¹ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 11.Google Scholar

² Ibid., 218.

³ “Nemo plus juris transferee potest quam ipse habet.” Cf. Sohn, Rudolph, Institution des Roemischen Rechts, (15th ed.) 380.Google Scholar See also Schick, F. B. “The Nuremberg Trial and the International Law of the Future”, American Journal of International Law, XLI (1947), 780–781.Google Scholar

⁴ “Penal laws are essentially territorial.”Dumas, Jacques, “Y a-t-il des crimes inter-nationaux?” Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, LIX (1932), 721–722.Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid., 722.

⁶ Harvard Research Draft Convention on Piracy quoted in Herbert Briggs, W., The Law of Nations, 369.Google Scholar

⁷ Oppenheim, L., International law (ed. Lauterpacht, , sixth ed.), II, 451.Google Scholar

⁸ Lauterpacht, H., “The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes,” British Yearbook of International Lav, XXI (1944), 62.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid., 64.

¹⁰ Hudson, Manley O., International Tribunals, 181–182.Google Scholar

¹¹ See for instance: Glueck, Sheldon, “By What Tribunal Shall War Offenders be Tried?” Harvard Law Review, LVI (1942–43), 1077;Google ScholarLevy, Albert G., “The Law and Procedure of War Crime Trials”, American Political Science Review, XXXVII (1943), 1077–78;Google ScholarManner, George, “The Legal Nature and Punishment of Criminal Acts of Violence Contrary to the Laws of War,” American Journal of International Law, XXXVII (1943), 409.MGoogle Scholar

¹² Text of the Moscow Declaration, Department of State Bulletin, IX, 310.Google Scholar

¹³ Glueck, , loc. cit., 1077.Google Scholar

¹⁴ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 218.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Colby, Elbridge, “War Crimes”, Michigan Law Review, XXIII (1924–;25), 489.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 490.

¹⁷ “A code in order to enjoy universal application must include fundamental principles for the exercise of repression which are accepted by all countries. But we know all the grave divergencies that exist between the Anglo-Saxon and the continental conceptions.” Procès-Verbaux des travaux de la commission chargée de la rédaction d'un projet de code international. Revue internationale de droit pénal, VII-VIII (1931–32), 196.Google Scholar

¹⁸ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 12.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Schick, , loc. at., 787.Google Scholar

²⁰ Art. 6 (c), Charter of the International Military Tribunal.

²¹ International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 219.Google Scholar

²² Wright, Quincy, A Study of War, I, 331.Google Scholar

²³ “The powers declare … that Napoleon Buonoparte has placed himself beyond civil and social relations and that, as enemy and destroyer of the peace of the world, he has delivered himself to prosecution.” Quoted inBelliot, H. Hale, “The Detention of Napoleon Bonaparte”, Law Quarterly Review (London), XXXIX (1923), 170, n. 3.Google Scholar

²⁴ “Napoleon Buonoparte has through his own actions deprived himself of all rights save those which humanity claims in his favor. And the measures of precaution which peace and public welfare may require with respect to him are submitted entirely to the enlightened discretion of the Sovereign Allies.” Quoted Ibid., 192.

²⁵ See for instance: Larnaude, F. andde Lapradelle, A., “Examen de la responsabilité pénale de l'empereur Guillaume II d'allemagne”, Journal du Droit International Privé, XLVI (1919), 133–167Google Scholar and the bibliography in Garner, James W., “Punishment of Offenders against the Laws and Customs of War”, American Journal of International Law,XIV (1920), 72, n. 5.Google Scholar

²⁶ Manner, , loc. cit., 424.Google Scholar

²⁷ Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. Report presented to the Preliminary Peace Conference. Official English text: Pamphlet, N. 32, Division of International Law, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D. C, reprinted in American Journal of International Law, XIV (1920), 95–154.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid., 98.

²⁹ Memorandum of Reservations Presented by the Representatives of the United States to the Report of the Commission on ResponsibilitiesGoogle Scholar, Ibid., 128.

³⁰ Commission on Responsibilities of Authors of the War, Ibid., 118.

³¹ Ibid., 119.

³² Ibid., 120.

³³ American Memorandum, Ibid., 139.

³⁴ Commission on Responsibility of Authors of the War, Ibid., 122.

³⁵ American Memoranaum, Ibid., 134.

³⁶ Ibid., 142.

³⁷ Garner, , loc. at., 90, n. 49.Google Scholar

³⁸ Reprinted American Journal of International Law, XIII (1919), Supplement, 250.Google Scholar

³⁹ Retranslation from Strupp, op. cit., 43;Google Scholar Sollte einmal der Voelkerbund ein Straf-recht schaffen, nach dem kuenftige Verletzungen des Kriegsrechts geahndet werden sollten, und einen internationalen Gerichtshof ins Leben rufen, der solche Taten abzuurteilen haette, so wuerde die Niederlande sich an diesen neuen Aufgaben beteiligen.“ Cf. also Jellinek, Walter, “Wilhelm II in den Niederlanden”, Deutsche Juristenzeitung, XXIV (1919), 47.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Translated.

⁴¹ “Nobody can be punished but in virtue of a law which has been established and promulgated before a crime and which has been legally applied. … And now one wants to renounce this principle in the first penal procedure which will be prosecuted on behalf of the international community of law; one wants to punish what in general is not even taken for a violation of a rule of law; one wants to punish according to a formula so vague and so indefinite that the judge can do with it whatever he wants.” Simons, D., “L'Baradition de l'ex-Empereur d'Allemagne et la Hollande”, Journal du Droit International Prive, XLVI (1919), 954.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 960.

⁴³ Ibid., 961.

⁴⁴ Commission on Responsibility of Authors of the War, American Journal of International Law, XIV (1920), 120.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ American Memorandum, Ibid., 140.

⁴⁶ See for instance: Fauchille, Paul. Traité de Droit International Public, II, 319;Google Scholar Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès-V erbaux of the Proceedings of Committee, June 16th-July 24th, 1920, 498ff; Phillimore, Lord, “An International Criminal Court and the Resolution of the Committee of Jurists,” British Yearbook of International Law, III (1922–1923), 79–86.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Procès-Verbaux des travaux de la commission chargée de la redaction d'un projet de code pénal international, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénale, VII-VII (1931–1932), 196.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ For a survey of the history of international criminal jurisdiction see Hudson, Manley O., “The Proposed International Criminal Court”, American Journal of International Law, XXXII (1938), 549ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Wright, Quincy, “Due Process and International Law”, (editorial comment), American Journal of International Law, XL (1946), 402.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Procès-Verbaux de la commission chargée de la redaction d'un projet de code penal international, loc. cit., 207.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Hudson, Manley O., International Tribunals, 186.Google Scholar

⁵² For the full text see United States, Department of State, Treaty for the Renunciation of War, Publication N. 468 (1933).Google Scholar

⁵³ International Military Tribunal. Trials of the Major War Criminals, I, 220–221.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For an analysis of the Pact of Paris see Sharp, Walter R. and Kirk, Grayson, Contemporary International Politics, 558.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Finch, George A., “The Nuremberg Trial and International Law”, American Journal of International Law, XLI (1947), 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ International Law Association, XXXVIII (1934), 1–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cited by Finch, , loc. cit., 32.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Potter, Pitman B. in New York Times (editorial), June 2, 1946;Google ScholarBorchard, Edwin, “International Law and Organization,” (editorial), American Journal of International Law, XVI (1947), 106–108;CrossRefGoogle ScholarFinch, , loc. cit., 26–33,Google ScholarSchick, , loc. cit., 782–786.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ “Perhaps the judges to be named could say what these principles are and what, necessarily, ought to count as such. But they will judge then according to norms which up to now have not been used and which, according to all appearances, will not soon be applicable. And in virtue of such norms, indefinite, unwritten, and non-applicable, one would pronounce a verdict.” Simons, , loc. cit., 960–961.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major Criminals, I, 221–222.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Cf. Finch, , loc. cit., 26.Google Scholar

⁶² Glueck, Sheldon, The Nueremberg Trial and Aggressive War, 38.Google Scholar

⁶³ Frequently reference is made only to the shorter version of “nulla poena sine lege”. For a detailed discussion see Hall, Jerome, “Nulla poena sine lege”, Yale Law Journal, XLVII (1937–1938), 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁴ See for instance D. 50. 16. 131: “Poena nbn irrogatur, nisi quae quaque lege vel alio jure specialiter huic delicto imposita est.”

⁶⁵ Art. 8 of the Déclaration des droits de gens, August 26, 1789: “Nul ne peut être puni qu'en vertue d'une loi établie et promulgée entièrement au delit legalement appli-quée.” In Par. 3 of the Preamble to the Constitution of the 4th Republic special reference is made to the rights and liberties of the Declaration. Art. 8 has been recodified in Art. 4 of the present French Penal Code: “Nulle contravention, nul délit, nul crime ne peuvent êetre punis de peines qui n'étaient pas prononcées par la'loĩ avant qu'ils fussent commis.”

⁶⁶ Art. 1, Sec. 9, par. 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”

⁶⁷ Par. 2 of the Reich Criminal Code of May 15, 1871, provides: Eine Handlung cann nur dann mit einer Strafe belegt werden, wenn diese Tat gesetzlich bestimmt war, bevor die Handlung begangen wurde.” This paragraph was later inserted as Art. 116 into the “Grundrechte und Grundpflichten der Reichsverfassung.”

⁶⁸ Quoted by Wright, Quincy, “Due Process and International Law”, American Journal of International Law, XL (1946), 403.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ See Art. 9 par. 2 and the interesting discussion of the Nuremberg Trial in “Shaping the Declaration of Human Rights,” United Nations Bulletin, N. 11 (December 1, 1948), 967.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Procès Verbaux des Travaux de la commission chargée de la redaction d'un projet de code pénal international. Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, VII-VIII (1931–1932), 197.Google Scholar

⁷¹ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 219;Google Scholar similarly Levy, , loc. cit., 1077.Google Scholar

⁷² See “Nuremberg in Retrospect”, the Roundtable, 12, 1946, reprinted in M.I.T. Publications in International Affairs, International Relations, II, 176.Google Scholar

⁷³ Publications de la Court Permanente de Justice Internationale, Ser. A/B, N. 65; Avis consultatif du 4 decembre, “Compatibilité de certains décrets-lois avec la constitution de la Ville Libre”, 45 ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Corresponding par. 2 of the Reichsstrajgesetzbuch. Cf. Supra, n. 67.

⁷⁵ Reichsgesetzblatt 1935, I, 839.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ “Nach dem Grundgedanken eines Strafgesetzes und nach gesundem Volksemp-finden.

⁷⁷ The present writer drafted this petition. For the full text see: League of Nations Official Journal, XVI (1935), II, 1336–1337.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Permanent Court of International Justice, Ser. A/B, N. 65, 56–57.

⁷⁹ Ex Quirin, Parte (1942, 317, U.S. 1), reprinted in American Journal of International Law. XXXVII (1943), 152 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 223.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Case of the German Saboteurs, American Journal of International Law, XXXVII (1943), 160.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid.

⁸³ Ibid., 161.

⁸⁴ The Supreme Court specifically referred to the common law interpretation of the law of war.

⁸⁵ Cf. Manner, , loc. cit., 415Google Scholar and Hyde, Charles Cheney, “Aspects of the Saboteur Cases” (editorial), American Journal of International Law, XXXVII (1943), 88–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a different viewpoint see Glueck, Sheldon, “Tribunal for War Offenders,” Harvard Law Review, LVI (1942–1932), 1069–1072.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ 7 Cranch, , 32 (U.S., 1812).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Memorandum of Reservations Presented by the Representatives of the United States to the Report of the Commission on Responsibilities. American Journal of International Law, XIV (1920), 146.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See however Glueck, Sheldon, “Tribunal of War Offenders”, Harvard Law Review, LVI (1942–1932), 1085–1086.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 221.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See Wright, Quincy, “The Law of the Nuremberg Trial”, American Journal of International Law, XL (1947), 58–59.Google Scholar

⁹¹ “War Crimes and International Law”, Law Quarterly Review (London), LXII (1946), 51Google Scholar quoted Ibid., 59.

⁹² Hall, Jerome, “Nulla poena sine lege,” Yale Law Journal, XLVII (1937–1932), 178.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid.

⁹⁴ Ibid., 179.

⁹⁵ Levy, , loc. cit., 1069.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Wright, Quincy, “War Criminals,” American Journal of International Law, XXXIX (1945), 282.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Wright, Quincy, “Legal Positivism and the Nuremberg Court” (editorial), American Journal of International Law, XLII (1948), 409.Google Scholar For similar arguments at the end of the first world war see Larnaude, and Dapradelle, , Journal International de Droit Privé, XLVI (1919), 133, 144, 155–157.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Cf. Rev. Walsh, Edmund A., , S.J., “Comments and Corollaries,” America, LXXVI (1946), 153: “The precepts of the moral law are as binding as the prohibitions of the common law, but ordinarily must wait the judgment of the Eternal Legislator for their complete sanction and ultimate vindication. A secular tribunal can only affirm the validity of the moral law in its fundamental postulates and then punish specific crimes in violation of such rules of conduct as have been explicitly incorporated in codes or statutes or which are reasonably assumed to be implicit in the concept of justice.” Father Walsh, however, held that the Nuremberg verdict concerning the crime against peace was compatible with the existing or developing legal order. The article was written in reply to Gustav Gundlach, S.J., “Moral Estimate of the Nuremberg Trial,” Ibid., 149–151. Father Gundlach had drawn attention to the weak foundation of the Nurember procedure “because the Court … was able to appeal only to the Briand-Kellogg Pact.” He was of the opinion that the Court should have examined the fundamental problem of “an offense against the absolute order of human society which as such can only be the order of God Himself.”Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Cf. Deutsche Justk, XCVII, II (1935), 1108.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ The Reichstag fire.

¹⁰¹ Evidence given in the Reichstag fire.

¹⁰² Forgery of Hindenburg's will.

¹⁰³ Glueck, Sheldon, Tribunal for War Offenders“, Harvard Law Review, LVI (1942–1932), 1084.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Verdross in Strupp, Woerterbuch des Voelkerrechts und der Diplomatic, I, 776.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Lauterpacht, H., “The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes”, British Yearbook of International Law, XXI (1944), 67Google Scholar and Fenwick, Charles G., International Law (Third ed.), 669.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Cf. International Military Tribunal. Trial of the Major War Criminals, I, 223–224.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Art. 4. Cf. also Anschuetz, Gerhard, Die Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs (12th edition), 60–61.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Entscheidung des Reichsgerichts in Straffsachen, July 16, 1921,Google Scholar “Versus Dithmar and Boldt”; English version; Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1923–1924, N. 231; quotation here from translation in Briggs, , op. cit., 772.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Reichsgericht, quoted from Ibid., 773. Cf. also Oppenheim, , op. tit., II, 452–453Google Scholar and the literature referred; Wright, Quincy, “The Law of the Nuremberg Trial,” American Journal of International Law, XLI (1947), 70–71;Google ScholarVerdross in Strupp, Woerterbuch des Voelkerrechts und der Diplomatic, I, 775.Google Scholar See, however, Schick, , loc. cit., 789–792.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Cf. Reichsgericht, Ibid., and Art. 8 of the Charter, London, International Military Tribunal, I, 12.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cf. Biddle, Judge Francis. Report of the International Military Tribunal. November' 9, 1946,Google ScholarDepartment of State Bulletin, November 24, 1946,Google Scholar reprinted in M.I.T. Publications in International Affairs, International Relations, II, 182.Google Scholar

¹¹² Biddle, Report on the International Military Tribunal, Ibid.

¹¹³ Cf. “Die 43. Tagung des “institut de Droit International” Bruxelles, 27. Juli bis 3, August 1948”, Die Friedenswarte (Geneva), XLVIII, 234.Google Scholar See also Art. 1 of the recent Convention on Genocide which provides only for the national punishment of the newly created international crime. For the text of the Convention see United Nations Bulletin, V, N. 12 (12 15, 1948), 1012–1015.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ For recent German treatments cf.: “Rueckschau auf den Nueremberg-prozess,” Deutsche Rechtszcitschrift, 1946, 140;Google ScholarMartius, , “Das Nueremberger Urteil in voelker-rechtlicher Beziehung,” Neue Juristische, 1947, 9;Google ScholarHansel, , “Das Urteil im Nueren-berger Juristenprozess,” Deutsche Rechszeitschrift, 1948, 40:Google ScholarErhardt, , “Der Nueren-berger Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher und das Voelkerrecht,” Sueddeutsche Juristenieitung, 1948, N. 7, col. 353,Google Scholar