Search Results

You are looking at 91 - 100 of 134 items for :

  • All: Nazi Germany x
  • International Criminal Law x

Jacob Childers

the Prosecutor’s Authority under Article 53(c) of the Rome Statute Unlike other international tribunals, the ICC’s proceedings can occur while crimes are still transpiring. 159 For example, there was no threat of continued war with Germany when the Allied victors tried Nazi war criminals in

Lara Pratt

responsibility for deliberate targeting, theft and wanton destruction of cultural property was identified as a war crime in the London Charter, 54 which established the International Military Tribunal ( imt ) for the prosecution of Nazi leaders. Count Three of the indictment specifically mentioned


concern was to prevent recurrence of the extermination policies planned and executed by the Nazi German Government that targeted a specific community distinguished by relatively immutable and stable attributes. That is why the Genocide Convention does not protect political groups, and would not apply, for

Lonneke Stevens

Similarly, extensive interpretation of grounds for pre-trial detention seems to be present in German pre-trial detention decisions. 3 Also, English research on bail practice has shown that magistrates are generally happy to follow the Crown Prosecution Service’s view. 4 This apparent lenient interpretation

Ines Peterson

case, decided by the German Supreme Court in the British Zone in 1948, where a Nazi party militant attended the destruction of a synagogue by a mob knowing the perpetrators’ intent. 56 The Furundžija Trial Chamber inferred from these cases that ‘presence, when combined with authority’, could

Ken Gee-kin Ip

traditional perspective on ‘deterrence’ and ‘retribution’ in terms of the consequence of the manner in which states dealt with their own citizens. For example, by holding the leaders of the Nazi regime accountable for the Holocaust, they laid a new foundation for international law principles in connection

Uwe Ewald

. 374 U. Ewald / International Criminal Law Review 10 (2010) 365–402 Assuming that the gravity of the crimes committed by top leaders of Nazi Germany and ‘Axis-Ally’ Japan would not diff er substantially, signifi cant diff er- ences in sentencing of these two groups should not be expected. However, there

Nicholas Azadi Goodfellow

‘prosecution and punishment of atrocities and persecutions which are so abhorrent that they shock our sense of human dignity’. 42 Th e German Supreme Court observed in 1948 that, ‘[c]rimes against humanity in the end off end against and injure a transcendent good, the value of being human in the moral order, a

James Stewart

signiŽ cant body of practice in inter- national criminal law itself. Article 21 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for Germany provided that: “The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice

Michael Ramsden and Isaac Yeung

icj ’s dictum in Germany v. Italy , recognized the immunity attached to Al Bashir was a procedural bar from prosecution before the Court, but held that such bar was implicitly lifted by paragraph 2 of Resolution 1593. 52 The reasoning for this was one based on logic – because the Security Council