Certainly, this special condemnation and opprobrium has a lot to do with the prime historic example behind the international criminalization of genocide: the “extermination of eight million persons, primarily because of their race, religion or ethnicity” 5 by the GermanNazis. The recent experience with the
in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. 97 The concept of crimes against humanity was the consequence of the Nazi crimes against the innocent Jewish population in Europe in general and in Germany in particular, 98 and was formulated in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal as followings
Council for Germany to ‘reduce or otherwise alter the sentences, but not to increase the severity thereof’, and this power was exercised in connection with three of the seven persons sentenced to terms of imprisonment: each being pardoned on grounds of bad health. 13 9 Crimes against humanity included
war. What exactly does it mean to say that an entire nation is ‘underserving? Or that another nation, as a nation, was wronged? What does it mean to show mercy to collectives? Or for an entire nation (or quasi-nation) to show, say, repentance?
Post-NaziGermany is, of course, but one example
Germany by the neo-Nazis and Skinheads. At the national and the personal level violence comes to be used as a proper, acceptable, and even admirable method of achieving what the nation - or by implication the individual - defines as legitimate goals. The use of lethal force in 'ethnic cleansing' by an
President of the German Reichsbank, organized the receipt, classification, deposit, conversion, and disposal of gold, jewelry, and currency looted from Nazi (especially Jewish) victims; regarding his posi- tion, the Tribunal now states: “It would be a strange doctrine indeed, if, where part of the plan and
, ibid ., p. 1202.
85 Flick et al, ibid ., p. 1197.
86 Flick et al, ibid ., p. 1201. Similar analysis may also be evident in Viet Harlan . In that case, a film director who assisted in the Nazi propaganda effort was acquitted after the Court looked at the realities of NaziGermany and
principles of due process ( largely applicable in their own jurisdictions, Soviet Union aside) as part of the new international order they aspired to create; 29 they avoided treating the Nazis with the same ruthlessness they had shown their victims, despite great temptation to do so. 30 On top of that
by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, Opinion and Judgment of the IMT 66 (1947). 5 Affirmation of the Principles of International Law Recognized by the Charter of the
), Hoelzer et al. Canadian Military Court, Aurich, Germany Record of Proceedings 25 March–6 April 1946, Vol. I); den Britisch Military Court, Essen June 11–26 1946, UNWXX vol. XI, p. 68; den Trial of Gustav Alfred Jepsen and others, Proceedings of a War Crimes Trial held at Luneberg, Germany, (12–23 August