CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

Katarína ŠmigovÁ CYIL 12 (2021) under international law must be proven in a fair trial (the fifth principle). The first Nuremberg principle is thus the basis for all of the other principles that came out of it and, essentially, they solidified individual aspects of it. Finally, since the Nuremberg Principles provide a set of substantive principles of international criminal law, focus will be given only on those principles of the Rome Statute that are comparable, and the functioning (the procedural aspect) of the Court will not be a part of the submitted contribution. 3.1 Individual Criminal Responsibility Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment. Although this is a principle that could already be seen before the Nuremberg process, 13 Nuremberg, and the subsequent formulation of the Nuremberg Principles, is a clearly identifiable breakthrough in the development of international law as such. 14 Probably the best known quote from the Nuremberg trials is the related statement that: “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provision of international law be enforced.” 15 Prosecutor Jackson thus provided a reasonable argument for holding individuals responsible for having committed a crime under international law. 16 Nevertheless, although it was a breakthrough, it was not enough to be able to hold top officials accountable since they had been rarely present at the site of a crime. 17 Moreover, in comparison to national systems, criminality on the international level has several specific features, one of which is its systematic character. 18 Because of the sophisticated system in which the Nazis functioned, apart from a systematic criminality, the concept of conspiracy and the concept of criminal organisation have become a pillar of the Nuremberg system. 19 Conspiracy was a separate form of committing a crime only in relation to the crime against peace; otherwise it was understood as a way to prove culpability of an act in conjunction with the concept of a common plan. A decision upon the criminal character of an organisation should have helped national courts to prosecute Nazis other than the top officials of the Nazi machinery. 20 The Tribunal declared only 3 of the 6 organizations nominated by Prosecutors as criminal, namely the Leadership corps of the Nazi Party, SS (ger. Schutzstaffel), Gestapo (ger. German Geheime Staatspolizei) and SD (ger. German Sicherheitsdienst). Subsequent procedures at the national level focused on the concept 13 HAFNER, G., The Emancipation of the Individual from the State under International Law , Recueil des Cours, vol. 358, Hague Academy of International Law, 2013, p. 340. 14 Compare e. g. SADAT, L.N., Judgment at Nuremberg: Foreword to the Symposium, in Washington University Global Studies Law Review , 2007, issue 3, vol. 6, p. 492. 15 Nuremberg Judgment, para. 447, see supra note 2, 16 For more information about Justice Jackson and Nuremberg see BARRETT, J.Q., The Nuremberg Roles of Justice Robert H. Jackson, in Washington University Global Studies Law Review , 2007, issue 3, vol. 6, pp. 511–525. 17 Their involvement in the crime commitment was huge; however, as it is indicated also in the London Agreement, art. 1, their offences had no particular geographical location. 18 See also CASSESE, A., International Criminal Law , 2 nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 7. 19 VAN SLIEDREGT, E., Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Law , Oxford University Press, 2012, p. 23. 20 See art. 9, 10 and 11 of the Nuremberg Charter. See also VAN SLIEDREGT, 2012, pp. 26, 36, see supra note 19.

274