An elementary principle of law and justice holds that those responsible for the illegal use of force should be brought to personal account in a court of law. The learned contributors to this book have noted that what is right is not always or easily attainable. The world continues to be awash with massive killings of innocent people while perpetrators remain immune. Important treaties remain ignored as “scraps of paper.” We have not yet found a satisfactory way to deter such crimes and convince the public that it is in their own self-interest to behave toward others in a more peaceful and humane way. Perfectionists say: “It can't be done, so why bother trying?” Others insist that peace is mandatory or all life on Planet Earth may be destroyed. It was the hope of the Nuremberg trials that the force of law might replace the law of force. Without effective accountability, law loses its power and meaning. As the sole surviving Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor, having spent most of my ninety-seven years trying to prevent crimes against humanity, allow me to share some personal experiences and views that may enlighten the distant horizon.

The war crimes trials following World War II marked a significant step forward in the evolution of international criminal law. The judicial determination by highly respected jurists was that illegal war-making described as a “crime against peace” was punishable by an international tribunal. It would be unjust to allow the leading perpetrators to go unpunished. The fairness of the open trials gave credence to the fact that deeds which had been hailed in the past as heroic patriotism would in the future be condemned as “the supreme international crime.” As a U.S. combat soldier in World War II (awarded battle stars for not having been killed or wounded in five major battles), I can testify of my personal knowledge that war becomes the breeding ground for every possible atrocity. There has never been a war without genocide, massive rapes, torture, and similar crimes against humanity.