Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T23:36:26.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Draft Code of Offences Against the Peace and Security of Mankind

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Benjamin B. Ferencz
Benjamin B. Ferencz*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At its session that ended in December 1980, the United Nations considered a subject that had been allowed to lie dormant for over a quarter of a century. It was first taken up in 1946, after President Truman called for the reaffirmation of “the principles of the Niirnberg Charter in the context of a general codification of offenses against the peace and security of mankind.” The General Assembly responded promptly by passing three resolutions in rapid succession on December 11, 1946, which created a Committee for the Progressive Development of International Law and its Codification, affirmed the Nuremberg principles, and declared that genocide was an international crime. The International Law Commission (ILC) was charged with preparing the desired Code of Offences after its establishment in 1947. Yet, 34 years after the General Assembly’s call for action, the refrain was still being heard: “The time is not yet ripe.” The question likely to face the United Nations when it reconvenes in 1981 will be: “If not now, when?”

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 674 - 679
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 15 Dep’t State Bull. 954 (1946).

2 UNGA Res. 94 (I) (Dec. 11, 1946) created a committee with one representative each from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, France, India, the Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Sweden, the USSR, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. It was charged with studying “methods by which the General Assembly should encourage the progressive development of international law and its eventual codification.” GA Res. 95 (I) affirmed the Nuremberg principles and directed the committee to give importance to formulating those principles. GA Res. 96 (I) defined and condemned genocide and instructed the Economic and Social Council to draft a convention to outlaw the offense. The 94 (I) committee recommended the creation of an International Law Commission (UN Doc. A/331 (1947)), which was established by GA Res. 174 (II) (Nov. 21, 1947).

3 UN Doc. A/CN.4/25 (1950), reprinted in [1950] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 253, 277. Nine international crimes were listed in the draft: aggressive war; invasion by armed groups; fomenting external civil strife; fomenting external organized terrorism; illegal weapons trafficking; violating arms limitation treaties; illegal annexation; hostile acts directed against national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups; and violation of laws and customs of war.

4 See Ferencz, B., An International Criminal Court, A Step Toward World Peace, 2 vols. (1980)Google Scholar.

5 See Ferencz, B., Defining International Aggression, The Search for World Peace, 2 vols. (1975)Google Scholar.

6 Report of the International Law Commission on its 6th session, 9 GAOR, Supp. (No. 9), UN Doc.A/2693 (1954), reprinted in [1954] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 140.

7 GA Res. 3314 (XXIX) (Dec. 14, 1974).

8 UN Doc. A/AC. 134/SR. 110 (Mar. 14, 1974).

9 Report of the International Law Commission on its 29th session, 32 GAOR, Supp. (No. 10) 316–17, UN Doc. A/32/10 (1977), reprinted in [1977] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 1.

10 UN Docs. A/32/247 and A/32/470 (1977). The countries were Barbados, Fiji, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, and the Syrian Arab Republic.

11 UN Doc. A/C6733/SR.61 (1978).

12 UN Doc. A/C.6733/SR.64, at 6 (1978).

13 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.62, at 2 (1978).

14 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.63, at 4 (1978).

15 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.62, at 3. Pella’s work is cited therein as UN Doc. A/CN.4/39 (1950).

16 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.64, at 4.

17 Id. at 4–6.

18 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.65, at 2 (1978).

19 UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.63, at 8.

20 GA Res. 33/97 (Dec. 16, 1978). The vote on the resolution was 116 to 0 with 23 abstentions. A French amendment (UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.67, at 5), which referred to the link between the draft code and both the definition of aggression and an international criminal court, was rejected by a vote of 41–25–32.

21 UN Doc. A/35/210 (June 11, 1980), and Add.1 (Sept. 5, 1980), Add.2 (Sept. 30, 1980), and Add.2/Corr.1 (Oct. 1, 1980). The countries were Botswana, the Byelorussian SSR, Chile, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Guatemala, Hungary, the Netherlands, Senegal, Sweden, the USSR, Yugoslavia, the German Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and the Ukrainian SSR.

22 See, e.g., reply of the United States, UN Doc. A/35/210/Add.1, at 11 (1980).

23 Sixth Committee debate, Oct. 7, 1980. The quoted phrase was not reproduced in the summary record but is based on the author’s notes.

24 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.12, at 9 (Oct. 7, 1980); see also UN Doc. A/C.6/33/SR.64, at 6 (1978).

25 See R. Jackson, The Case Against the Nazi War Criminals 79 (1946).

26 The summary records of the 1980 debate appear in UN Docs. A/C.6/35/SR.10 through SR.15.

27 See 47 AJIL Supp. 119–77 (1953).

28 GA Res. 2022 (XX) (Dec. 5, 1965); GA Res. 2262 (XXII) (Nov. 3, 1967).

29 See 10 ILM 133 (1971).

30 GA Res. 2548 (XXIV) (Dec. 11, 1969); GA Res. 2708 (XXVI) (Dec. 14, 1971).

31 GA Res. 3166 (XXVIII) (Dec. 14, 1973), 28 UST 1975, TIAS No. 8532.

32 See GA Res. 34/145 and 34/146 (Dec. 17, 1979).

33 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.13, at 4 (Oct. 7, 1980).

34 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.14, at 5 (Oct. 8, 1980).

35 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.11, at 8–9 (Oct. 6, 1980) (Egypt); UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.13, at 10 (Oct. 7, 1980) (Afghanistan).

36 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.12, at 6 (Oct. 7, 1980).

37 E.g., Nigeria suggested that multinational corporations be subject to punishment. UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.15, at 8 (Oct. 8, 1980).

38 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.13, at 6. The PLO observer argued that armed struggle for self-determination was legitimate, which implied that any means could be used to attain the goal. Israel’s Ambassador Rosenne replied that” [c]riminal acts of terrorism should not be shielded from due punishment simply because their authors claimed to be acting in the name of some noble cause.” UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.14, at 9.

39 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.15, at 2.

40 Id. at 3.

41 See, e.g., statement of USSR representative, UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.13, at 5.

42 See, e.g., statement of the US representative, UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.12, at 9, calling for deferral of consideration of the draft code.

43 See, e.g., statement of the Italian representative, UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.13, at 3.

44 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.11, at 6.

45 UN Doc. A/C.6/35/SR.12, at 7.

46 See Report of the Sixth Committee, UN Doc. A/35/615 (1980); GA Res. 35/49 (Dec. 4, 1980).

47 See, e.g., McDougal, M., Lasswell, H., & Chen, L., Human Rights and World Public Order (1980)Google Scholar; Schachter, , The Relation of Law, Politics and Action in the United Nations, 109 Recueil des Cours 169, 171 (1963 II)Google Scholar; Henkin, , International Law and the Behavior of Nations, 114 id. at 171, 274 (1965)Google Scholar.

48 Root, , The Codification of International Law, 19 AJIL 675, 681–82 (1925)Google Scholar.