The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

The Trial of Adolf Eichmann
Defence Submission Notes 1


Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, Eichmann trial, holocaust, Jewish holocaust
1. Cf. Pearlman, The Capture of Adolf Eichmann, London, 1961, p. 113 ff.

2. "a magistrate"; cf. Pearlman, ibid. p. 124.

3. Adopted on 1 August 1950; published on 9 August 1950; Laws of the State of Israel, Vol. IV, 5710 - 1949/50, No. 64, p. 154 ff.

4. See i.a. Donnedieu de Vabres. Principes modernes du droit penal international, Paris, 1928, p. 409 (hereinafter called "Principes").

5. See, e.g., Salmond, Jurisprudence, 11th ed. by Glanville Williams, London, 1957, p. 74 ff; Donnedieu de Vabres, Principes, p. 14 ff; Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trial in International Law, 1960, p. 61; Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. I., 2nd ed. p. 92. See also the formulation in Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime), Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29 (1935), suppl. p. 435 ff., (480): "This principle is basic in Anglo-American Jurisprudence."

6. See Jescheck, Die Verantwortlichkeit der Staatsorgane nach Voelkerrecht, Bonn, 1952, p. 161, Mayer, JZ, 1952, 611; Travers, Competence criminelle, Repertoire de droit international IV, 1929, p. 381.

7..Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with respect to crime), Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29, 1935, suppl. p. 435 ff., (439).

8. See, e.g., the carefully considered comments of Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I., 8th ed., 1955, para. 147.

9. Salmond, Jurisprudence, p. 77.

10. Emphasis added.

11. Rex v. Joyce, Law Reports (1946) A.C. 347.

12. Ibid..., p. 77.

13. See the description of the facts, ibid., pp. 348-349.

14. Ibid..., p. 364.

15. Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 161, note 6; Travers, Competence Criminelle, p. 376; Janeczek, Nuremberg Judgment in the Light of International Law, Geneva, 1949, p. 60; see also Harvard Research, op. cit., p. 439.

16. The same view is held by Lauterpacht in: Oppenheim_Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I., p. 332 (in the case of Joyce).

17. The law is not known to us; the extension of jurisdiction over aliens can thus be based also upon the protective principle, if this law makes provisions for the protection of the state.

18. See Harvard Research, Draft Convention, art. 7,10, op.cit. p. 349.

19. See sec. 1(a), 2, 3(a), 4(a) and (b), 5, 6, of the law.

20. Pearlman, The Capture of Adolf Eichmann, London, 1961, p. 169.

21. Rohland, Das internationale Strafrecht, Vol. I, p. 72.

22. Binding, Handbuch des Strafrechts, Vol. I, 1885, p. 370 ff.

23. von Liszt, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, 11th ed., 1920, p. 230 ff.

24. Ibid..., p.374.

25. See, instead of many other authors: Schwarzenberger, The Problem of an International Criminal Law, Current Legal Problems, 1950, p. 265. It ought to be mentioned that Schwarzenberger does not recognize a further restriction: "Within these limits it is left to every system of municipal criminal law to determine for itself whether, and to what extent, it applies to crimes with a foreign element, that is to say to crimes with a locus delicti abroad." However, this view of Schwarzenberger cannot be considered by any means as being the prevailing opinion.

26. Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A (Judgments), 1927, p. 18 ff.

27. Ibid..., p. 19.

28. Ibid..., No. 10, p. 89 ff.

29. Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol. 1, 1948, p. 333.

30. Verdross, Voelkerrecht, 4th ed., Vienna, 1959, pp. 247- 248.

31. International Law, Vol. I, para. 147. In the 8th edition of Oppenheim's publication, Lauterpacht has somewhat mitigated Oppenheim's uncompromising rejection of the criminal jurisdiction of a state over an alien in respect to offences committed abroad, without denying however, in the least that there are rules of international law limiting municipal criminal jurisdiction.

32. The Law of the Nuremberg Trial, Am. J. Int. L. 41 (1947), p. 38 ff.

33. Travers, Compe64tence criminelle, p. 360 ff (376).

34. Jeschek,Verantwortlichkeit, p. 162.

35. Mayer, Juristenzeitung, 1952, 609.

36. A detailed description of the case is to be found in Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, p. 332, note 1 and - above all - in Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Der raeumliche Geltungsbereich, p. 136 ff., including an exact transcription of the documents of the case.

37. See, e.g., Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 168; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164.

38. In this sense: Verdross, ibid. pp. 168-169.

39. See, instead of other authorities: Decision of the Supreme Court of New York, Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases 1941-42, C.169; the nature of the principle as a legal principle serves as a point of departure also, e.g., for Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 168 ff., and above all: Kelsen, Peace Through Law, p. 84; Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

40. California Law Review (1943), Vol. 33, p. 530 ff.

41. Kelsen, Peace Through Law, 1944 - above all, Chap. 11 ff., p. 71 ff.

42. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

43. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81, and Principles, p. 235.

44. Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 81, 84; also Verdross, Voelkerrecht, pp. 172-3, with further references and judicial authorities; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164.

45. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 77; Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 173, and judicial authorities mentioned there.

46. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81.

47. Ibid..., p. 84.

48. Ibid..., p. 81.

49. Ibid..., p. 77.

50. Ibid..., p. 83.

51. Ibid..., p. 86; also on p. 100.

52. Expressly - in ibid., p. 100.

53. Ibid..., pp. 75, 77.

54. Ibid..., p. 75.

55. Not underlined in the original.

56. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 77.

57. Ibid..., p. 100.

58. Judge R.B.Pal, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Dissenting Judgement, Calcutta, 1953, p. 76.

59. Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 106.

60. In his summing up in the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, on 4 July 1946; The Trial of the Major War Criminals in the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, official version in German, 1947 ff. (hereafter quoted as "IMT-Nuernberg"), Vol. XVII, p. 499 ff., 519/520.

61. See Moore, A Digest of International Law, 1906, Vol. II, para. 175, p. 4.

62. See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 57.

63. The question at issue was the criminal responsibility of the German Emperor.

64See reprint of the report in Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, Div. of Int. Law, pamphlet No. 32, 1919, p. 76.

65. Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 57.

66. See the account of the case in Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. 1, para. 446; Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 172; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, pp. 164- 165.

67. Quoted as reported by Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 165.

68. Quoted as reported by Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. 1, para. 446.

69. Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 175.

70. Ibid.

71. See ibid., the exact references.

72. See ibid., p. 173.

73. Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 85, 97-98.

74. Ibid.., pp. 96-97.

75. Oppenheim, International Law, 1st to 5th eds., Vol. II, para. 253.

76. H.A. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, Vol. 13 (1946), No. 162, p. 201 ff., 203.

77. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 104.

78. Ibid., p. 101.

79. Ibid., p. 100.

80. Morgan, The Great Assize, London, 1948, pp. 16-17.

81. Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 173.

82. Ibid.., p. 157.

83. Lauterpacht, The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes, Brit. Year Book of Int. Law, Vol. 21 (1944), p. 58 ff, 62.

84. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, 8th ed., Vol. I, para. 445; see also Vol. II, para. 253.

85. Schwarzenberger, International Law, 6th ed., 1949, p. 310.

86. Published in MIT-Nuernberg, Vol. I, p. 10 ff. [p. 12 in the Engl. text - Translator]

87. Ibid.., Vol. XXII, p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl. text - Translator] - not emphasized in the original.

88. Ibid.., p. 528 [p. 465 in the Engl. text - Translator].

89. Ibid.., p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl. text - Translator].

90. See, e.g., the judgment in the Wilhelmstrasse case, official record of the case, XI, p. 27622.

91. In the Preface to Glueck, The Nuremberg Trial and Aggressive War, 1947, p. 7.

92. Glueck, War Criminals: Their Prosecution and Punishment, 1944, p. 134.

93. Ibid.., p. 139.

94. IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 529 [p. 466 in the Engl. text - Translator].

95. Kelsen, Peace through Law, p. 81; not emphasized in the original.

96. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, p. 235.

97. Jahrreiss, IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XVII, p. 520 [p. 479 in the Engl. text - Translator].

98. All these objections apply also to Lauterpacht's comments on this question in: The Law of Nations and the Punishment of War Crimes, British YB Int. L. 1944, p. 58 ff. We find there, e.g., the assertion: "All acts of state are attributable to individual persons." This was sufficient for L. to deny the application of the A.o.S.D. in respect of German war criminals.

99. The Englishman Reitlinger confirms, too, that Israeli "organs of security" had arrested Eichmann. See Die Endloesung, 4th ed., 1961, p. 581.

100. United Nations Security Council, Documents S. S/4345 and S/4346 dated 22 June 1960; the resolution was adopted by the Security Council by a majority of 8 against 0 votes with 2 abstentions (Poland and the Soviet Union); see Documents S/PV 868, p. 31.

101. Detailed references can be found in @13Mendelssohn_Bartholdy, Das raeumliche Herrschaftsgebiet des Strafgesetzes, published in: Vergleichende Darstellung des Deutschen und Auslaendischen Strafrechts, Allg. Teil, Vol. VI, p. 85 ff, and in particular p. 245 ff; as to German authors in recent times: Hellmuth Mayer, Voelkerstrafrecht und internationales Strafrecht, Juristenzeitung, 1952, p. 609 ff (610). Abundant material is to be found also in the Harvard Research (Jurisdiction with respect to crime), Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29 (1935), Suppl. p. 435 ff.

102. See Mayer, ibid., 1952, p. 610.

103. Salmond, Jurisprudence, 11th ed., by Glanville Williams, London, 1957, p. 75.

104. Ibid.., pp. 74 and 75.

105. Ibid.., p. 75.

106. Donnedieu de Vabres, Principes, p. 409.

107. Harvard Research, Am. J. Int. L., Vol. 29, 1935, suppl., p. 439.

108. Bauer, Die Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, Zuerich-New York, 1945, p. 163, calls it "a principle of practical division of work."

109. In his book "Les Principes Modernes du Droit Penal International."

110. Bauer, op. cit., pp. 61-62.

111. Dpa/UPI - communication of 21 March 1961, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, No. 69, 22 March 1961, p. 5.

112. Pearlman, Capture, p. 171.

113. BGB1, Part II, p. 35 ff.

114. Green, In his article "The Eichmann Case," Modern Law Review, Vol. 23, London, 1960, p. 507 ff.

115. Ibid.., p. 37 - The English version is quoted here for it is the official version of the agreement; the German version is only an unauthorized translation.

116. Boehm, Die Luxemburger Wiedergutmachungsvertraege und der arabische Einspruch gegen den Israelvertrag, in: Reden u. Schriften, Karlsruhe, 1960, p. 216 ff., 225.

117. Ibid.., p. 218.

118. Ibid.., p. 220.

119. Ibid.., p. 222.

120. See Maurach, Deutsches Strafrecht, Allgemeiner Teil, 2nd ed., 1958, pp. 96-97.

121. See Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 248.

122. Maurach, op. cit., p. 97.

123. See the compilation of the international agreements in: Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 161, note 6; see also Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law I, para. 147.

124. Thus, e.g., the power (as distinguished from obligation) to punish piracy is based upon a rule of customary law; see Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in International Law, 1960, p. 64.

125. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law I, para. 9, p. 146 ff.

126. Travers, Competence criminelle, Repertoire de droit international IV, 1929, p. 376; Travers recognizes the application of the universality principle only in respect of piracy (p. 381).

127. Janeczek, Nuremberg Judgment in the Light of International Law, 1949, p. 60.

128. Kelsen, Peace through Law, pp. 75, 76, 80, 81.

129. Woetzel, The Nuremberg Trials in International Law, 1960, p. 64, together with further references.

130. See, i.a. Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol. II, p. 544.

131. Art.49 II of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; Art. 50 II of the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; Art. 129 II of the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; Art. 146 II of the Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

132. At any rate in order to justify the existence of a claim for criminal jurisdiction valid in international law.

133. Judgment dated 30 Sept. 1946, IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 566-567 [p. 498 in the Engl. text - Translator].

134. Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse (Kriegsverbrechen und Voelkerrecht) Zurich, 1950, p. 37 [re-translation from the quoted Zurich edition, the original not being available - Translator].

135. See the detailed reference in the reference-book of Heinze-Schilling, Die Rechtsprechung der Nuernberger Militaertribunale, 1952, p. 208 ff.

136. E.g., by Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse, pp. 35-36.

137. Bauer, Die Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, 1945, p. 83.

138. Ibid.., p. 84.

139. International Conference on Military Trials, Report of Robert H. Jackson, published by the State Department of the USA, 1949, p. 99; emphasis added.

140. Letter of the Protestant regional bishops Wurm, Meiser, Bender, Wuestemann, and of the Head of Church Niemoeller, dated 20 May 1948, to General Lucius D. Clay; in: Memorandum by the Evangelical Church in Germany on the Question of War Crime Trials before American Military Courts, Stuttgart, 1949, p. 25.

141. Comments of the Catholic German bishops at the Fulda conference, dated 26 August 1948, in: Memorandum by the Evangelical Church, p. 41.

142. International Law and International Organization, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 106 ff., 107.

143. IMT-Nuernberg. Vol. XXI, p. 525 ff.

144. Kelsen, (Collective and Individual Responsibility in International Law, Cal. L. Rev. 1943, p. 530 ff) already pointed out in 1943 that, as to the legal consequences of a prohibited war, according to international law there is only "collective" but no "individual" responsibility.

145. Pfenninger, in his postscript to Bauer's book:Die Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht, p. 221.

146. In the same sense: Kelsen, Principles of International Law, 1952, pp. 137-138.

147. Bauer, Kriegsverbrecher, pp. 77, 171-172.

148. Ibid.., p. 172.

149. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, Vol. 13 (1946), p. 201 ff, 202.

150. Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, 1947, pp. 46-47.

151. Morgan, The Great Assize, London, 1948, pp. 5, 10, 25ff. and p. 33 (with express reference to the Kellogg Pact) with further references.

152. Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, Oxford, 1950, pp. 22 and 134 ff.

153. Kelsen, Peace through Law,, pp. 88, 91 ff., and Jewish Yearbook of International Law 1948, p. 238.

154. The Nuremberg Trial and International Law; Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, pp. 20 ff and 24.

155. Guggenheim, Lehrbuch des Voelkerrechts, Vol. II, p. 564 ff ("manufacture of factual situations constituting new crimes").

156. Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 179, with further references.

157. In this respect, Verdross gives further references; emphasis added.

158. Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 159.

159. Only as an "enabling provision" was it provided that superior orders could be taken into account as mitigating circumstances.

160. As to the whole problem and its historical development - see also Fuhrmann,Der hoehere Befehl als Rechtsfertigungsgrund im Voelkerrecht, Muenchner Jur. Dissertation, 1961 passim, in particular p. 59 ff.

161. Morgan, The Great Assize, 1948, pp. 13-14.

162. Fuhrmann Der hoehere Befehl, p. 64, reports on Glueck's influence.

163. British Yearbook of International Law, 1944, p. 58 ff, 73.

164. See Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe, 13 (1946), p. 204.

165. E.g., in ibid., p. 203 ff; Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 47; Morgan, The Great Assize, 1948, p. 11 ff, 13-14.

166. E.g., The Nuremberg Trials, ibid., p. 204.

167. This is a reference to "International Law", Vol. I, which, however, was published in its 6th ed. in 1944 and which reflected Lauterpacht's new doctrine in para. 253.

168. Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 14.

169. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, p. 204.

170. Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 14.

171. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, p. 204.

172. In detail, generally: Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 149 ff.

173. IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 523 [p. 461 in the Engl. text - Translator]

174. Schwarzenberger, International Law, p. 314 ff; Schwarzenberger, The Problem of International Criminal Law in Current Legal Problems, 1950, p. 263 ff., 290; the same: Power Politics, 1951.p. 95 ("debellatio of Germany"), in the same sense on p. 344.

175. IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 524; [page 461 in the Engl. text - Translator].

176. Borchard, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 106 ff.

177. This has been done in detail by Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 148 ff, 286, where copious references are to be found.

178. Ibid.., p. 154.

179. Ibid..

180. Schwarzenberger, International Law, p. 322, Note 50.

181. Jeschek, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 154.

182. Schwarzenberger, The Problem of an International Criminal Law, in Current Legal Problems, 1950, p. 263.

183. Verdross, Voelkerrecht, p. 158.

184. Kelsen, Principles of International Law, p. 238.

185. Redslob, Traite du Droit des Gens, Paris, 1950, p. 228 ff.

186. See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 283.

187. Smith, The Nuremberg Trials, in: Free Europe 13 (1946), p. 202.

188. Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 47.

189. Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, p. 17.

190. Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 8.

191. See Finch, The Nuremberg Trial and International Law, Am. J. Int. Law 41, 1947, pp. 27-28.

192. Kelsen, Peace Through Law, p. 113.

193. Ibid...

194. Ibid.., p. 114.

195. Ibid..

196. Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 47.

197. Ibid..,p. 68; the same wording is to be found also in The Nuremberg Trials, op. cit., p. 203.

198. Smith, The Crisis in the Law of Nations, p. 48.

199. Ibid..

200. Ibid.., p. 47.

201. Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors, 1950, p. 26.

202. In the same sense: letter of the Evangelical regional bishops to General Clay, dated 20 May 1948 - Memorandum by the Evangelical Church, p. 25.

203. Judge R.B. Pal, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Dissenting Judgment, Calcutta, 1953, p. 31-32.

204. Ibid.., p. 53 ff.

205. His contacts with the German resistance ought at least to be mentioned; see "Der 20. Juli 1944," 3rd ed. Bonn, 1960, p. 55 ff.

206. Ibid.., p. 56.

207. Ibid..

208. Ibid.., p. 57.

209. Ibid.., p. 131-132.

210. Ibid.., p. 132.

211. Ibid...

212. As quoted by Lord Hankey, ibid. p. 132; in the same sense: Montgomery Belgion, Victor's Justice, Hinsdale (Illinois), 1949, and Epitaph on Nuremberg, 1947.

213. Ibid.., p. 132.

214. Kelsen, Int. Law Quarterly, Vol. 1, p. 153 ff.

215. Finch, The Nuremberg Trial in International Law, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 24.

216. Borchard, International Law and International Organization, Am. J. Int. Law, 41, 1947, p. 107.

217. Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 8.

218. Verantwortlichkeit, p. 415 ff.

219. See Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 184.

220. See ibid., p. 184; in the same sense: Schwarzenberger, International Law, pp. 323-324, who calls the crime against humanity a "creation of Charter."

221. Taylor, Die Nuernberger Prozesse, p. 125.

222. J.K. Bluntschli, Das moderne Voelkerrecht der zivilisierten Staaten, 3rd ed., 1878, p. 270.

223. See Jescheck's description in Verantwortlichkeit, pp. 39-41.

224. See Stowell, Intervention in International Law, 1921, in particular p. 58; Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 40.

225. Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law, Vol. I, 1955, p. 229.

226. Ibid.., para. 340.

227. The Nuremberg Trial, in: Free Europe, op. cit., p. 203. It is noteworthy that Smith, in a prior remark (p. 201), severely castigated punishment on the strength of "sound popular opinion" in National-Socialist Germany.

228. In this sense, e.g., Morgan, The Great Assize, p. 21; Feldmann, Das Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit, Essen, 1948, p. 20.

229. Sueddeutsche Juristenzeitung, 1947, p. 133.

230. Donnedieu de Vabres, The Judgment of Nuremberg and the Principle of Legality of Offence and Penalties, in: Zeitschrift fuer Strafrecht und Kriminalistik, Brussels, July 1947, p. 22 (as quoted by Heinze-Schilling, Die Rechtsprechung der Nuernberger Milita@7rtribunale, p. 204).

231. Apart from the jurisdiction of an international tribunal, which is merely a matter of theory (the tribunal not having been established).

232. Jescheck, Verantwortlichkeit, p. 164; Schwarzenberger, Power Politics, p. 634.

232. IMT-Nuernberg, Vol. XXII, p. 569 [p. 500 in the Engl. text - Translator].

234. As quoted by Heinze-Schilling, op. cit., p. 275, No.1271.

235. See in detail references to judicial decisions, in: ibid., p. 99 ff., No. 462 ff.


[ Index ] [an error occurred while processing this directive]