¹ The earlier 1190 Ordinance of Richard I instituted military “lower Courts” “amongst the Regiments both of Horse and Foot…” and “our highest Marshall court … when there is any matter of great importance in controversie.” The Ordinance did not employ the term “court martial,” however. Colonel William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 903, 915–16 (2d ed. 1920).

² See, e.g., United States v. Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (Feb. 4, 1946); Trial of Masaharu Homma, U.S. Military Commission, Manila, P.I. (Mar. 5, 1946). While both Japanese generals were surely guilty of war crimes, they were convicted on the basis of questionable procedural and evidentiary rules. Their trials were not unique in that regard.

³ UN War Crimes Commission, History of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and the Development of the Law of War 474 (1948).

⁴ UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, Vol. XI, at 86 (1949).

⁵ Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014), cert. denied (Oct. 10, 2017).

⁶ UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports, supra note 4, at 101.

⁷ Taylor, Telford, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir 277 (1992)Google Scholar.

⁸ Id. at 278.

⁹ Id.

¹⁰ Harris, Whitney R., Justice Jackson at Nuremberg, 20 Int'l Lawyer 867, 876 (1986)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Taylor, supra note 7, at 287.

¹² Jean Edward Smith, Lucius D. Clay: An American Life 302 (1990) (brackets in original).

¹³ Pomorski, Stanislaw, Conspiracy and Criminal Organizations, in The Nuremberg Trial and International Law 213, 243 (Ginsburgs, George & Kudriavtsev, V.N. eds., 1990)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ UN War Crimes Commission, Law Reports, supra note 4, at 15.

¹⁵ Id. at 5.