¹ Verhaegen, J., “La répression des crimes de guerre en droit pénal beige”, in Mélanges Hans-H. Jescheck, Berlin, Duncker und Humblot, 1985, p. 1441.Google Scholar

² Verhaegen, J., La protection pénale contre les excès de pouvoir et la résistance légitime à l'autorité, Brussels, Ets. Emile Bruylant, 1969, pp. 117 ff. and references quoted.Google Scholar

³ See Debary, , L'inexistence des actes administratifs, Paris, Pichon-Durand, 1960, p. 32.Google Scholar

⁴ Verhaegen, J., “Les nouveaux horizons du droit international pénal des conflits armés”, in Revue de droit pénal et criminel, (Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim.), 01 1985, p. 34 Google Scholar and “New horizons in international criminal law”, in Nouv. Et. Pénales, 1985, pp. 45–58.Google Scholar

⁵ Typical of this opinion is the statement made on the Belgian radio by General V. Walters after his country had been condemned by the International Court of Justice (27 June 1986). “My Governement”, he said, “will not allow its foreign policy to be dictated to it by a college of foreign judges”.

⁶ Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: First Convention, Art. 49/ Second Convention, Art. 50/ Third Convention, Art. 129/ Fourth Convention, Art. 146/; Additional Protocol I, Geneva 1977, Art. 85; and the European Convention On Human Rights, Art. 15, § 2, referring to “lawful” acts of war.

⁷ Reply by the Chief Commissioner (“premier auditeur”) of the Council of State in the case of Pax Christi and jointly interested parties, 1986.

⁸ Verhaegen, J., “L'excès de pouvoir, la légalité de crise et le droit de Nuremberg”, in La protection pénale contre les excès de pouvoir, op. cit., pp. 359 ffGoogle Scholar. On the favor potestatis see especially pp. 420 ff. On certain prosecutions actually made, see Verhaegen, J., “La culpabilité des exécutants d'ordres illégaux”, in Rev. Jurid. du Congo 1970/1973, pp. 231 ff., especially Note 2.Google Scholar

⁹ See, for example, McCarthy, M., Rapport sur le procès du capitaine Medina Google Scholar, (report on the trial of Captain Medina), Paris, Laffont, 1973 and summary by Verhaegen, J., in Rev. Dr. Pén. crim., 1973–1974, p. 615.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Verhaegen, J., “De la connaissance des infractions commises par les militaires”, in Journal Trib., Brussels, 1973, pp. 721 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid., p. 722, Col. 2, and Verhaegen, J., La protection pénale contre les excès de pouvoir, op. cit., pp. 73 ff. and 432 ff.Google Scholar

¹² Verhaegen, J., “La tentation de la torture”, Journal trib., 1975, pp. 473 ffGoogle Scholar., and more specially “Savoir ou porter le fer — A propos de la condamnation de six para-commandos”, in Journal Trib., 1973, p. 140, Col. 2.Google Scholar

¹³ Cambier, Cyr. La censure de l'excès de pouvoir par le Conseil d'Etat, Brussels, 1956, No. 223.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The Belgian Penal Code punishes divulgation of an employer's secrets “except in cases where the custodians of the secret matters are called as witnesses in the courts and in cases where the law obliges them to reveal these secrets”.

¹⁵ Jescheck, H.-H., “La protection des secrets d'Etat illégaux en République federate d'Allemagne”, in Licéité en droit positif et références légales aux valeurs, Brussels, 1982, p. 376.Google Scholar

¹⁶ “Une justice avec des dents” (Justice with teeth), a term used by a French Governement Commissioner, quoted by Maunoir, J.-P., La répression des crimes de guerre devant les tribunaux français et alliés, Geneva, 1956, p. 52.Google Scholar

¹⁷ La protection pénale contre les excès… op. cit., p. 427 Google Scholar and references quoted.

¹⁸ “The (Martens) clause is not binding on our country”: statement by the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs on 9 November 1983 in the Lower House of Parliament (C.R.A., p. 130). On the mandatory nature of the Martens clause, see the reply by Ambassador R. Bindschedler, Head of the Swiss Delegation to the Diplomatic Conference, in Licéité en droit positif, op. cit., p. 632, Note 23.Google Scholar

¹⁹ International conventions contain all too many vague formulas of this kind. See Verhaegen, J., “Les impasses du droit international pénal”, in Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 1957–1958, pp. 1–61, especially pp. 18–20 Google Scholar. Similarly, “It may be asked whether the jurists (composing the United Nations Commission on international law for the formulation of the Nuremberg principles) were sufficiently expert to discuss questions of penal law. The legal training of an internationalist is not that of an èxpert in penal law… President Scelle himself found cause to say as much” ( Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 1950–1951, p. 819).Google Scholar

²⁰ Verhaegen, J., “L'activité militaire en période de crise (conditions et limites de sa justification en droit pénal belge)”, in Rev. Belge Dr. Intern., 1984–1985/I, p. 331.Google Scholar

²¹ “Controversy has arisen as to whether the Hague Regulations apply to nuclear weapons” (statement by Mr. Tindemans, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, to the Lower House of Parliament on 9 Nov. 1983). Cf. the Council of State's opinion of 8 Oct. 1984 on the Bill “for approval of the Geneva Additional Protocols”; that opinion reiterates that international instruments such as the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the humanitarian Geneva Conventions of 1949 are applicable to nuclear weapons.

²² A typical example is reported in La protection pénale contre les excès de pouvoir, op. cit., p. 435.Google Scholar

²³ On the simultaneous presence of the factors constituting manslaughter through carelessness, see the report of the Kahane Commission on responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila events, Stock, 1983, p. 109. See also Verhaegen, J., “Le délit d'imprudence et la guerre”, in Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 1959–1960, pp. 419–491 Google Scholar, and “L'ordre illégal et son exécutant devant les juridictions pénales”, in Journ. Trib., 09 1986, pp. 449–454, especially p. 452.Google Scholar

²⁴ Verhaegen, J., L'activité militaire en période de crise, op. cit, pp. 336–339.Google Scholar

²⁵ Verhaegen, J., “Une interprétation inacceptable du principe de proportionnalité”, in Revue de droit pénal militaire et de droit de la guerre, 1982, pp. 333 ffGoogle Scholar. The opinion of M.-F. Furet in her preface to the proceedings of the Montpellier Symposium (XVI^e Colloque de la Societe Française de Droit International, Montpellier, 3–5 June 1982) on international law and weapons, that “general ideas (such as ‘striking without discrimination’ or producing ‘excessively injurious effects’) can be interpreted onla by agreement between States which decide what weapons are to be prohibited in the light of these general principles” is a typical example of the law being submitted to classification by national executives.

²⁶ The words “by whatever means” were added to Art. 25 of the Hague Regulations at the request of General Amourel to safeguard the logical and evolutive interpretation of that Article.

²⁷ “Whereas the appeal maintains with good reason that although the Hague Convention of October 18, 1907 and the Regulations annexed thereto… do not contain any explicit provision relating to hostages, the execution of hostages is nevertheless implicity considered as a violation of the laws and customs of war by Articles 46 and 50 of the aforesaid Regulations” (Pasicrisie, 1949, I, 515).

²⁸ Although prior to August 1949 reprisals against the civilian population were not explicitly prohibited, there are orders to which “disobedience is due because they manifestly violate an overriding principle of humanity” (Belgian Court of Cassation, 4 July 1949, Pas. 1949, p. 516).

²⁹ Quoted in the case of Pax Christi and jointly interested parties (1986).Google Scholar

³⁰ “Whereas, even if international treaties are recognized to prevail over each country's national law, there is a rule that takes precedence of international treaties and is binding on all; and whereas that rule derives from the natural right of any nation to defend itself against all forms of aggression or oppression; and whereas that right is imprescriptible and inalienable, being one of the means of protecting personal freedom” (Judgement rendered by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (county court), Nîmes, 17 June 1985, in the case of M. P. vs. L.-L. Cahu. Similarly, “When other nations threaten us with chemical weapons we cannot confine ourselves to manufacturing gas masks. France is lagging behind, and must not be bound by any restriction.” F. Mitterrand, “Le Monde”, 11 Feb. 1986.

³¹ See the reply in the Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Geneva, ICRC, 1987, pp. 615–617, Nos. 1923–1934.Google Scholar

³² See Andries, A., “Note sur l'illégalité de l'article 20, b du règlement de discipline militaire A.2”, in Licéité en droit positif et références légates aux valeurs, op. cit., pp. 599–604 Google Scholar; and Verhaegen, J., “L'illégalité manifeste et l'exception de la nation en péril”, in Journ. Trib., 1973, pp. 629–634 Google Scholar, and “La répression des crimes de guerre en droit pénal beige”, op. cit., p. 1449.Google Scholar

³³ On Bill No. 577, see Verhaegen, J., “Le vote du projet de loi beige No. 577: un enjeu international”, in Journ. Trib., centenary issue, 1982, pp. 227 ffGoogle Scholar. This text, adapted to Additional Protocol I and approved by the Belgian Red Cross, was used as a recommendation by the Law Faculties of all the Belgian Universities ( Andries, A., “Chronique de droit pénal militaire”, in Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 11 1983, pp. 906–907 Google Scholar). Its importance was reiterated at the Brussels Symposium on humanitarian law, Nov. 1986.

³⁴ See “Les impasses du droit international pénal” in Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 1957, pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar; “Savoir où porter le fer — A propos de la condamnation de six paracommandos” in Journ. Trib., 1973, pp. 137–141 Google Scholar, and “L'ordre illégal et son exécutant devant les juridictions pénales”, quoted in Journ. Trib., 1986, p. 454.Google Scholar

³⁵ See, inter alia, the interesting analysis by J.-J. Servan-Schreiber quoted in “Le délit d'impudence et la guerre”, in Rev. Dr. Pén. Crim., 02 1960, p. 431 Google Scholar. The term “trial as catharsis” is borrowed from Videl-Naquet, P., La torture dans la République, Paris, 1972.Google Scholar

³⁶ See Les impasses du droit international penal, op. cit., p. 36 Google Scholar; La protection penale contre les excès de pouvoir, op. cit., Foreword, p. 7 Google Scholar and Conclusions, p. 458; and L'ordre illégal et son executant, op. cit., p. 453.Google Scholar

³⁷ Nahlik, Stanilas, International Review of the Red Cross, Geneva, 07/08 1984, No. 241, p. 225.Google Scholar

³⁸ Rev. dr. intern, sc. dipl. et pol., 10 1946, pp. 165 ff.Google Scholar