We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Henri Donnedieu de Vabres is a fascinating but cryptic figure within the circles associated with international criminal justice in the interwar period. One of the most active participants in the 1920s ebullience around international criminal law as President of the AIDP and member of the ILA, he eventually became the French judge at Nuremberg as well as a member of the ILC and the drafting committee for the genocide convention. For all that model trajectory, Donnedieu de Vabres had a unique and somewhat iconoclastic view of the fundamental purpose of international criminal justice. His first intellectual love was for private international law and throughout his career he saw international criminal law as fundamentally a conflict of laws issue, as a result of the worldwide movement of criminals. His view of an international criminal court was very much aligned with the AIDP’s early suggestion that it should be a criminal chamber of the PCIJ to adjudicate disputes between states over the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. He was an odd fit for the Nuremberg tribunal, where he was mostly silent but took a strong and surprising line during deliberations. He remains a neglected but pivotal figure in the early development of international criminal justice.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.