![]() 1,034,955,834 visitors served. |
|
![]() Dictionary/ thesaurus | ![]() Medical dictionary | ![]() Legal dictionary | ![]() Financial dictionary | ![]() Acronyms | ![]() Idioms | ![]() Encyclopedia | ![]() Wikipedia encyclopedia | ? |
war crimes |
Also found in: Dictionary/thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia, Hutchinson | 0.06 sec. |
|
war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war (see war, laws of war, laws of, in international law , rules and principles regulating an armed conflict between nations. These laws are designed to minimize the destruction of life and property, to proscribe cruel treatment of noncombatants and prisoners of war , and to establish ..... Click the link for more information. ). Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international tribunals. The records of the war crimes trials after World War II provide one of the most comprehensive formulations of the concept of war crimes. During that war the Allies agreed to try Axis war criminals. In Aug., 1945, Great Britain, France, the USSR, and the United States established a tribunal at Nuremberg to try military and civilian Axis leaders whose alleged crimes were directed at more than one national group. The trial opened in Nov., 1945. Voluminous evidence was presented to prove the plotting of aggressive warfare, the extermination of civilian populations (especially the Jews), the widespread use of slave labor, the looting of occupied countries, and the maltreatment and murder of prisoners of war. Among those sentenced to death (1946) were Hermann Goering Goering or Göring, Hermann Wilhelm A trial of 28 alleged Japanese war criminals was conducted (1946–47) by an 11-nation tribunal in Tokyo. Evidence similar to that presented against the Nazis brought death sentences to Hideki Tojo Tojo, Hideki (hēdā`kē tō`jō), 1884–1948, Japanese general and statesman. Critics have questioned the legal basis of some of the charges at the post–World War II trials. Individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty sovereignty, supreme authority in a political community. The concept of sovereignty has had a long history of development, and it may be said that every political theorist since Plato has dealt with the notion in some manner, although not always explicitly. Critics have also termed the trials an act of vengeance by the victors and questioned their practical use as a precedent. Personal liability for national action is very difficult to prove conclusively, and a nation will be reluctant to try its own leaders. Therefore, effective prosecution may be possible only if a nation is defeated (and then perhaps only if the documents are captured, as they were after World War II). Both critics and supporters of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War have justified their positions on the basis of the post–World War II trials. Several Americans were tried for war crimes in this war, and Lt. William Calley was found guilty (see My Lai incident My Lai incident (mē lī), in the Vietnam War, a massacre of Vietnamese civilians by U.S. soldiers. On Mar. 16, 1968, a unit of the U. Despite increasing international recognition of the need to prosecute war crimes, such offenses are still often unpunished. Although there have been many calls for prosecution of former Khmer Rouge Khmer Rouge (kəmĕr` r In 1998 the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a treaty authorizing a permanent international court for war crimes. The United States, China, and five other nations opposed the treaty, and 21 nations abstained. The treaty has been signed by more than 130 nations (including the United States), and formally came into effect in July, 2002 after 60 nations had ratified the treaty; the judges of the court were formally sworn in in 2003. Called the International Criminal Court and located at The Hague, it may prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. Under the G. W. Bush administration, the United States opposed implementation of the treaty, out of fear that American officials or military personnel might be arrested abroad on baseless charges. In May, 2002, the United States repudiated its signing of the treaty and indicated that it would refuse to cooperate with the court. The U.S. government subsequently insisted (2002, 2003) that U.S. forces used as UN peacekeepers be exempted from prosecution by the court, and in 2003 it suspended military aid to nations that did not similarly exempt U.S. citizens serving within their borders. In 2004, following the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, the United States was unable to secure a further exemption from the United Nations. BibliographySee S. Glueck, War Criminals (1944); R. H. Jackson, The Case against the Nazi War Criminals (1946); J. J. Heydecker and J. Leeb, The Nuremberg Trial (tr. 1962); T. Taylor, Nuremberg and Vietnam (1970); N. E. Tutorow and K. Winnovich, ed., War Crimes, War Criminals, and War Crime Trials (1986); A. Neier, War Crimes (1998). |
|
? Mentioned in | ? References in periodicals archive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| These are crucial and intriguing questions to anyone who feels that Rumsfeld not only bore major responsibility for the secret torturing of Middle Eastern detainees, but was also guilty of war crimes for his part in implementing an illegal and unjust attack on the sovereign nation of Iraq (along with President George W. Now that Saddam has been hanged, will there be a war crimes trial for the Bad Guy of 2006 -- George Bush? To make the perfect case, after the United States passes a law so that it could not prosecute its president, other high officials, or anyone else for war crimes (a law like the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed recently by our Congress, would work nicely), the ICC needs a U. |
| Free Tools: |
For surfers:
Browser extension |
Word of the Day |
Help
For webmasters: Free content | Linking | Lookup box | Double-click lookup | Partner with us |
|
|---|