The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Defence-Submission-Notes-01


Archive/File:
people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Defence-Submission-Notes-01
Last-Modified: 1999/06/09

1.  Cf. Pearlman, The Capture of Adolf Eichmann, London,
1961, p. 113 ff.

2.  "a magistrate"; cf. Pearlman, ibid. p. 124.

3.  Adopted on 1 August 1950; published on 9 August 1950;
Laws of the State of Israel, Vol. IV, 5710 - 1949/50, No.
64, p. 154 ff.

4.  See i.a. Donnedieu de Vabres. Principes modernes du
droit penal international, Paris, 1928, p. 409  (hereinafter
called  "Principes").

5.  See, e.g., Salmond, Jurisprudence, 11th ed. by
Glanville Williams, London, 1957, p. 74 ff; Donnedieu  de
Vabres, Principes, p. 14 ff; Woetzel, The  Nuremberg Trial
in International Law, 1960, p.  61;    Schwarzenberger,
International Law, Vol. I., 2nd ed. p. 92. See also the
formulation in Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with Respect
to Crime), Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29 (1935), suppl. p. 435
ff., (480): "This principle is basic in Anglo-American
Jurisprudence."

6.  See Jescheck, Die Verantwortlichkeit der   Staatsorgane
nach Voelkerrecht, Bonn, 1952, p. 161,    Mayer, JZ, 1952,
611; Travers, Competence   criminelle, Repertoire de droit
international IV, 1929, p. 381.

7..Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with respect to crime),
Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29, 1935, suppl. p. 435 ff., (439).

8.  See, e.g., the carefully considered comments of
Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I., 8th ed.,
1955, para. 147.

9.  Salmond, Jurisprudence, p. 77.

10.  Emphasis added.

11.  Rex v. Joyce, Law Reports (1946) A.C. 347.

12.  Ibid..., p. 77.

13.  See the description of the facts, ibid., pp. 348-349.

14.  Ibid..., p. 364.

15.  Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 161, note 6; Travers,
Competence Criminelle, p. 376; Janeczek, Nuremberg Judgment
in the Light of International Law, Geneva, 1949, p. 60; see
also Harvard Research, op. cit., p. 439.

16.  The same view is held by Lauterpacht in:
Oppenheim_Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I., p. 332
(in the case of Joyce).

17.  The law is not known to us; the extension of
jurisdiction over aliens can thus be based also upon the
protective principle, if this law makes provisions for the
protection of the state.

18.  See Harvard Research, Draft Convention, art. 7,10,
op.cit. p. 349.

19.  See sec. 1(a), 2, 3(a), 4(a) and (b), 5, 6, of the
law.

20.  Pearlman, The Capture of Adolf Eichmann, London, 1961,
p. 169.

21.  Rohland, Das internationale Strafrecht, Vol. I, p. 72.

22.  Binding, Handbuch des Strafrechts, Vol. I, 1885, p. 370
ff.

23.  von Liszt, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts,  11th ed., 1920,
p. 230 ff.

24.  Ibid..., p.374.

25.  See, instead of many other authors: Schwarzenberger,
The Problem of an International Criminal Law, Current Legal
Problems, 1950, p. 265. It ought to be mentioned that
Schwarzenberger does not recognize a further restriction:
"Within these limits it is left to every system of municipal
criminal law to determine for itself whether, and to what
extent, it applies to crimes with a foreign element, that is
to say to crimes with a locus delicti abroad." However, this
view of Schwarzenberger cannot be considered by any means as
being the prevailing opinion.

26.  Publications of the Permanent Court of International
Justice, Series A (Judgments), 1927, p. 18 ff.

27.  Ibid..., p. 19.

28.  Ibid..., No. 10, p. 89 ff.

29.  Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol. 1, 1948,
p. 333.

30.  Verdross, Voelkerrecht, 4th ed., Vienna, 1959, pp. 247-
248.

31.  International Law, Vol. I, para. 147.  In the 8th
edition of Oppenheim's publication, Lauterpacht has somewhat
mitigated Oppenheim's uncompromising rejection of the
criminal jurisdiction of a state over an alien in respect to
offences committed abroad, without denying however, in the
least that there are rules of international law limiting
municipal criminal jurisdiction.

32.  The Law of the Nuremberg Trial, Am. J. Int. L. 41
(1947), p. 38 ff.

33.  Travers, Compe64tence criminelle, p. 360 ff (376).

34.  Jeschek,Verantwortlichkeit, p. 162.

35.  Mayer, Juristenzeitung, 1952, 609.

36.  A detailed description of the case is to be found in
Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, p. 332, note 1 and
- above all - in Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Der raeumliche
Geltungsbereich, p. 136 ff., including an exact
transcription of the documents of the case.

37.  See, e.g., Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 168;  Jescheck,
Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164.

38.  In this sense: Verdross, ibid. pp. 168-169.

39.  See, instead of other authorities: Decision of the
Supreme Court of New York, Annual Digest and Reports of
Public International Law Cases 1941-42, C.169; the nature of
the principle as a legal principle serves as a point of
departure also, e.g., for Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 168
ff., and above all: Kelsen, Peace Through Law,  p. 84;
Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

40.  California Law Review (1943), Vol. 33, p. 530 ff.

41.  Kelsen, Peace Through Law, 1944 - above all, Chap. 11
ff., p. 71 ff.

42.  Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

43.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81, and Principles, p.
235.

44.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 81, 84; also Verdross,
Voelkerrecht, pp. 172-3, with further references and
judicial authorities; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164.

45.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 77; Verdross,
Voelkerrecht, p. 173, and judicial authorities mentioned
there.

46.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81.

47.  Ibid..., p. 84.

48.  Ibid..., p. 81.

49.  Ibid..., p. 77.

50.  Ibid..., p. 83.

51.  Ibid..., p. 86; also on p. 100.

52.  Expressly - in ibid., p. 100.

53.  Ibid..., pp. 75, 77.

54.  Ibid..., p. 75.

55.  Not underlined in the original.

56.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 77.

57.  Ibid..., p. 100.

58.  Judge R.B.Pal, International Military Tribunal for the
Far East, Dissenting Judgement, Calcutta, 1953, p. 76.

59.  Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 106.

60.  In his summing up in the International Military
Tribunal, Nuremberg, on 4 July 1946; The Trial of the Major
War Criminals in the International Military Tribunal,
Nuremberg, official version in German, 1947 ff. (hereafter
quoted as  "IMT-Nuernberg"), Vol. XVII, p. 499 ff., 519/520.

61.  See Moore, A Digest of International Law, 1906, Vol.
II, para. 175, p. 4.

62.  See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 57.

63.  The question at issue was the criminal responsibility
of the German Emperor.

64See reprint of the report in Carnegie Endowment of
International Peace, Div. of Int. Law, pamphlet No. 32,
1919, p. 76.

65.  Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 57.

66.  See the account of the case in Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,
International Law, Vol. 1, para. 446; Verdross,
Voelkerrecht, p. 172; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, pp. 164-
165.

67.  Quoted as reported by Jescheck,    Verantwortlichkeit,
p. 165.

68.  Quoted as reported by Oppenheim-Lauterpacht,
International Law,  Vol. 1, para. 446.

69.  Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 175.

70.  Ibid.

71.  See ibid., the exact references.

72.  See ibid., p. 173.

73.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 85, 97-98.

74.  Ibid.., pp. 96-97.

75.  Oppenheim, International Law, 1st to 5th eds., Vol. II,
para. 253.

76.  H.A. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, Vol.
13 (1946), No. 162, p. 201 ff., 203.

77.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 104.

78.  Ibid., p. 101.

79.  Ibid., p. 100.

80.  Morgan, The Great Assize, London, 1948, pp. 16-17.

81.  Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 173.

82.  Ibid.., p. 157.

83.  Lauterpacht, The Law of Nations and the Punishment of
War Crimes, Brit. Year Book of Int. Law, Vol. 21 (1944), p.
58 ff, 62.

84.  Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, 8th ed., Vol.
I, para. 445; see also Vol. II, para. 253.

85.  Schwarzenberger, International Law, 6th ed., 1949,
p. 310.

86.  Published in MIT-Nuernberg, Vol. I, p. 10 ff. [p. 12 in
the Engl. text - Translator]

87.  Ibid.., Vol. XXII, p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl. text -
Translator] - not emphasized in the original.

88.  Ibid.., p. 528 [p. 465 in the Engl. text - Translator].

89.  Ibid.., p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl. text - Translator].

90.  See, e.g., the judgment in the Wilhelmstrasse case,
official record of the case, XI, p. 27622.

91.  In the Preface to Glueck, The Nuremberg Trial and
Aggressive War, 1947, p. 7.

92.  Glueck, War Criminals: Their Prosecution and
Punishment, 1944, p. 134.

93.  Ibid.., p. 139.

94.  IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl.
text - Translator].

95.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81; not emphasized in the
original.

96.  Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

97.  Jahrreiss, IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XVII, p. 520 [p. 479 in
the Engl. text - Translator].

98.  All these objections apply also to Lauterpacht's
comments on this question in: The Law of Nations and the
Punishment of War Crimes, British YB Int. L. 1944, p. 58 ff.
We find there, e.g., the assertion: "All acts of state are
attributable to individual persons."  This was sufficient
for L. to deny the application of the A.o.S.D. in respect of
German war criminals.

99.  The Englishman Reitlinger confirms, too, that Israeli
"organs of security" had arrested Eichmann. See Die
Endloesung, 4th ed., 1961, p. 581.

100.  United Nations Security Council, Documents S. S/4345
and S/4346 dated 22 June 1960; the resolution was adopted by
the Security Council by a majority of 8 against 0 votes with
2 abstentions (Poland and the Soviet Union); see Documents
S/PV 868, p. 31.

101.  Detailed references can be found in
@13Mendelssohn_Bartholdy, Das raeumliche Herrschaftsgebiet
des Strafgesetzes, published in: Vergleichende Darstellung
des Deutschen und Auslaendischen Strafrechts, Allg. Teil,
Vol. VI, p. 85 ff, and in particular p. 245 ff; as to German
authors in recent times: Hellmuth Mayer, Voelkerstrafrecht
und internationales Strafrecht, Juristenzeitung, 1952,
p. 609 ff (610). Abundant material is to be found also in
the Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with respect to crime),
Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29 (1935), Suppl. p. 435 ff.

102.  See Mayer, ibid., 1952, p. 610.

103.  Salmond, Jurisprudence, 11th ed., by Glanville
Williams, London, 1957, p. 75.

104.  Ibid.., pp. 74 and 75.

105.  Ibid.., p. 75.

106.  Donnedieu de Vabres, Principes, p. 409.

107.  Harvard Research, Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29, 1935,
suppl., p. 439.

108.  Bauer, Die Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, Zuerich-New
York, 1945, p. 163, calls it "a principle of practical
division of work."

109.  In his book "Les Principes Modernes du Droit Penal
International."

110.  Bauer, op. cit.,  pp. 61-62.

111.  Dpa/UPI - communication of 21 March 1961, Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 69, 22 March 1961, p. 5.

112.  Pearlman, Capture, p. 171.

113.  BGB1, Part II, p. 35 ff.

114.  Green, In his article "The Eichmann Case," Modern Law
Review,  Vol. 23, London, 1960, p. 507 ff.

115.  Ibid.., p. 37 - The English version is quoted here for
it is the official version of the agreement; the German
version is only an unauthorized translation.

116.  Boehm, Die Luxemburger Wiedergutmachungsvertraege und
der arabische Einspruch gegen den Israelvertrag, in: Reden
u. Schriften, Karlsruhe, 1960, p. 216 ff., 225.

117.  Ibid.., p. 218.

118.  Ibid.., p. 220.

119.  Ibid.., p. 222.

120.  See Maurach, Deutsches Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil,
2nd ed., 1958, pp. 96-97.

121.  See Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 248.

122.  Maurach, op. cit., p. 97.

123.  See the compilation of the international agreements
in: Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 161, note 6; see also
Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law I, para. 147.

124.  Thus, e.g., the power (as distinguished from
obligation) to punish piracy is based upon a rule of
customary law; see Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in
International Law, 1960, p. 64.

125.  Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law I, para. 9,
p. 146 ff.

126.  Travers, Competence criminelle, Repertoire de droit
international IV, 1929, p. 376; Travers recognizes the
application of the universality principle only in respect of
piracy (p. 381).

127.  Janeczek, Nuremberg Judgment in the Light of
International Law, 1949, p. 60.

128.  Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 75, 76, 80, 81.

129.  Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in International Law,
1960, p. 64, together with further references.

130.  See, i.a. Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol.
II, p. 544.

131.  Art.49 II of the Convention for the Amelioration of
the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; Art. 50
II of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition
of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at
Sea; Art. 129 II of the Convention Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War; Art. 146 II of the Convention on the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

132.  At any rate in order to justify the existence of a
claim for criminal jurisdiction valid in international law.

133.  Judgment dated 30 Sept. 1946, IMT-Nuernberg, Vol.
XXII, p. 566-567 [p. 498 in the Engl. text - Translator].

134.  Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse (Kriegsverbrechen und
Voelkerrecht) Zurich, 1950,
p. 37 [re-translation from the quoted Zurich edition, the
original not being available - Translator].

135.  See the detailed reference in the reference-book of
Heinze-Schilling, Die Rechtsprechung der Nuernberger
Militaertribunale, 1952, p. 208 ff.

136.  E.g., by Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse, pp. 35-36.

137.  Bauer, Die Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, 1945, p. 83.

138.  Ibid.., p. 84.

139.  International Conference on Military Trials, Report of
Robert H. Jackson, published by the State Department of the
USA, 1949, p. 99; emphasis added.

140.  Letter of the Protestant regional bishops Wurm,
Meiser, Bender, Wuestemann, and of the Head of Church
Niemoeller, dated 20 May 1948, to General Lucius D. Clay;
in: Memorandum by the Evangelical Church in Germany on the
Question of War Crime Trials before American Military
Courts, Stuttgart, 1949, p. 25.

141.  Comments of the Catholic German bishops at the Fulda
conference, dated 26 August 1948, in: Memorandum by the
Evangelical Church, p. 41.

142.  International Law and International Organization, Am.
J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 106 ff., 107.

143.  IMT-Nuernberg. Vol. XXI, p. 525 ff.

144.  Kelsen, (Collective and Individual Responsibility in
International Law, Cal. L. Rev. 1943, p. 530 ff) already
pointed out in 1943 that, as to the legal consequences of a
prohibited war, according to international law there is only
"collective" but no "individual" responsibility.

145.  Pfenninger, in his postscript to Bauer's book:Die
Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, p. 221.

146.  In the same sense: Kelsen, Principles of International
Law, 1952, pp. 137-138.

147.  Bauer, Kriegsverbrecher, pp. 77, 171-172.

148.  Ibid.., p. 172.

149.  Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, Vol. 13
(1946), p. 201 ff, 202.

150.  Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, 1947, pp.
46_47.

151.  Morgan, The Great Assize, London, 1948, pp. 5, 10,
25ff. and p. 33 (with express reference to the Kellogg Pact)
with further references.

152.  Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, Oxford,
1950, pp. 22 and 134 ff.

153.  Kelsen, Peace through Law,, pp. 88, 91 ff., and Jewish
Yearbook of International Law 1948, p. 238.

154.  The Nuremberg Trial and International Law; Am. J. Int.
Law, 41, 1947, pp. 20 ff and 24.

155.  Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol. II, p.
564 ff ("manufacture of factual situations constituting new
crimes").

156.  Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 179, with further
references.

157.  In this respect, Verdross gives further references;
emphasis added.

158.  Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 159.

159.  Only as an "enabling provision" was it provided that
superior orders could be taken into account as mitigating
circumstances.

160.  As to the whole problem and its historical development
- see also Fuhrmann,Der hoehere Befehl als
Rechtsfertigungsgrund im Voelkerrecht, Muenchner Jur.
Dissertation, 1961 passim, in particular p. 59 ff.

161.  Morgan, The Great Assize, 1948, pp. 13-14.

162.  Fuhrmann Der hoehere Befehl, p. 64, reports on
Glueck's influence.

163.  British Yearbook of International Law, 1944, p. 58 ff,
73.

164.  See Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, 13
(1946), p. 204.

165.  E.g., in ibid., p. 203 ff; Smith, The Crisis in the
Law of Nations, p. 47; Morgan, The Great Assize, 1948, p. 11
ff, 13-14.

166.  E.g., The Nuremberg Trials, ibid., p. 204.

167.  This is a reference to "International Law", Vol. I,
which, however, was published in its 6th ed. in 1944 and
which reflected Lauterpacht's new doctrine in para. 253.

168.  Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 14.

169.  Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, p. 204.

170.  Morgan, The Great Assize,  p. 14.

171.  Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, p. 204.

172.  In detail, generally: Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p.
149 ff.

173.  IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 523 [p. 461 in the Engl.
text  - Translator]

174.  Schwarzenberger, International Law, p. 314 ff;
Schwarzenberger,  The Problem of International Criminal Law
in Current Legal Problems, 1950, p. 263 ff., 290; the same:
Power Politics, 1951.p. 95 ("debellatio of Germany"), in the
same sense on p. 344.

175.  IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 524; [page 461 in the
Engl. text - Translator].

176.  Borchard, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 106 ff.

177.  This has been done in detail by Jescheck,
Verantwortlichkeit, p. 148 ff, 286, where copious references
are to be found.

178.  Ibid.., p. 154.

179.  Ibid..

180.  Schwarzenberger, International Law, p. 322, Note 50.

181.  Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 154.

182.  Schwarzenberger,  The Problem of an International
Criminal Law, in Current Legal Problems, 1950, p. 263.

183.  Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 158.

184.  Kelsen, Principles of International Law, p. 238.

185.  Redslob, Traite du Droit des Gens, Paris, 1950, p. 228
ff.

186.  See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 283.

187.  Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe 13
(1946), p. 202.

188.  Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 47.

189.  Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, p. 17.

190.  Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 8.

191.  See Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law,
Am. J. Int. Law 41, 1947, pp. 27-28.

192.  Kelsen, Peace Through Law, p. 113.

193.  Ibid...

194.  Ibid.., p. 114.

195.  Ibid..

196.  Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 47.

197.  Ibid..,p. 68; the same wording is to be found also in
The Nuremberg Trials, op. cit., p. 203.

198.  Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 48.

199.  Ibid..

200.  Ibid.., p. 47.

201.  Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, 1950, p. 26.

202.  In the same sense: letter of the Evangelical regional
bishops to General Clay, dated 20 May 1948 - Memorandum by
the Evangelical Church, p. 25.

203.  Judge R.B. Pal, International Military Tribunal for
the Far East, Dissenting Judgment, Calcutta, 1953, p. 31-32.

204.  Ibid.., p. 53 ff.

205.  His contacts with the German resistance ought at least
to be mentioned; see "Der 20. Juli 1944," 3rd ed. Bonn,
1960, p. 55 ff.

206.  Ibid.., p. 56.

207.  Ibid..

208.  Ibid.., p. 57.

209.  Ibid.., p. 131-132.

210.  Ibid.., p. 132.

211.  Ibid...

212.  As quoted by Lord Hankey, ibid. p.  132; in the same
sense: Montgomery Belgion, Victor's Justice, Hinsdale
(Illinois), 1949, and Epitaph on Nuremberg, 1947.

213.  Ibid.., p. 132.

214.  Kelsen, Int. Law Quarterly, Vol. 1,  p. 153 ff.

215.  Finch, The Nuremberg Trial in International Law, Am.
J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 24.

216.  Borchard, International Law and International
Organization, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 107.

217.  Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 8.

218.  Verantwortlichkeit, p. 415 ff.

219.  See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 184.

220.  See ibid., p.  184; in the same sense:
Schwarzenberger, International Law, pp. 323-324, who calls
the crime against humanity a "creation of Charter."

221.  Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse, p. 125.

222.  J.K. Bluntschli, Das moderne Voelkerrecht der
zivilisierten Staaten, 3rd ed., 1878, p. 270.

223.  See Jescheck's description in Verantwortlichkeit, pp.
39-41.

224.  See Stowell, Intervention in International Law, 1921,
in particular p. 58; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 40.

225.  Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I,
1955, p. 229.

226.  Ibid.., para. 340.

227.  The Nuremberg Trial, in: Free Europe, op. cit., p.
203. It is noteworthy that Smith, in a prior remark (p.
201), severely castigated punishment on the strength of
"sound popular opinion" in National-Socialist Germany.

228.  In this sense, e.g., Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 21;
Feldmann, Das Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Essen,
1948, p. 20.

229.  Sueddeutsche Juristenzeitung, 1947, p. 133.

230.  Donnedieu de Vabres, The Judgment of Nuremberg and the
Principle of Legality of Offence and Penalties, in:
Zeitschrift fuer Strafrecht und Kriminalistik, Brussels,
July 1947, p. 22 (as quoted by Heinze-Schilling, Die
Rechtsprechung der Nuernberger Milita@7rtribunale, p.  204).

231.  Apart from the jurisdiction of an international
tribunal, which is merely a matter of theory (the tribunal
not having been established).

232.  Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164; Schwarzenberger,
Power Politics, p. 634.

232.  IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 569 [p. 500 in the Engl.
text - Translator].

234.  As quoted by Heinze-Schilling, op. cit., p. 275, No.1271.

235.  See in detail references to judicial decisions, in:
ibid., p. 99 ff., No. 462 ff.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.