ČESTMÍR ČEPELKA CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ a decree, although issued by the Occupying Power; 25 only Judges and Prosecutors were international. 26 The generalization of the post-war trial is contained only in the text of the provision dedicated to the satisfaction (Art. 45) of the Draft articles on state responsibility adopted by the ILC on its first reading in 1996. 27 The final version of 2001 mentions the punishment of guilty individuals only in the commentary to the provision of satisfaction (Art. 37). 28 4. Relevant provisions concerning aggression in the UN Charter The prohibition on having recourse to force is the single peremptory norm that has a written form of presentation, that in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter . 29 And it is this Charter that specifies legal consequences in case of a breach of the rule in question, namely according to its Chapter VII ( Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression ). 30 However, two exceptions were made: firstly, individual or collective self-defense by states involving the use of force is authorized by Article 51 of the Charter and, secondly, the use of force can be authorized by the UN Security Council as under Article 42 of the UN Charter. 25 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Charter. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East Charter (IMTFE Charter), also known as the Tokyo Charter, was the decree issued by General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in Allied-occupied Japan, on 19 January 1946 that set down the laws and procedures by which the Tokyo Trials were to be conducted. Modeled after the Nuremberg Charter. Also in Germany on December 20, 1945, the Control Council for Germany enacted Law No. 10 to establish a “uniform legal basis in Germany for the prosecution of war criminals and other similar offenders other than those dealt with by the International Military Tribunal” (Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings). 26 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East. 27 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session 1996, A/51/10, Draft articles on state responsibility with commentaries thereto adopted by the international law commission on first reading Article 45 Satisfaction (…) (d) in cases where the internationally wrongful act arose from the serious misconduct of officials or from criminal conduct of officials or private parties, disciplinary action against, or punishment of, those responsible. 28 Report of the ILC on the work of the fifty-third session (2001), Chapter IV: STATE RESPONSIBILITY, p. 106, para 5: “(…) The appropriate form of satisfaction will depend on the circumstances and cannot be prescribed in advance. Many possibilities exist, including (…) penal action against the individuals whose conduct caused the internationally wrongful act”. 29 Article 2 (4) – “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” 30 According to this Chapter the Security Council may even accede to military actions as follows from subsequent wording of Article 42: “Should the Security Council consider that measures (not involving the use of armed forces) provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations”.