Copyright (c) 2003 Trustees of Indiana University
Indiana International & Comparative Law Review
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT: BETTER THAN NUREMBERG?
14 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 279
Tonya J. Boller *
If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would be unwilling to have invoked against us.-Justice Robert Jackson, Chief U.S. Prosecutor at Nuremberg. 1
Justice Jackson's promise seems empty during the first days of the now permanent International Criminal Court (ICC). 2 The United States, while participating in prosecuting other countries for atrocities listed as crimes in the Rome Statute, 3 is reluctant to accept the ICC as a valid extension of law over Americans. 4 However, fifty-six years ago, the United States was instrumental in establishing the International Military Tribunal to prosecute war criminals in Nuremberg. 5 Nuremberg was "the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world." 6 Following the Nuremberg trials, the United Nations General Assembly 7 began discussions in an effort to establish a permanent international criminal court to deal with such atrocities in an international forum. 8 Many years and many more atrocities later, the International Criminal Court is the culmination of those efforts. 9
This Note will review the legal problems with the Nuremberg trials to discover whether those problems are rectified through the International Criminal Court. The Note is broken into two parts; Part One will focus on the ICC, while Part Two will focus on Nuremberg. Part One, ...
If you are interested in obtaining a lexis.com® ID and Password, please contact us at 1-(800)-227-4908 or visit us at http://www.lexisnexis.com/.