Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Kallgren, Joyce
1963.
Nationalist China's Armed Forces.
The China Quarterly,
Vol. 15,
Issue. ,
p.
35.
Article contents
The punishment of war criminals: The Nuremberg Trial: (Second part)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
It was understood from the outset that the trials would be limited, in accordance with the Moscow Declaration, to a number of the highest-ranking Nazi leaders and their principal accomplices. It was proposed by the United States in the draft of April 30, 1945, presented to the Foreign Ministers of France, Great Britain and the Soviet Union, that the trial comprise also “the principal Nazi organizations and their members, through whom the most bestial of the Nazi cruelties have been put into effect”. According to this draft, the defense of superior orders shall not absolve the accused from responsibility but may be considered, if justice so requires, in mitigation of punishment. Nor shall an accused be able to escape the trial on the ground that he was the head or principal officer of a state. Offenses against the armies of the United Nations would be punished by the appropriate national tribunals. Perpetrators of atrocities in territories occupied by Germany during the war as well as traitors such as Quisling, Laval, “Lord Haw-Haw”, would be dealt with in a similar manner.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1956
References
page 10 note 1 Ibid., pp. 23. 25, 29, 47.
page 10 note 2 Ibid., p. 24.
page 10 note 3 Ibid., p. 43.
page 10 note 4 Ibid., p. 259.
page 11 note 1 Ibid., pp. 46–47; see also pp. 367–368.
page 11 note 2 Ibid., pp. 6, 61, 69.
page 11 note 3 See supra, Vol. II (1955), pp. 370–374.Google Scholar
page 11 note 4 Ibid., p. 297.
page 11 note 5 Ibid., p. 335. Italics supplied.
page 11 note 6 Supra, Vol. II (1955), p. 368.Google Scholar
page 12 note 1 International conference, pp. 329, 331, 333, 334, 337.Google Scholar
page 12 note 2 Ibid., pp. 32–33.
page 12 note 3 Ibid., p. 48.
page 12 note 4 Ibid., p. 72; see also pp. 93–94.
page 12 note 5 Ibid., p. 107.
page 13 note 1 Ibid., p. 129.
page 13 note 2 Ibid., p. 134.
page 13 note 3 Ibid., p. 136.
page 13 note 4 Ibid., pp. 137, 140.
page 13 note 5 Ibid., pp. 141 f; see also pp. 238–242, 246–248, 369–371, 383.
page 13 note 6 The following groups were indicted: the Reich Cabinet, the leadership Corps of the Nazi Party; the Schutzstaffeln, known as the “SS”; the Sicherheitsdienst, known as the “SD”; the Geheime Staatspolizei, known as the “Gestapo”; the Sturmabteilungen, known as the “SA”; the General Staff and High Command of the Armed Forces, known as the “OKW”.
page 14 note 1 Bormann was tried and sentenced in absentia; see Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, (published at Nuremberg, Germany, 1947), Vol. I, p. 6 (hereinafter referred to as “Trial”).Google Scholar
page 14 note 2 Trial, p. 365.Google Scholar
page 14 note 3 Ibid., pp. 342–364.
page 14 note 4 Those sentenced to prison sentences were jailed in the Spandau prison in Berlin, which continues to be under the control of the Four Powers.
page 15 note 1 Ibid., p. 226.
page 15 note 2 Ibid., p. 225.
page 15 note 3 Ibid., p. 186.
page 15 note 4 Ibid., p. 216.
page 15 note 5 Ibid., p. 186.
page 15 note 6 United Nations, The Charter and Judgment of the Nürnberg Trial, History and Analysis (1949, sales No. 1949, V, 7), p. 58 (hereinafter referred to as “Charter”).Google Scholar
page 16 note 1 Trial, , p. 311.Google Scholar
page 16 note 2 Ibid., p. 316; similar findings were made against Göring, Keitel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, and Frick: see Charter, pp. 59–60.Google Scholar
page 16 note 3 Charter, pp. 56–58.Google Scholar
page 16 note 4 Trial, p. 253.Google Scholar
page 16 note 5 Ibid., p. 254.
page 16 note 6 Ibid., pp. 304, 319.
page 17 note 1 Ibid., p. 256.
page 17 note 2 Ibid., pp. 275–279.
page 17 note 3 Ibid., pp. 256–273.
page 17 note 4 Ibid., pp. 280 ff.
page 18 note 1 Ibid., pp. 219–222.
page 18 note 2 Ibid., p. 221.
page 18 note 3 Ibid., p. 223.
page 18 note 4 Ibid., p. 223.
page 19 note 1 Ibid., p. 224.
page 19 note 2 Ibid., p. 218.
page 20 note 1 Charter, p. 38.Google Scholar
page 20 note 2 Article 11 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, 8 September 1951 (entered into force 28 April 1952) reads as follows: “Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other Allied Wai-Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, and will carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan.…”
page 20 note 3 See this writer, “Criminality of Aggressive War”, American Political Science Review, Vol. XLI 1947, pp. 205 ffGoogle Scholar; Stone, , Legal Controls of International Conflict, 1954, p. 302.Google Scholar
page 21 note 1 Stone, ibid., pp. 302, 359.
page 21 note 2 Trial, , p. 218Google Scholar; see also Stone, ibid., p. 359.
page 21 note 3 Stone, ibid., p. 326.
page 22 note 1 Stone, ibid.
page 23 note 1 Harris, Whitney R., Tyranny on Trial, 1954, p. 560Google Scholar; but see Kelsen, Hans, “Will the judgment in the Nuremberg trial constitute a precedent in international law?”, International Law Quarterly Vol. I (1944), pp. 153–171.Google Scholar
page 23 note 2 Harris, ibid.
page 23 note 3 Harris, ibid., p. 562.
- 1
- Cited by