Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Execution of Illegal Orders and International Criminal Responsibility

  • 478 Accesses

Abstract

The idea of prosecuting individual state officials directly under international law for their international illegal acts has been a matter of interest in the international society, especially since the Nuremberg Trial was held after World War II. One of the major principles of international criminal law presented by the Trial – the ‘Nuremberg Principle’ on the superior orders defense – denied immunity on the ground of superior orders in serious international crimes such as war crimes and laid down substantial grounds for the prosecution of state officials. However, detailed discussions on the problem of the superior orders defense have, in fact, long been conflicting. This study aims to describe the whole picture of the conflict of views and examine its implication for international rule-making with regard to international criminal law as well as for the development of international law in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The quoted provision succeeded Article 28 of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of 1906.

  2. 2.

    See, for instance, the Oxford Manual which was adopted by the Institute of International Law in 1880 read ‘[i]f any of the foregoing rules be violated, the offending parties should be punished, after a judicial hearing, by the belligerent in whose hands they are (J. Scott, Resolutions of the Institute of International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 1916), 41)’.

  3. 3.

    For instance, E. Colby, ‘War Crimes and Their Punishment’, Minnesota Law Review 8 (1923): 44–5.

  4. 4.

    For instance, L. Oppenheim, International Law, 3rd ed. by R. Roxburgh, vol. 2, War and Neutrality (London: Longmans, 1921), 342, note 1; L. Oppenheim, International Law, 4th ed. by A. McNair, vol. 2, Disputes, War and Neutrality (London: Longman, Green, 1926), 409, note 1 (the following editions expressed the same view) ; H. Lauterpacht, ‘The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes’, British Yearbook of International Law 21 (1944): 61–2.

  5. 5.

    The arguments which pointed out the resemblance between war crimes and piracy include W. Cowles, ‘Universality of Jurisdiction over War Crimes’, California Law Review 33 (1945): 188–203; G. Schwarzenberger, International Law and Totalitarian Lawlessness (London: Cape, 1943), 59.

  6. 6.

    See the Hague Convention of 1907 (X) and the Geneva Convention of 1929 quoted above.

  7. 7.

    G. Manner, ‘The Legal Nature and Punishment of Criminal Acts of Violence Contrary to the Laws of War’, American Journal of International Law 37 (1943): 407–410. Garner also emphasized that violations of international law were punished as national crimes (J. Garner, International Law and the World War, vol. 2 (London: Longmans, Green and co., 1920), 472–5).

  8. 8.

    B. Röling, ‘Criminal Responsibility for Violations of the Laws of War’, Revue belge de droit international 12 (1976): 20.

  9. 9.

    Ibid.

  10. 10.

    Report of Robert H. Jackson, United States Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials: London, 1945 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1949) [hereinafter, Jackson Report], ix.

  11. 11.

    Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, (Nuremberg, 1947) [hereinafter, IMT], vol. 1, 12.

  12. 12.

    See M. Lippman, ‘The Pursuit of Nazi War Criminals in the United States and in Other Anglo-American Legal Systems’, California Western International Law Journal 29 (1998): 1–100.

  13. 13.

    With regard to the Pinochet case, see, for instance, R. Wedgwood, ‘International Criminal Law and Augusto Pinochet’, Virginia Journal of International Law 40 (2000): 829–47; N. Arriaza, ‘The Pinochet Precedent and Universal Jurisdiction’, New England Law Review 35 (2001): 311–19.

  14. 14.

    See G. Simpson, ‘War Crimes: A Critical Introduction’, in T. McCormack & G. Simpson, The Law of War Crimes, National and International Approaches (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1997), 1–30.

  15. 15.

    D. Forsythe, ‘Politics and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in The Prosecution of International Crimes, eds R. Clark & M. Sann (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1996), 199; Y. Ōnuma, Jinken, Kokka, Bunmei – Fuhenshugitekijinkenkan kara Bunsaitekijinkenkan e (Human Rights, State, and Civilization – From Universal Perspective of Human Rights to Transcivilizational Perspective of Human Rights) (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1998), 103.

  16. 16.

    With regard to the problem of amnesties, see J. Dugard, ‘Reconciliation and Justice: The South African Experience’, Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems 8 (1998): 277–311; D. Wippman, ‘Atrocities, Deterrence, and the Limits of International Justice’, Fordham International Law Journal 23 (1999): 473–88; D. Majzub, ‘Peace or Justice? Amnesties and the International Criminal Court’, Melbourne Journal of International Law 3 (2002): 247–79.

  17. 17.

    See M. Scharf, ‘Justice Versus Peace’, in The United States and the International Criminal Court – National Security and International Law, eds S. Sewall & C. Kaysen (Boston: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000), 179–93; S. Ratner & J. Abrams, Accountability for Human Rights Atrocities in International Law, Beyond the Nuremberg Legacy, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 228–52; L. Sadat, ‘International Criminal Law and Alternative Modes of Redress’, in International Criminal Law and the Current Development of Public International Law, ed. A. Zimmermann (Berlin: Duncker & Humbolt, 2003), 161–94. Regarding civil remedies, see also R. Wedgwood, ‘National Courts and the Prosecution of War Crimes’, in Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law, The Experience of International and National Courts, vol.1, eds G. McDonald & O. Swaak-Goldman (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000), 410–12.

  18. 18.

    Sadat, supra n. 17, at 174.

  19. 19.

    Scharf, supra n. 17, at 182.

  20. 20.

    See E. Bradley, ‘In Search for Justice – A Truth in Reconciliation Commission for Rwanda’, Detroit College of Law Journal of International Law and Practice 7 (1998): 150–52; Sadat, supra n. 17, at 185–6.

  21. 21.

    The views which underline the notion of jus cogens in international law as ‘supplemental arguments’ include C. Ford, ‘Adjudicating jus cogens’, Wisconsin International Law Journal 13 (1994): 179–80. Schachter also upholds the notion of the obligations erga omnes as strengthening the sense of international obligations (O. Schachter, International Law in Theory and Practice (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1991), 211–3). Ōnuma draws attention to ‘the communicative function’, ‘the function of embodying shared understandings of international society’, and ‘the justifying and legitimating function’ of international law (Onuma Y., ‘International Law in and with International Politics: The Functions of International Law in International Society’, European Journal of International Law 14 (2003): 130–39).

  22. 22.

    Y. Ōnuma, Tōkyōsaiban kara Sengosekinin no Sisō e (From the Tokyo Trial to the Idea of Postwar Responsibility), 4th ed. (Tokyo: Tōshindō, 1997), 52–4. See also Y. Ōnuma, Sensōsekininron Josetsu (Introductory Study on the Responsibility for War) (Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1975), 350.

  23. 23.

    J. Smith & B. Hogan, Criminal Law, 6th ed. (London: Butterworths, 1988), 177–8; M. Allen, Textbook on Criminal Law, 8th ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 158–9. J. Dressler, Understanding Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (New York: Lexis Publishing, 2001), 201.

  24. 24.

    With regard to the difference of those theories of criminal law, see G. Fletcher, ‘Contemporary Legal Scholarship: Achievements and Prospects: Criminal Law: Criminal Theory in the Twentieth Century’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law 2 (2001): 265–86.

  25. 25.

    Y. Takigawa, ‘Keihō ni okeru Kōseiyōken no Kinō (The Function of the Definition of the Crime in Criminal Law)’, Keihō Zasshi 1, no. 2 (1950): 171.

  26. 26.

    M. Maeda, Keihō Sōron Kōgi (Lectures on the General Part of Criminal Law), 2nd ed. (Tokyo: Tokyo University Press, 1994), 100–107; Ibid., 3rd ed. (1998), 51–2.

  27. 27.

    With regard to the development of the theories of criminal law, see Ryūichi Hirano, Hanzairon no Shomondai (Jō) Sōron (Problems of the Theories of Crime (First Part) General Part) (Tokyo: Yūhikaku, 1981), 1–34.

  28. 28.

    For instance, K. Kittichaisaree, International Criminal Law (New York; London: Oxford University Press, 2001); A. Cassese, International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

  29. 29.

    For instance, the ICTY judgment in Furundzija (Judgment (Trial Chamber), Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1 (10 December 1998)).

  30. 30.

    The objection to such terminology has been made by D. Husak, ‘Partial Defenses’, Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 11 (1998): 167–92.

  31. 31.

    In common law, the notion of ‘partial defenses’ has been used which leads to the conviction of a lesser offense (Dressler, supra n. 23, at 201, note 2). There has been no such terminology in international law.

  32. 32.

    See Judgment, IMT, vol. 1, 224; Y. Dinstein, The Defence of ‘Obedience to Superior Orders’ in International Law (Leyden: A.W. Sijthoff, 1965), 152.

  33. 33.

    Yearbook of International Law Commission [hereinafter, YILC], vol. 2, no. 2 (1996), 39–42.

  34. 34.

    K. Taijudō, ‘Kokusaihanzai no Gainen to Kokusaihō no Tachiba ‘The Notion of International Crimes and the Perspective of International Law’, Jurisuto (Jurist) 720 (1980): 71–2; G. Schwarzenberger, ‘The Problem of an International Criminal Law’, Current Legal Problems 3 (1950): 272–4.

  35. 35.

    S. Yamamoto, Kokusaikeijihō (International Criminal Law) (Tokyo: Sanseidō, 1991), 128–37.

  36. 36.

    M. Bassiouni, ‘An Appraisal of the Growth and Developing Trends of International Criminal Law’, Revue internationale de droit penal 45 (1974): 428.

  37. 37.

    Regarding the notion of ‘international criminal law’, see, for instance, M. Bassiouni, ‘The Sources and Content of International Criminal Law: A Theoretical Framework’, in International Criminal Law, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Crimes, ed. M. Bassiouni, (New York: Transnational Publishers, Inc., 1999), 4–17; J. Paust et al. (eds), International Criminal Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd ed. (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 2000), 3–18.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Relations, National Defense Academy, Hashirimizu 1-10-20, 239-8686, Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan

    Assoc. Prof. Hiromi Satō

Authors
  1. Assoc. Prof. Hiromi Satō
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiromi Satō .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Satō, H. (2011). Introduction. In: The Execution of Illegal Orders and International Criminal Responsibility. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16753-9_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation