“The very concept of individual accountability – indeed – the very idea that an act could be ‘criminal' was antithetical to International law during much of its history […] With narrow exceptions, individuals held no rights and bore no responsibilities under International law, provided some protection for individuals through the laws of war, but these were derivative of the rights that states had against other states” declared the Harvard Law Review . Further on, it deduced from the statements above that “the costs of such lacunae were demonstrated by the atrocities of World War II. […] the failure to prosecute after earlier wars create[d] a sense of impunity on the part of war criminals” . The Nuremberg Trials put an end to the ‘golden age' of/for war criminals by initiating the development of international criminal accountability . Between 1946 and 1960, “similar proceedings” confirmed the principles established by the Nuremberg precedents, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948 and the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949. However, they didn't raise new legal aspects; either because “they involve[d] trials of former Axis nationals by courts of countries that had been occupied during the war” like in the major Nuremberg trials, or the “acts tried were committed on the territory of the adjudicating state and proceedings were conducted according to the lex loci” , that is, mainly, German law applied by German courts.
It is necessary to bear in mind this context in order to fully appreciate the significance of the Eichmann case. Unlike the cases that followed the Nuremberg Major War Criminals Trial, the Eichmann didn't involve the ex-Allies or the countries occupied by the Nazi military forces, it was not explicitly supported by the international community, not through the United Nations Organization, neither Eichmann nor the victims were of Israeli nationality… In short/in brief, there are many brand new/original features that make the case likely not only to set a precedent, but also to mark a turning point in International criminal law. The Eichmann trial started/launched the debate on what the priorities of International Criminal law should be and what procedural concessions the international community can tolerate in order to achieve the main objectives without endangering the accomplishment of Justice.
First, we will discuss whether the principle known as “the fruit of the poisonous tree” in the United States must be applied to the abduction of Adolf Eichmann or not. The violation of International law was “clear” to Louis Henkin in 1968 but one can argue that the end justifies the means somehow . Then, the trial in itself has to be analyzed in both procedural and substantive terms. The jurisdiction of the Israeli court, the nature of the law it applied and the fairness of the proceedings will be brought into focus. Eventually, the topicality of the case will be highlighted.
[...] Notwithstanding, the fairness of the proceedings and their running of the trial, up until the decision, was praised by everyone; a precedent to keep in mind at a time when Saddam Hussein trial raises a storm of criticisms[44] Bibliography Factual data & firsthand information - Operation Eichmann: The Truth about the Pursuit, Capture and Trial, Zvi Aharoni & Wilhelm Dietl, translated by Helmut Bögler, Arms and Armour Press - Eichmann Interrogated, Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police, Edited by Jochen Von Lang with Claus Sibyll introduction by Avner W. [...]
[...] Procedural and substantive aspects of the trial: how the Eichmann trial launched a rich debate on many International criminal law issues[24] The Jurisdiction of the Israeli ad hoc court The American doctrine of fruit of the poisonous tree', which states that thing acquired by illegal means, such as an unlawful search and seizure, must be restored to its original owner”[25], is not the only objection raised to the jurisdiction of Israel. Challenging the principles of nationality and territoriality (ex injuria jus non oritur) and rejecting the possibility of an International tribunal Once again, a table seems particularly appropriate for its comparative character. [...]
[...] At the end of the preface, not only does he recognise that he was aware that he was violating International law but he also speaks in the name of its country: consultation with the others, I came to the conclusion that there was no alternative but to capture Eichmann through an undercover operation and to transport him to Israel. I made the decision with a heavy heart, in view of the mutual respect and esteem between Israel and Argentina”. Moreover, one may argue that David Ben-Gurion himself in his apologetic letter confessed his responsibility by justifying the violation[16]. [...]
[...] Nowadays, facts somehow proved Israel right: universal jurisdiction for crimes of genocide may also be required. Nature of the Law applied, line of defence and procedural issues Fundamental text of the court and References used by the Israeli judges The debate on ex post facto legislation was relaunched because it was decided that Eichmann would be judged according to the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law of 1950 inspired by the Nuremberg Charter but defining the notion of “crime against the Jewish people”. [...]
[...] The Eichmann trial started/launched the debate on what the priorities of International Criminal law should be and what procedural concessions the international community can tolerate in order to achieve the main objectives without endangering the accomplishment of Justice. First, we will discuss whether the principle known as fruit of the poisonous tree” in the United States[6] must be applied to the abduction of Adolf Eichmann or not. The violation of International law was to Louis Henkin in 1968[7] but one can argue that the end justifies the means somehow[8]. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
