The article analyzes Allied attempts to try German war criminals after the First World War and the ensuing Leipzig trials. Historians of international law commonly describe these as the first (failed) attempt to break principles of national sovereignty by implementing principles of international humanitarian law, which were later realized at Nuremberg and The Hague. The article brackets the question of the Leipzig trials’ alleged success or failure by situating them not so much within the long-term history of international justice but, rather, within the political and intellectual culture of Weimar Germany. The article shows how the German government tried to use its limited domestic sovereignty in order to enhance its international sovereignty. By asking how German sovereignty was contested, negotiated, and reaffirmed, the article historicizes the Leipzig trials and also addresses the more general question of which conditions facilitate international war crimes trials. Drawing on the literature on transitional justice, this article suggests that contestations over German domestic and international sovereignty after the Versailles Treaty offer a more productive frame to understand the trials than measuring success according to international humanitarian law.

This article looks at the development of the concept of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). It contends that the ICTR’s interpretation of crimes against humanity is generally seen by international lawyers as a commendable, but unsurprising, step in the historical development of this category. In much the same way, the ICTR’s historical account is considered to be a standard attempt by a war crimes court to relate a liberal history of crimes against humanity in a way that upholds civilized values. Yet, although the historical and legal work of the ICTR appear unexceptional, this article will argue that they do demonstrate a particular conceptual approach towards warfare, history, humanity, and the nature of international law. Moreover, this is a conceptual approach that is quite different to that taken by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. The article suggests that these differences, and the invisibility of the change, are due to the ICTR’s reliance on familiar narrative tropes. These narratives were established through poststructuralist theory but could be expressed in a variety of more or (often) less theoretical forms. By exploring the influence of these narratives on the Tribunal, it is possible to examine some of the ways in which conceptual change is facilitated and knowledge is created in international law. In particular, it shows how theories that are often considered marginal to international law have had a significant impact on some of the central provisions of international humanitarian law.

Between 1945 and 1949, the British military conducted a large number of war crimes trials in Europe and Asia. Based on historical archival records, among other sources, this article evaluates and compares the British authorities’ implementation of the 1945 Royal Warrant and war crimes trials in Europe and Asia, with a specific focus on trials organized in Germany and Singapore. By examining the British war crimes trial experience in those two jurisdictions, the article analyzes factors shaping the evolution of the Royal Warrant's legal framework and trial model in different contexts. It therefore contributes to the growing historical work on post-Second World War trials and current debates among scholars of transitional justice and international criminal law on the contextual factors that impact on war crimes trials.