Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:20:55.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Nature and Punishment of Criminal Acts of Violence Contrary to the Laws of War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

George Manner
George Manner*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On January 13, 1942, eight governments-in-exile and the Free French National Committee adopted at London a resolution which pledges them to postwar punishment of every person guilty and responsible for certain criminal acts of violence committed by the German armies and their accomplices in occupied territories contrary to the law of war as formulated, in particular in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 concerning land warfare, or as generally understood by the civilized world. Several of the signers of this document spoke of the acts in question as social or international crimes and intimated that new legal conceptions would govern responsibility for and punishment of them. It seems opportune, therefore, to reexamine the established legal principles relating to these issues and to inquire whether any new rules of international law have been accepted recently with regard to the legal nature and punishment of criminal acts of violence committed by members of the armed services of a nation contrary to the laws and customs of war.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 1943 , pp. 407 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Allied Resolution on German War Crimes, Inter-Allied Revue, Jan. 15, 1942, Vol. II, No. 1, p. 2, and Allied Conference on German War Crimes, ibid., Feb. 15,1942, Vol. II, No. 2, p. 32. The signatory governments represented Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Yugoslavia. China sent a message of agreement. The United States, Great Britain and Soviet Russia have since adhered to the aim of the resolution. See Geo. A. Finch, “Retribution for War Crimes,” this Journal, Vol. 37 (1943), pp. 84–86.

2 Preamble, this Journal., Supp., Vol. 27 (1933), p. 60.

3 Ibid., Vol. 2 (1908), p. 93. Cf. also Q. Wright, “The Outlawry of War,” this Journal, Vol. 19 (1925), p. 80.

4 Cf. Pillet, A., “La guerre actuelle et le droit des gens,” 23 Revue générale de droit international public (hereafter cited as E.G.D.I.) (1916), pp. 203 ff., 238Google Scholar; Chas. de Visscher, “Les lois de la guerre et la théorie de la nécessité,” 24 ibid. (1917), p. 84 ff.; Sir John Fischer Williams, Chapters on Current International Law and the League of Nations (1929), pp. 64 ff., 232 ff.

5 See, e.g., Renault, L., “War and the Law of Nations in the Twentieth Century,” This Journal, Vol. 9 (1915), p, 6 Google Scholar; Oppenheim’s International Law (5th ed. by Lauterpacht), Vol. II (1935), pp. 443, 465 ff.

6 See, e.g., Art. 1 of the Hague Land Warfare Conventions of 1899 and 1907, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 1 (1907), p. 132, and Vol. 2 (1908), p. 92; Arts. 27–29 of the Red Cross Convention of 1929, ibid., Vol. 27 (1933), p. 54 ff.; and Arts. 82, 84 and 85 of the Convention of 1929 relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, ibid., p. 83 ff.

7 See, e.g., Arts. 23, 28, 46 and 47 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 2 (1908), p. 106 ff. Cf. also A. Mérignhac, “Les théories du Grand État-Major allemande sur les ‘Lois de la guerre continentale’ mises en regard de la doctrine, de la pratique des divers fitats et des décisions de la Conférence de la Haye de 1899,” 14 R.G.D.I. (1907), p. 223 ff.; J. Dumas, “Les sanctions du droit international d’aprés les Conventions de la Haye de 1899 et de 1907,” 15 ibid. (1908), p. 557 ff.; Colby, E., “War Crimes,” 23 Mich. Law Rev. (1925), p. 489 ffGoogle Scholar.

8 See Art. 28 of the Red Cross Convention of 1906, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 1 (1907), p. 207; Art. 29 of the similar convention of 1929, ibid., Vol. 27 (1933), p. 55; and Art. 21 of the Tenth Hague Convention of 1907 concerning the Adaptation of the Principles of the Geneva Convention to Maritime Warfare, ibid., Vol. 2 (1908), p. 163. For the argument that Art. 28 of the Red Cross Convention of 1906 obliges States to punish criminally all infractions of the laws of war, see Renault, “ De l’application du droit pénal aux faits de guerre,” 25 R.G.D.I. (1918), p. 12 ff., and Mérignhac, “De la sanction des infractions au droit des gens commises, au cours de la guerre européenne, par les empires du centre,” 24 ibid. (1917), p. 28 ff. Contra, P. Pic, “Violation systématique des lois de la guerre par les Austro-Allemands. Les sanctions nécessaires,” 23 ibid. (1916), p. 265 ff.

9 See, e.g., British Manual of Military Law, War Office, London: 1914 [reprinted 1929 with the warning that it is partly obsolete], Ch. XIV, Arts. 441–450, p. 302 ff., especially Arts. 445, 450, pp. 303, 304; U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, War Department, Washington: 1940, Foreword, p. iii ff., and Ch. 11, Pars. 345–359, pp. 86–90, especially Par. 357, p. 89. Cf. also A. B. Keith, Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, 6th English ed., Vol. II (1929), p. 711; A. von Verdross, Völkerrecht (1937), p. 290 ff.; Renault, loc. cit., p. 13 ff.; R. Frank, “Strafrecht und Völkerrecht,” III Wörterbuch des Völkerrechts und der Diplomatic (hereafter cited as Wörterbuch) (1929), p. 1087 ff.

10 “Théorie generate du droit international public,” 42 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye (hereafter cited as Hague Recueil) (1932), p. 154.

11 See, e.g., Garner, J. W., “Punishment of Offenders against the Laws and Customs of War,” This Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 73 Google Scholar, and the French writers cited there; Gregory, S. S., “Criminal Responsibility of Sovereigns for Willful Violations of the Laws of War,” 6 Virg. Law Rev. (1919), p. 402 ff.Google Scholar; Colby, , “War Crimes and Their Punishment,” 8 Minn. Law Rev. (1923), p. 40 ff.Google Scholar; Verdross, , “Kriegsverbrechen und Kriegsverbrecher,” I Wörterbuch (1924), p. 775 ffGoogle Scholar.

12 See, e.g., Bellot, H. H. L., “War Crimes and War Criminals,” 36 Canad. Law Times (1916), p. 757 ff.Google Scholar; Hereshoff Bartlett, C. A., “Liability for Official War Crimes,” 35 Law Quart. Rev. (1919), p. 181 Google Scholar; Sir Frederick Pollock, “The Work of the League of Nations,” ibid., p. 195 ff.

13 Fontes Juris Gentium, Ser. B. Sec. I. Tom. II. Para 1 (1937), p. 61, and Pars 3 (1938), pp. 92 ff., 117 ft. [Translations here and elsewhere are the writer’s.]

14 See J. B. Scott, Resolutions of the Institute of International Law (1916), pp. 11 ff., 41 ff., for Art. 84 of the Oxford Manual of the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its motivation. Cf. also, e.g., H. La Fontaine, “International Law and War,” 3 Am. Bar Assoc. Jr. (1917), p. 167, and Phillimore, G. G., “Laws of War,” 5 Jr. of Comp. Legisl. and Intl. Law (1923), p. 290 ff.Google Scholar, for similar recent proposals.

15 Supra, n. 8.

16 See David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (1939), Vol. I, pp. 56, 59–64, 66.

17 Report of this commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission on Responsibilities), this Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 120.

18 Cf. Memorandum of Reservations presented by the Representatives of the United States to the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities (hereafter cited as American Memorandum), ibid., p. 135 ff., and Reservations by the Japanese Delegation (hereafter cited as Japanese Reservations), ibid., p. 151 ff.

18 See Art. 227, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 13 (1919), p. 250. For the construction of this article as recognizing or creating an international crime, see, e.g., Le Fur, L., “Guerre Juste et Juste Paix”, 26 R.G.D.I. (1919), p. 377 Google Scholar; Wright, Q., “The Legal Liability of the Kaiser,” 13 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. (1919), p. 126 ffGoogle Scholar. For the contrary view, see, e.g., Fauchille, P., “La guerre de l’avenir et les moyens de l’empêcher,” 26 R.G.D.I. (1919), p. 416 ff.Google Scholar; Scott, J. B., “The Trial of the Kaiser,” in What Really Happened at Paris (1921), p. 237 ff.Google Scholar; C. G. Fenwick, International Law, 2nd ed. (1934), pp. 242 ff., 582 ff. Cf. also Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit., pp. 118–120; Lloyd George, op. cit., I, p. 57.

20 Cf., e.g., Williams, , “Sanctions under the Covenant,” 17 British Yearbook of International Law (hereafter cited as B.Y.I.L.) (1936), pp. 130–149 Google Scholar; Kuhn, A. K., “The Execution of Hostages,” This Journal, Vol. 36 (1942), p. 274 Google Scholar. For the contrary view, see, e.g., Wehberg, H., “Le Protocole de Genève,” 7 Hague Recueil (1925), pp. 30 ff.Google Scholar, 35 ff.; same, “Le problème de la mise de la guerre hors la loi,” 24 ibid. (1928), p. 257 ff.; N. Politis, Nouvelles Tendances du Droit International (1927), p. 127 ff. For comment on these latter constructions, see C. Schmitt, Die Wendung zum Diskriminierenden Kriegsbegriff (1938), passim.

21 For Art. 3 of the Washington Treaty, see this Journal, Supp., Vol. 16 (1922), p. 58 ff. For the construction stated above, see, e.g., Kelsen, loc. cit, pp. 151–153; Politis, op. cit., p. 98; Spiropoulos, J., “L’individu et le droit international,” 30 Hague Recueil (1929), p. 231 ff.Google Scholar, and cf. C. Eagleton, Responsibility of States in International Law (1928), p. 40 ff.

22 The Harvard Research in International Law, Part IV, Piracy (1932), states (p. 757): “. . . pirates are not criminals by the law of nations,” basing this view on general practice, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, agreeing with this statement, held in In re Piracy Jure Gentium, [1934] A. C. 586, that “With regard to crimes as defined by international law, that law has no means of trying or punishing them. The recognition of them as constituting crimes and the trial and punishment of the criminals are left to the municipal law of each country.”

23 See Naval War College, International Law Situations 1930 (1931), p. 27; Wilson, G. G., “The Submarine and Place of Safety,” This Journal, Vol. 35 (1941), p. 496 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Message of President Roosevelt to the Congress of the United States on the occasion of the sinking of the Robin Moor. Congressional Record, June 20, 1941, Vol. 87, p. 5499 ff.

24 Cf. Verdross, Völkerrecht, p. 67 ff.; Keith, op. cit, II, p. 1150 ff.; Spiropoulos, Théorie Générale du Droit International (1930), p. 204; Wilson, in Naval War College, op. cit, p. 25 ff.; (Vice Admiral) Rodgers, W. L., “Future International Laws of War,” This Journal, Vol. 33 (1939), p. 449 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 31 (1937), pp. 179, 182.

26 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 31 (1937), p. 176.

27 For comment on the as-if piracy treaties, see Finch, , “Piracy in the Mediterranean,” This Journal, Vol. 31 (1937), p. 659 ff.Google Scholar; “The Nyon Arrangements—Piracy by Treaty?” (unsigned) 19 B.Y.I.L. (1938), p. 198 ff.; Schmitt, C., “Der Begriff der Piraterie,” 4 Völkerbund und Völkerrecht (1938), p. 351 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Genet, Raoul, “The Charge of Piracy in the Spanish Civil War,” This Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 253 ff.Google Scholar; H. W. Briggs, “De Facto and De Jure Recognition: The Arantzazu Mendi,” ibid., Vol. 33 (1939), p. 689 ff.

28 This Journal, Supp., Vol. 13 (1919), p. 250 ff. For similar provisions, see the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (Austria), Art. 173, ibid., Vol. 14 (1920), p. 55; of Neuilly-sur-Seine (Bulgaria), Art. 118, ibid., p. 221; of Trianon (Hungary), Art. 157, ibid., Vol. 15 (1921), p. 48, and the unratified Treaty of Sèvres (Turkey), Art. 226, ibid., p. 234.

29 Loc. cit., p. 141. Cf. Scott, “Trial of the Kaiser,” loc. cit., p. 250 ff.; Lansing, R., “Some Legal Questions of the Peace Conference,” This Journal, Vol. 13 (1919), p. 644 ffGoogle Scholar.

30 Japanese Reservations, loc. cit., p. 152.

31 See Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit., p. 118 ff. (Nos. 3, 4); Lloyd George, op. cit. I, p. 59 ff.

32 This Journal, Vol. 16 (1922), pp. 709 ff., 721.

33 Ex parte Quirin el al, ibid., Vol. 37 (1943), p. 152; C. C. Hyde, “Aspects of the Saboteur Cases,” ibid., p. 91.

34 See, e.g., Colby, “War Crimes,” loc. cit., p. 496 ff.; Renault, loc. cit., p. 18 ff.

35 Opinion in The United States on behalf of Baba Abraham (etc.) v. The Republic of Turkey, American-Turkish Claims Settlement (1937), p. 438; Oppenheim, op. cit, II, p. 456 ff. Cf. also British Manual of Military Law, Ch. XIV, Art. 441, p. 302, and U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Ch. 11, Par. 346, p. 86.

36 At the Allied Conference on German War Crimes, Mr. Tsouderos, Greek Premier-inexile, Mgr. Scramek, Czechoslovak delegate, and Mr. Bech, representing Luxembourg, intimated that neither act of state nor superior orders would constitute a defense to a charge of war crimes. Loc. cit., pp. 33, 34.

37 See, e.g., Wheaton’s Elements of International Law (Carnegie ed., 1936), by G. G. Wilson, Sec. 291 and note, p. 311 ff.; Moore’s Digest of International Law (1906), Vol. II, pp. 24–30; G. H. Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. II (1941), p. 405 ff.; Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (1919–1922), In re Toebinte, etc., p. 121 ff.; Strupp, , “Mac-Leod-Fall,” II Wörterbuch (1925), p. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Fauchille, loc. cti., p. 415.

38 For the Wilson notes, see this Journal, Supp., Vol. 13 (1919), p. 85, and the Armistice, ibid., p. 98.

39 Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit., pp. 118–120; American Memorandum, loc. cit., p. 135 ff.; Japanese Reservations, loc. cit., p. 152.

40 Loc. cit., p. 250 ft.

41 Commission of Jurists to Consider and Report upon the Revision of the Rules of Warfare. General Report, Part II, Art. 23, Sec. 5, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 32 (1938), p. 24.

42 Finch, , “Superior Orders and War Crimes,” This Journal, Vol. 15 (1921), p. 442 Google Scholar.

43 Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, p. 117.

44 The penalty of Art. 3 was to be applicable “whether or not such person is under orders of a governmental superior.” Loc. cit, p. 59. For the penal clauses, cf. supra, n. 28.

45 General Report, Arts. 10, 12, and cf. Art. 11, loc. cit., p. 10 ff.

46 See, e.g., Bellot, in 36 Can. L. T., p. 573 ff., and 37 ibid., p. 21 ff.; Mérignhac, loc. cit, pp. 49–51; Garner, loc. cit, p. 85 ff.

47 Par. 347, p. 87.

48 Ch. XIV, Art. 443, p. 302.

49 See the cases of the Dover Castle and of the Llandovery Castle, this Journal, Vol. 16 (1922), p. 704 ff.

50 See, e.g., Renault, loc. cit., p. 23 ff.; Nast, , “Les sanctions pénales de 1’enlêvement par les Allemands du matèriel industriel en territoires français et beiges occupés par leur troupes,’” 26 R.G.D.I. (1919), p. 121 Google Scholar; Colby, loc. cit., p. 608 ff.

51 Cf., e.g., Oppenheim, op. cit, II, p. 453 ff.; Finch, loc. cit., pp. 440–445; Battle, G. G., “The Trials Before the Leipsic Supreme Court of Germans Accused of War Crimes,” 8 Virg. Law Rev. (1921–1922), p. 20 ffGoogle Scholar. In recent statements endorsing the aim of the London resolution, Mr. Welles said in part that “no element in any nation shall be forced to atone vicariously for crimes for which it is not responsible,” and President Roosevelt remarked that” It is our intention that just and sure punishment shall be meted out to the ringleaders” responsible for war crimes. See Department of State Bulletin, May 30, 1942, Vol. VI, p. 487, and Oct. 10, 1942, Vol. VII, p. 797.

52 Report of Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, p. 121; American Memorandum, loc. cit., p. 143, and supra, n. 29.

53 Cf. Permanent Court of International Justice, Publications, Ser. A/B, No. 65, Case Concerning the Consistency of Certain Legislative Decrees with the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig (1935), pp. 39 ff., 51 ff.; Glaser, S., “Nullum crimen sine lege,” 26 Jr. of Comp. Legisl. and Intl. Law, Third Ser. (1942), pp. 29–37 Google Scholar.

54 See Report of Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, p. 121; American Memorandum, loc. cit, p. 140 ff.; Japanese Reservations, loc. cit., p. 152 (which question also the doctrine of negative criminality), and A. Luckau, The German Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (1941), p. 369 ff.

56 Loc. cit.

56 Cf. Halleck, H. W., “Military Tribunals and Their Jurisdiction,” This Journal, Vol. 5 (1911), p. 958 ff.Google Scholar; Colby, “Courts Martial and the Law of War,” ibid., Vol. 17 (1923), p. 109 ff.; A. King, “Jurisdiction over Friendly Foreign Armed Forces,” ibid., VoL 36 (1942), p. 539 ff.; Moore’s Digest, II, pp. 24 ff., 559 ff.; Hackworth, op. cit., p. 405 ff.; Bonfils-Fauchille, Manuel de Droit International Public (3rd ed., 1901), Sec. 1172, p. 651.

57 See, e.g., Arts. 1 and 3 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, and Arts. 41, 43, 56, Sec. 2, of the Hague Regulations annexed to it (loc. cit., pp. 92 ff., 112 ff.); also Arts. 26, 28–30 of the Red Cross Convention of 1929 (loc. cit., p. 54 ff.).

58 Cf. Art. 43, Hague Regulations of 1907 (toe cit, p. 112 ff.), and U. S. Military Government (War Department, Washington: 1940), Par. 25 (b), p. 13 ff.

59 Cf. C. Phillipson, Termination of War and Treaties of Peace (1916), p. 243 ff.; Verdross, , “Die Amnestieklausel in den Friedensverträgen,” I Wörlerbuch (1924), p. 38 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Art. 41 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 (loc. cit, p. 112), and British Manual of Military Law, Ch. XIV, Art. 300, p. 279, which lend support to this claim.

60 Lieber’s Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order No. 100 (1863), Art. 59, p. 17.

61 See, e.g., Grimm, , “Das Gefangenenproblem,” 30 Deutsche Juristenzeitung (1925), p. 58 ff.Google Scholar; Strupp, loc. cit, p. 2, and contra, Oxford Manual of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1880), Art. 41, Comment, loc. cit., p. 41 ff.; U. S. Rules of Land Warfare, Par. 346 (C), p. 86; British Manual of Military Law, Arts. 441, 443, p. 302; Oppenheim, op. cit., II, p. 452 ff., and I, p. 663. Cf. also Ex parte Quirin, et al„ TJ. S. Sup. Ct. (1942), loc. cit.

62 See, e.g., Arts. 4, 8 and 12, Hague Regulations of 1907 (loc. cit, p. 98 ff.), and Arts. 45, 46, 51, 52, 53 and 75 of the Convention of 1929 relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (loc. cit., p. 75 ff.).

63 See Oppenheim, op. cit, II, p. 481, and n. 3, and Simon, P., “ La clause d’amnistie dans les traitès de paix,” 26 R.G.D.I. (1919), pp. 251, 261 Google Scholar, both of whom refer to the Treaty of Pretoria of 1902 as the one recent instance where punishment was stipulated after cessation of hostilities and before formal peace.

64 See, e.g., Garner, loc. cit, p. 82 ff., and the French writers cited there; Bellot, in 36 Can. L. T. (1916), p. 757 ff.; Scott, loc. cit, p. 247 ff.

65 See, e.g., Arts. 53 and -75 of the Convention of 1929 relating to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, loc. cit, pp. 77, 81.

66 See, e.g., Renault, loc. (At., p. 28; Mérignhac, loc. cit., p. 32 ff.; Nast, loc. cit., p. 120 ff.; Garner, loc. cit, p. 76 ff.

67 Finch, , “Jurisdiction of Local Courts to Try Enemy Persons for War Crimes,” This Journal, Vol. 14 (1920), p. 218 ffGoogle Scholar.

68 Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, p. 121.

69 See Colby, “War Crimes and Their Punishment,” loc. cit, p. 40 ff.; Feilitsch, , “Der Fall Nathusius,” 29 Deutsche Juristenzeitung (1924), p. 971 ffGoogle Scholar.

70 At least not in the case of friendly foreign armed forces. See King, loc. cit, p. 549 ff.

71 See Renault, loc. cit., p. 18, for the French trials, and this Journal, Vol. 16 (1922), p. 674 ff., for the German proceedings. Cf. also Frank, loc. cit., p. 1090; Colby, “War Crimes,” loc. cit., p. 497.

72 For isolated similar cases based on ordinary offenses against local law, see Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (1919–1922), Nos. 335, 338, pp. 469, 474. Cf. also Rousseau, C., “Jurisprudence Française,” 42 R.G.D.I. (1935), p. 225 ff.Google Scholar; Simon, loc. cit., p. 249 ff.; Oppenheim, op. cit., II, p. 356; King, loc. cit, p. 551.

73 See, e.g., Scott, loc. cit., p. 247 ff.; Renault, loc. cit., p. 28.

74 American Memorandum, loc. cit., pp. 127 ff., 140 ff.

75 See Treaty of Versailles, Arts. 228–230, loc. cit., p. 250 ff.; of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Arts. 173–176, loc. cit., p. 55 ff.; of Neuilly-sur-Seine, Arts. 118–120, loc. cit, p. 221; of Trianon, Arts. 157–160, loc. cit., p. 48 ff., and (unratified) Treaty of Sevres, Arts. 226–229, loc. cit., p. 234 ff. Cf. also Scott, loc. cit., p. 250 ff.; Lansing, loc. cit., p. 644 ff., and Finch, “Retribution for War Crimes,” loc. cit, p. 87, n. 17.

76 Luckau, op. cit., p. 369 ff. (German counterproposals of May 29, 1919).

77 See Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, p. 123 ff.

78 For these military postwar trials, see Colby, loc. cit., p. 497, and n. 73.

79 Luckau, op. cit., p. 442 (Allied reply of June 16,1919), and Allied note of May 7,1920, to the President of the German Delegation, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 16 (1922), p. 195 ff.

80 Declaration of Amnesty, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 18 (1924), pp. 92–94, signed by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Rumania and Turkey. Cf. also Treaty of Lausanne, Art. 120 (ibid., p. 46), and Agreement between Greece and Turkey respecting the reciprocal exchange of prisoners of war, Art. 5 (ibid., p. 91), and see Strupp, “Der Lausanner Frieden,” I Wörterbuch, p. 807.

81 Although it was rumored that Germany had a hand in the Riom trials, the Armistice Agreements of June 22,1940, between France and Germany and France and Italy contain no provisions regarding trials for war crimes. This Journal, Supp., Vol. 34 (1940), pp. 173, 178.

82 Cf., e.g., Bellot, in 37 Can. Law Times (1917), p. 21 ff.

83 See Lloyd George, op. cit., I, pp. 59–64, 66.

84 Report of the Commission on Responsibilities, loc. cit, pp. 116–125. Cf. also the preamble, Fourth Hague Convention of 1907, which is apparently the source of the laws to be applied in the second court above. Loc. cit., p. 92.

85 American Memorandum, loc. cit, pp. 127 ff., 140 ff.

86 Japanese Reservations, loc. cit., p. 151 ff., and Luckau, op. cit., p. 370.

87 Allied reply of June 16, 1919, to the German counterproposals, in Luckau, op. cit., p. 442, and Treaty of Versailles, Art. 227, loc. cit., p. 250.

88 International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-Third Conference (Stockholm, 1924), p. 110. Cf. also ibid., p. 88 ff., and Report of the Thirty-First Conference (Buenos Aires, 1922), p. 63 ff. See, further, Bellot, H. H. L., “War Crimes: Their Prevention and Punishment,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 2 (1917), pp. 31–55 Google Scholar.

89 For accounts of these abortive trials, see, e.g., Cohn, E. J., “The Problem of War Crimes Today,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 26 (1940), p. 132 ff.Google Scholar; Glueck, S., “Trial of Axis War Criminals,” Free World, Vol. IV (1942), p. 138 ffGoogle Scholar.

90 See Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee June 16th-July 24th, with Annexes (The Hague, 1920), pp. 129, 498 ff., and for the draft, p. 521.

91 Ibid., pp. 500–509.

92 The vote on this voeu was 5 :3, with 2 abstentions (ibid., pp. 514, 748). Four members expressed sympathy for a “future” international criminal court, but thought the present proposal outside the competence of the committee; aside from the sponsors, only one member, Lord Phillimore, favored the present proposal provided it were limited to future trials of war crimes. Ibid., pp. 502 ff.

93 See League of Nations, Permanent Court of International Justice, Documents concerning the action taken by the Council of the League, of Nations under Article 14 of the Covenant and the adoption by the Assembly of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1921), pp. 225 ff., 278 ff., and League of Nations, 1920, Provisional Verbatim Records, Vol. 1, Dec. 18, 1920.

94 See, e.g., Phillimore, Lord, “An International Criminal Court and the Resolutions of the Committee of Jurists,” 3 B.Y.I.L. (1922–1923), pp. 79–86 Google Scholar, suggesting a tribunal of first instance, much like Descamps’; Cave, Lord, “War Crimes and Their Punishment,” Transactions of the Grotius Society, Vol. 8 (1923), pp. xix-xxxi Google Scholar, recommending that the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague act as a court of appeal reviewing decisions of municipal (enemy) tribunals. Cf. also Woolsey, T. S., “Retaliation and Punishment,” Proceedings, Am. Soc. of Intl. Law, Vol. 9 (1915), pp. 67–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, proposing a neutral tribunal of first instance, applying the national law of the defendant; and cf. his “Reconstruction and International Law,” this Journal, Vol. 13 (1919), p. 196 ff.

95 See International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-Fourth Conference (Vienna, 1926), pp. 106–225, 279–309, and Bellot’s amended draft, pp. 113–125. Cf. ibid., Report of the Thirty-Third Conference (Stockholm, 1924), pp. 75–111, Report of the Thirty-First Conference (Buenos Aires, 1922), pp. 63–86.

96 Ibid., Rep. of the Thirty-Fourth Conf., Draft Articles 21, 23 and 24, p. 118 ff., and discussions, pp. 106 ff., 279 ff., esp. pp. 155 ff., 183, 202–209, 211–225, 279 ff.

97 See Union Interparlementaire, Compte rendu de la xxiii Conférnce (Washington et Ottawa, 1925), p. 205 ff., and ibid., Compte rendu de la xxviii Conference (Oenbve, 1938), pp. 18 ff., 181 ff.; Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, Actes du Congrés de Bruxelles, 1926 (Paris: 1927), Partie V, p. 366 ff., and Pella’s Observations to Bellot’s draft, in International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-Fourth Conference, p. 146 ff. For references to similar private proposals, see Hudson, M. O., “The Proposed International Criminal Court,” This Journal, Vol. 32 (1938), p. 549 Google Scholar.

98 For statements of the case against these proposals other than, but similar to, those of the Hague jurists above, see, e.g., remarks of Sir Graham Bower and of Messrs. C. H. Butler, J. A. Hinkley and N. Stjernberg at the Stockholm Conference of the International Law Association (loc. cit, pp. 91, 93–95, 101–103, 107 ff.), and of Sir Graham Bower and Dr. Vadasz at the Vienna Conference (loc. cit, pp. 153 ff., 165 ff.). Cf. also Brierly, J. L., “Do We Need an International Criminal Court?” 8 B.Y.I.L. (1927), p. 81 ff.Google Scholar; same, “Régles générales du droit de la paix,” 58 Hague Recueil (1936), p. 88 ff.; Reeves, J. S., “International Criminal Jurisdiction,” Proceedings, Am. Soc. of Intl. Law, Vol. 15 (1921), p. 62 ff.Google Scholar; Keith, op. cit., II, p. 1160; Williams, op. cit, p. 232 ff.

99 See, e.g., Pella, V., “La protection de la paix par le droit interne,” 40 R.G.D.I. (1933), p. 401 ff.Google Scholar, and cf. his earlier volume, La criminalité collective des États et le droit pénal de l’avenir (1st ed., 1925), passim. See also Yves de la Briére, “L’aspect juridique de désarmement moral. Les responsabilités légales de la presse et des associations,” 40 ibid., p. 129 ff.

100 See Hudson, loc. cit, p. 549 ff.; Mettgenberg, W., “Internationale Strafgerichtsbarkeit,” 2 Völkerbund und Völkerrecht (1936), p. 18 ff.Google Scholar; “Convention for the Creation of an International Criminal Court” (unsigned), 19 B.Y.I.L. (1938), p. 216 ff.

101 See Cohn, loc. cit., p. 143; Glueck, loc. cit., p. 144 ff.; Stránský, J., “The Inter-Allied Conference on War Crimes and the Problem of Retribution,” New Commonwealth Quarterly, Vol. 7 (1942), p. 250 ffGoogle Scholar. But see (Senator) B. D. Thomas,” What we must do with War Criminals,” The American, Feb., 1943, p. 90, assuming that war is either an intersocial or international crime as a result of the Kellogg Pact.

102 Glueck, loc. cit, p. 145.

103 For the statements in the House of Lords, see London Times, Oct. 8, 1942, p. 8. For the earlier remarks of Churchill and Roosevelt, see Churchill’s declaration of policy of June 22,1941 (New York Times, June 23,1941, p. 8); statement of the President of Aug. 21,1942, endorsing the London resolution (Department of State Bulletin, Aug. 22, 1942, Vol. VII, p. 709), and statement by the President of Oct. 8,1942, concerning a United Nations Commission to Investigate War Crimes (ibid., Oct. 10, 1942, Vol. VII, p. 797). The latter, for example, refers to extradition of Axis war criminals at the conclusion of the war, which may mean provisions in an armistice or in a peace.

104 Inter-Allied Review, Oct., 1942, Vol. II, No. 10, p. 236.

105 See the writers cited supra, n. 101.

106 “War Criminals,” Contemp. Rev., Aug., 1942, p. 77 ff. Cf. also Viscount Cecil, “The War and After,” ibid., Dec, 1942, p. 322, not sharing this view.

107 In 1902, the Terms of Surrender of the Boer Forces in the Field included provisions for the trial in British courts martial immediately after the close of hostilities of “certain acts, contrary to usages of war, which have been notified by the Commander-in-Chief to the Boer Generals.” Oppenheim, op. cit., II, p. 481, n. 3. There is, however, no certainty concerning the nature of this agreement, though it is generally described as a peace arrangement deviating from the norm by virtue of this clause. See Simon, loc. cit., p. 261, quoting Despagnet. Perhaps the agreement was merely a conditioned “unconditional surrender” since the Boers had ceased to be an independent State at the time of signing the terms.