Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Explanatory Note on Spelling
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Legality in Criminal Law, Its Purposes, and Its Competitors
- 2 A Partial History to World War II
- 3 Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Other Postwar Cases
- 4 Modern Development of International Human Rights Law: Practice Involving Multilateral Treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- 5 Modern Comparative Law Development: National Provisions Concerning Legality
- 6 Legality in the Modern International and Internationalized Criminal Courts and in the UN Trust Territories
- 7 Legality in Customary International Law Today
- Conclusion: The Endurance of Legality in National and International Criminal Law
- Appendix A Chart of Non-retroactivity Provisions in Criminal Law by Nations
- Appendix B Legality and Non-retroactivity Provisions as of 1946–47
- Appendix C Constitutional and Other National Provisions Implementing the Principle of Legality Today
- Bibliography
- Table of Authorities
- Index
- Afterword and Update
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Explanatory Note on Spelling
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Legality in Criminal Law, Its Purposes, and Its Competitors
- 2 A Partial History to World War II
- 3 Nuremberg, Tokyo, and Other Postwar Cases
- 4 Modern Development of International Human Rights Law: Practice Involving Multilateral Treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- 5 Modern Comparative Law Development: National Provisions Concerning Legality
- 6 Legality in the Modern International and Internationalized Criminal Courts and in the UN Trust Territories
- 7 Legality in Customary International Law Today
- Conclusion: The Endurance of Legality in National and International Criminal Law
- Appendix A Chart of Non-retroactivity Provisions in Criminal Law by Nations
- Appendix B Legality and Non-retroactivity Provisions as of 1946–47
- Appendix C Constitutional and Other National Provisions Implementing the Principle of Legality Today
- Bibliography
- Table of Authorities
- Index
- Afterword and Update
- CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
- References
Summary
RETROACTIVITY, JUSTICE, AND SOVEREIGNTY
The English-language version of the Nuremberg Judgment observes,
[T]he maxim nullum crimen sine lege is not a limitation of sovereignty, but is in general a principle of justice.
This statement – that “nothing is criminal except by law [existing at the time of the act]” is a mere nonbinding principle of justice – has a cynical ring to it. It implies that judges can and should ignore principles of justice in service of the sovereign powers that created their court. This was pointed out rather explicitly in the dissent to the Tokyo Judgment by Justice Radhabinod Pal of India, who argued that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East should not create crimes that did not exist at the time a defendant acted: “for otherwise the Tribunal will not be a ‘judicial tribunal’ but a mere tool for the manifestation of power.” The depth of the disagreement over the issue of retroactivity might be judged by Justice Pal's use of this statement. It refers to – and perhaps parodies – a similar passage by Lord Wright. Wright had argued that all the crimes in the Nuremberg Charter (and hence in the Tokyo Charter) were, at the time, crimes under international law, a position with which Justice Pal violently disagreed.
In the French version of the Nuremberg Judgment, even the reference to justice disappeared: '[N]ullum crimen sine lege ne limite pas la souveraineté des États; elle ne formule qu'une règle généralement suivie.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008