Rechten van de Mens | Universal Declaration of Human Rights | Hoe is de UVRM ontstaan? | De EVRM Het Europese Verdrag van de Rechten van de Mens | Handvest van de Grondrechten van de Europese Unie | Europese Verdragen | Internationaal Verdrag van de Rechten van het Kind | De internationale verklaring van Langeac over gelijkwaardig ouderschap | De Nederlandse Grondwet | De bron van de ongebreidelde mensenrechtenschendingen in Nederland: Artikel 120 van de grondwet en artikel 2 van de EVRM | Het opheffen van artikel 120 van de grondwet is heel dichtbij | Wetsvoorstel Femke Halsema 8 maart 2010 om artikel 120 van de grondwet te wijzigen, de verdediging waarvan overgenomen is door Liesbeth van Tongeren | Artikel 120 van de Nederlandse Grondwet | Wetsvoorstel Femke Halsema 8 maart 2010 om artikel 120 van de grondwet te wijzigen met de artikelen van de grondwet waarop rechters wetten en regels mogen toetsen | Verslag met reaktie 2de kamer van 20 oktober 2010 op voorstel Femke Halsema tot aanpassing artikel 120 op 8 maart 2010 | Verdediging van Liesbeth van Tongeren van aanpassing artikel 120 , 20 augustus 2014 | Eigen opmerkingen n.a.v. de verdediging van Liesbeth van Tongeren op de aanpassing van artikel 120 van de Nederlandse grondwet | Vraagtekens bij handelwijze aanpassing artikel 120 | Voorstel Joost Taverne tot aanpassing artikel 93 en 94 van de grondwet, 6 september 2012 | The Dutch law on custody of children | Dit is de klacht waarmee het kinderrechten collectief 24 september 2014 naar Geneve is gegaan en wat 27 mei 2015 op de agenda staat om behandeld te worden | Wat is Trias Politica? | Discussie eerste kamer bij totstandkoming artikel 279 en 280 wetboek van strafrecht | Beroepsgegevens en nevenbetrekkingen Rechterlijke Machtgina | Repliek OvJ | "All wars are bankers wars,"interessant, maar creëert helaas ook weer nieuwe zondebokken | Green peace:De zeven gouden regels van actie voeren | Burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid | Helden | John Taylor Gatto | Nelson Mandela | Professor Arnold Heertje, Held! | Lange Frans, Kamervragen 2 | Jeugd en gezin 24 december 2014: Jeugdhulpverlenen zonder toestemming van de ouders | Darkhorse blogspot over misstanden bureau jeugdzorg | Micky Nijboer, de paarden redster van Marrum | Gehackt | De OORvoorU website werd gehackt; en de heldere uitleg die ik gaf over de stand van zaken wat betreft de schoolplicht werd vervangen door deze;een oude van mijn uvrm site, genaamd "Vrijheid van Onderwijs:Geen Schoolplicht maar Leerrecht voor de Optim | January 7th 2015 , grief and determination to stand strong for universal liberties | Franktijk heeft pijn | Inspirerende Initiatieven om de aarde mooi te houden en nog mooier te maken

Laatste wijziging op: 17-12-2014 14:32